Today, December 10, is Human Rights Day. On this date in 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
When most people think of human rights violations, they think of injustices committed by governments, groups, and individuals.
But corporations are also guilty of gross violations of human rights.
From Global Exchange:
-----
In honor of international human rights day, Global Exchange has released a report on the “Most Wanted” Corporate Human Rights Violators of 2005. We developed this list to illustrate that on issues as diverse as assassination, torture, kidnapping, environmental degradation, abusing public funds, violently repressing worker rights, releasing toxins into pristine environments, destroying homes, and causing widespread health problems, it’s not just governments that are to blame. Corporations carry out some of the most horrific human rights abuses of modern times.
Familiar companies like Dow Chemical, Coca Cola, Caterpillar, Lockheed, Philip Morris, and Wal-Mart are included on our list of the worst corporate criminals of 2005, which gives you information about the abusive behavior of each corporation, and tells you who is responsible and how to connect with and support people who are doing something about it. The full list is available here. Briefs on each corporation’s violations are below.
The more you know, the less these corporations can continue their abuses out of public eyesight; so share this information with your friends, get on the phone with the CEOs themselves, and exercise your rights as a citizen and consumer today. When corporations act like criminals, we have the right and the power to stop them, holding leaders and multinational corporations alike to the accords they have signed. Around the world—in Venezuela, Argentina, India, and right here in the United States—citizens are stepping up to create democracy and hold corporations accountable to international law. We invite you to join them by taking action!
GLOBAL EXCHANGE’S LIST OF “MOST WANTED” CORPORATE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATORS OF 2005
(Click here for full details on each corporation as well as corporate contact information and a list of groups working to hold these corporations accountable)
CATERPILLAR. For years, the Caterpillar Company has provided Israel with the bulldozers used to destroy Palestinian homes. Despite worldwide condemnation, Caterpillar has refused to end their corporate participation in house demolition by cutting off sales of specially modified D9 and D10 bulldozers to the Israeli military. Peace activist Rachel Corrie was killed by a Caterpillar, D-9, military bulldozer in 2003. Since Rachel’s death at least three more Palestinians have been killed in their homes by Israeli bulldozer demolitions.
CHEVRON. From 1964 to 1992, a toxic “Rainforest Chernobyl” was unleashed in Ecuador when Texaco (now owned by Chevron) left more than 600 unlined oil pits in pristine northern Amazon rainforest and dumped 18 billion gallons of toxic production water into rivers used for bathing water. The toxic crude oil and formation water seeped into the subsoil, contaminating surrounding freshwater and farmland. As a result, local communities have suffered severe health effects, including cancer, skin lesions, birth defects, and spontaneous abortions
COCA COLA. Between 1989 and 2002, eight union leaders from Coca-Cola bottling plants in Colombia were killed after protesting the company’s labor practices. Hundreds of other Coca-Cola workers have been kidnapped, tortured, and detained by paramilitaries who intimidate workers to prevent them from unionizing. In India, Coca-Cola extracted 1.5 million liters of deep well water, which they bottled and sold under the names Dasani and BonAqua. The groundwater was severely depleted, affecting thousands of communities with water shortages and destroying agricultural activity. The remaining water became contaminated with high chloride and bacteria levels, leading to scabs, eye problems, and stomach aches in the local population.
DOW CHEMICAL. Dow Chemical has been destroying lives and poisoning the planet for decades. The company is best known for the ravages and health disaster for millions of Vietnamese and U.S. veterans caused by its lethal Vietnam War defoliant, Agent Orange. In 2001, Dow inherited the toxic legacy of the worst peacetime chemical disaster in history when it acquired Union Carbide Corporation and its outstanding liabilities in Bhopal, India. Dow refuses to address its liabilities in Bhopal or even admit their existence.
DYNCORP/CSC. Private security contractors have become the fastest-growing sector of the global economy during the last decade—a $100-billion-a-year, nearly unregulated industry. DynCorp, one of the providers of these mercenary services, demonstrates the industry’s power and potential to abuse human rights. While guarding Afghani statesmen and African oil fields, training Iraqi police forces, eradicating Colombian coca plants, and protecting business interests in hurricane-devastated New Orleans, these hired guns have bolstered the security of governments and organizations at the expense of many people’s human rights.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY. The US addiction to oil is linked with a host of human rights and environmental problems, including human rights abuses in countries such as Nigeria, Ecuador, Sudan, South Africa and Indonesia. It has prompted the US government to cozy up to human rights violating governments such as that of Saudi Arabia; pushed indigenous people off their land; destroyed hundreds of thousands of acres of rainforests; fueled wars for oil, such as the war in Iraq; and polluted cities, endangering the health of millions of people. Automobiles are the single largest consumer of oil in the US, and among US automakers, Ford is the worst. Ford has the worst overall fuel economy and highest greenhouse gas emissions.
KBR (KELLOGG, BROWN AND ROOT). KBR provides logistical support for war, occupation and unlawful detention. The company provides key support services that enable the US troops to continue their occupation of Iraq. Many third-country national (TCN) laborers have been hired by KBR to work in Iraq These TCNs, once in Iraq, are often forced to put in 10 hours or more a day of hard labor, seven days a week, They sleep in crowded trailers, lack adequate medical care, and wait outside in scorching heat to eat “slop.” KBR also constructed the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, where hundreds of detainees have languished for more than three years, many of whom have suffered abuse and torture.
LOCKHEED MARTIN. Lockheed Martin is the world’s largest military contractor. In 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, the company held $21.9 billion in Pentagon contracts. Providing satellites, planes, missiles, and other lethal high tech items to the Pentagon keeps the profits rolling in. Lockheed is a classic war profiteer. The company advocates war and then profits from it. Lockheed Vice President Bruce Jackson was a key player at the Project for a New American Century, the intellectual incubator of the Iraq war. Since 2000, the year Bush was elected, Lockheed’s stock value has tripled.
MONSANTO. Monsanto promotes mono-culture—the practice of covering large swaths of land with a single crop. This practice pushes out subsistence farms and destroys arable land by drastically decreasing soil and water quality for years, draining soil of key nutrients. Monsanto is the world's leading producer of the herbicide glyphosate, marketed as “Roundup.” Roundup is sold to small farmers as a pesticide, yet harms crops in the long run as the toxins accumulate in the soil. Plants eventually become infertile, forcing farmers to purchase genetically modified Roundup Ready Seed, a seed that resists the herbicide. Exposure to Roundup Ultra is documented to cause cancers, skin disorders, spontaneous abortions, premature births, and damage to the gastrointestinal and nervous systems.
NESTLE. Nestlé buys cocoa beans for its chocolate from farms that use illegal and forced child labor. The company is the third largest buyer of cocoa from the Ivory Coast, has processing, storage and export facilities there, and is well aware that even the US State Department estimates that some 109,000 children are working on cocoa farms in the Ivory Coast under the worst and most hazardous form of child labor. This summer, the International Labor Rights Fund and a Birmingham law firm filed a class-action lawsuit against Nestlé and several of its suppliers on behalf of former child slaves.
PHILIP MORRIS (a.k.a. THE ALTRIA GROUP INC.). Nearly five million lives per year are claimed by the tobacco industry, whose product results in premature death for half the people who use them. Among tobacco companies, Philip Morris is notorious. It is the world’s largest and most profitable cigarette corporation and is also a leader in pushing smoking with young people around the world. Although the company says it doesn’t want kids to smoke, it spends millions of dollars every day marketing and promoting cigarettes to youth. Overseas, it has even hired underage Marlboro girls to distribute free cigarettes to other children and sponsored concerts where cigarettes were handed out to minors.
PFIZER. Pfizer is the largest pharmaceutical company in the world, and is also one of the worst abusers of the human right to universal access to HIV/AIDS medicine. Pfizer produces the anti-retroviral drug fluconazole under the name Diflucan, and sells it at prices that poor people with AIDS cannot afford. The company refuses to grant generic licenses of fluconazole to governments in countries like Brazil, South Africa, or Dominican Republic, where patients are forced to pay $20 per weekly pill, though the average national wage is only $120 per month.
SUEZ-LYONNAISE DES EAUX. Suez has made billions of dollars in profits turning the human right to water into an unaffordable luxury. Suez has raised water rates, cut off the water of people unable to pay, refused to extend services to poverty-stricken neighborhoods, and then threatened legal action when contracts are terminated. For example, in Manila, Philippines, after seven years of water privatization under a Suez company, studies showed that water rates increased in some neighborhoods by 400 to 700 percent, and the negligence of the company resulted in cholera and gastroenteritis outbreaks that killed six people and severely sickened hundreds more.
WAL-MART. Wal-Mart maintains its low price level by allowing substandard labor conditions at the overseas factories producing most of its goods. The company continually demands lower prices from its suppliers, who, in turn, make more outrageous and abusive demands on their workers. In September 2005, the International Labor Rights Fund filed a lawsuit on behalf of Wal-Mart supplier sweatshop workers in China, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Nicaragua and Swaziland. The workers were denied minimum wages, forced to work overtime without compensation, and were denied legally mandated health care. Other worker rights violations that have been found in foreign factories that produce goods for Wal-Mart include locked bathrooms, starvation wages, pregnancy tests, and workers being fired and blacklisted if they try to defend their rights.
10 December 2005
09 December 2005
Bush on the Constitution: "It's just a goddamned piece of paper"
Bush continues to talk out both sides of his mouth.
Remember: When he took the U.S. presidential oath of office, Bush swore that he would "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
But that doesn't matter when it conflicts with his agenda.
From Capitol Hill Blue:
-----
Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.
Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
"I don’t give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!"
I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."
And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."
Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn’t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine – in the end – if something is legal or right.
-----
[Read more.]
Remember: When he took the U.S. presidential oath of office, Bush swore that he would "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
But that doesn't matter when it conflicts with his agenda.
From Capitol Hill Blue:
-----
Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.
Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
"I don’t give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!"
I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."
And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."
Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn’t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine – in the end – if something is legal or right.
-----
[Read more.]
False confessions under torture led Bush to link Iraq and al Qaeda
An article in today's New York Times not only further discredits Bush's old claim of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, it also underscores my ongoing argument that torture does not produce good intelligence.
An excerpt:
-----
The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.
The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition.
The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of Qaeda members and others detained as part of American counterterrorism efforts. The Bush administration used Mr. Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda included training in explosives and chemical weapons.
The fact that Mr. Libi recanted after the American invasion of Iraq and that intelligence based on his remarks was withdrawn by the C.I.A. in March 2004 has been public for more than a year. But American officials had not previously acknowledged either that Mr. Libi made the false statements in foreign custody or that Mr. Libi contended that his statements had been coerced.
A government official said that some intelligence provided by Mr. Libi about Al Qaeda had been accurate, and that Mr. Libi's claims that he had been treated harshly in Egyptian custody had not been corroborated.
A classified Defense Intelligence Agency report issued in February 2002 that expressed skepticism about Mr. Libi's credibility on questions related to Iraq and Al Qaeda was based in part on the knowledge that he was no longer in American custody when he made the detailed statements, and that he might have been subjected to harsh treatment, the officials said. They said the C.I.A.'s decision to withdraw the intelligence based on Mr. Libi's claims had been made because of his later assertions, beginning in January 2004, that he had fabricated them to obtain better treatment from his captors.
At the time of his capture in Pakistan in late 2001, Mr. Libi, a Libyan, was the highest-ranking Qaeda leader in American custody. A Nov. 6 report in The New York Times, citing the Defense Intelligence Agency document, said he had made the assertions about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda involving illicit weapons while in American custody.
Mr. Libi was indeed initially held by the United States military in Afghanistan, and was debriefed there by C.I.A. officers, according to the new account provided by the current and former government officials. But despite his high rank, he was transferred to Egypt for further interrogation in January 2002 because the White House had not yet provided detailed authorization for the C.I.A. to hold him.
While he made some statements about Iraq and Al Qaeda when in American custody, the officials said, it was not until after he was handed over to Egypt that he made the most specific assertions, which were later used by the Bush administration as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons.
Beginning in March 2002, with the capture of a Qaeda operative named Abu Zubaydah, the C.I.A. adopted a practice of maintaining custody itself of the highest-ranking captives, a practice that became the main focus of recent controversy related to detention of suspected terrorists.
The agency currently holds between two and three dozen high-ranking terrorist suspects in secret prisons around the world. Reports that the prisons have included locations in Eastern Europe have stirred intense discomfort on the continent and have dogged Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her visit there this week.
-----
[Read more.]
An excerpt:
-----
The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.
The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition.
The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of Qaeda members and others detained as part of American counterterrorism efforts. The Bush administration used Mr. Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda included training in explosives and chemical weapons.
The fact that Mr. Libi recanted after the American invasion of Iraq and that intelligence based on his remarks was withdrawn by the C.I.A. in March 2004 has been public for more than a year. But American officials had not previously acknowledged either that Mr. Libi made the false statements in foreign custody or that Mr. Libi contended that his statements had been coerced.
A government official said that some intelligence provided by Mr. Libi about Al Qaeda had been accurate, and that Mr. Libi's claims that he had been treated harshly in Egyptian custody had not been corroborated.
A classified Defense Intelligence Agency report issued in February 2002 that expressed skepticism about Mr. Libi's credibility on questions related to Iraq and Al Qaeda was based in part on the knowledge that he was no longer in American custody when he made the detailed statements, and that he might have been subjected to harsh treatment, the officials said. They said the C.I.A.'s decision to withdraw the intelligence based on Mr. Libi's claims had been made because of his later assertions, beginning in January 2004, that he had fabricated them to obtain better treatment from his captors.
At the time of his capture in Pakistan in late 2001, Mr. Libi, a Libyan, was the highest-ranking Qaeda leader in American custody. A Nov. 6 report in The New York Times, citing the Defense Intelligence Agency document, said he had made the assertions about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda involving illicit weapons while in American custody.
Mr. Libi was indeed initially held by the United States military in Afghanistan, and was debriefed there by C.I.A. officers, according to the new account provided by the current and former government officials. But despite his high rank, he was transferred to Egypt for further interrogation in January 2002 because the White House had not yet provided detailed authorization for the C.I.A. to hold him.
While he made some statements about Iraq and Al Qaeda when in American custody, the officials said, it was not until after he was handed over to Egypt that he made the most specific assertions, which were later used by the Bush administration as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons.
Beginning in March 2002, with the capture of a Qaeda operative named Abu Zubaydah, the C.I.A. adopted a practice of maintaining custody itself of the highest-ranking captives, a practice that became the main focus of recent controversy related to detention of suspected terrorists.
The agency currently holds between two and three dozen high-ranking terrorist suspects in secret prisons around the world. Reports that the prisons have included locations in Eastern Europe have stirred intense discomfort on the continent and have dogged Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her visit there this week.
-----
[Read more.]
William Rivers Pitt: Iraq and the Democrats
We never should have invaded Iraq. They had no WMDs. They had no ties to al Qaeda. They had nothing to do with 9/11. They posed no threat to the U.S.
But we went. And we slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children. We rounded up hundreds of others and tortured them. We trashed their infrastructure to the point where, almost three years later, they're still waiting for the rebuilding that we promised. And we refuse to leave.
And we wonder why they're shooting at us.
Bush's "strategy" is clearly not working. It's time to change the course. But will we ever make progress as long as the politicians just keep on stubbornly playing politics?
Anyway, the above summarizes my thoughts upon reading the following excellent article by Will Pitt.
From truthout:
-----
There is a tactic in the art of debate and argument known as "Rejecting the premise." To wit: when someone tosses a straw-man into a debate, you are wise to point it out as such, instead of validating its existence by arguing against it. A perfect example of where this can apply comes in the latest round of nonsense from the far Right about a so-called "War on Christmas."
Person #1: "Do you think the liberal elite are aiding in the war against Christmas?"
Person #2: "I reject the premise. There is no war against Christmas. Christmas is doing just fine."
Here's another good one. Vice President Cheney was speaking on Tuesday to troops at Fort Drum, NY.
Cheney: "Some have suggested that by liberating Iraq, we simply stirred up a hornet's nest. They overlook a fundamental fact: We were not in Iraq, and the terrorists hit us anyway."
Me: "I reject the premise. The fact that we had not invaded Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. As Richard Cohen said of Cheney's comments in Thursday's Washington Post, 'Yes, and the crowing of the rooster makes the sun come up. Cause and effect is being mocked here.'"
See? It's that simple. By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?
There is a cluster of Democrats who could learn about rejecting the premise, especially when it comes to the occupation of Iraq. The most recent and galling example came after Congressman John Murtha made his courageous demand for a withdrawal from Iraq. Murtha is the guy the generals talk to, because the generals know they are wasting their breath trying to talk to Rumsfeld, Cheney or Bush. Murtha knows exactly how bad things are in Iraq. His call for withdrawal specifically said that such an action should come "at the earliest practicable date."
Nowhere but nowhere in the text of Murtha's resolution were the words "immediate withdrawal" to be found. The reaction of congressional Republicans, however, was to paint Murtha's call as exactly that, a "cut-and-run" demand for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The "immediate withdrawal" GOP talking point was broadbanded across the media spectrum, and was used in a farcical legislative attempt to derail the conversation. Congressional Republicans tossed up a resolution demanding "immediate withdrawal," daring the Democrats to vote for it.
Scott Shields, writing on the MyDD blog, pegged it perfectly. "My advice to the entire Democratic caucus," wrote Shields when this garbage GOP resolution was introduced, "is to not take the bait. Theentire caucus should abstain from voting altogether. And the Republicans should be called out for their bullying tactics. The Democrats must make it clear to anyone who will listen that this 'Murtha vote' is not a vote on the Murtha resolution at all, but rather a caricature of his resolution, thrown together by hot headed Republicans, eager to jam up the opposition."
Was this advice heeded? Did we hear, "I reject the premise that Murtha's resolution called for immediate withdrawal" and expose the GOP's scurrilous actions for what they were? Hardly. A bunch of dumb Democrats instead took the bait and threw Rep. Murtha under the bus. They knocked over furniture and old people in their rush to the microphones, where they validated the GOP talking point about "immediate withdrawal" by defending themselves against it.
Senator Clinton got up and said immediate withdrawal would be a "big mistake" before beginning a hare-brained crusade against flag-burning.
Senator Biden echoed Clinton by saying immediate withdrawal would be a mistake, never bothering to point out that "immediate withdrawal" was not part of Murtha's resolution.
Governor Mark Warner of Virginia, in rejecting Murtha's non-existent call for immediate withdrawal, said, "This Democrat doesn't think we need to re-fight how we got into the Iraq war. I think we need to focus more on how to finish it." Great work, Governor.
Rather than call this administration to account for the manner in which we were dragged into this disaster, let's give them a pass and trust them to do the right thing in the future. Brilliant. Oh, psssst, Murtha never said "immediate withdrawal" in his resolution. Pass it on.
Senator Lieberman, whose pandering to Republican extremism has reached an extraordinary level of sublime hilarity, outstripped his fellow Democrats by orders of magnitude. On top of dismissing "immediate withdrawal," he went on to say, "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."
It should be noted that Murtha thumped Lieberman's defense of Bush but good. "Undermining his credibility?" asked Murtha. "What has he said that would give him credibility?" That, friends and neighbors, is a golden example of rejecting the premise.
Joementum wants us to do as we are told, shut up, and accept the Bush/Cheney view of things. Criticism of the administration is tantamount to treason. Let the word go forth from this time and place that silence is golden and critics are aiding terrorism. Even for Joe, this was a spectacular statement. One wonders if the word on the street about him replacing Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense has anything to do with this gibberish. From the sound of things, he already believes himself to be a member of Bush's Cabinet.
Sadly, four Democratic ninnies cuddled right up to it, validating a GOP talking point intended to destroy debate on the signal issue of our day. Clinton, Biden, Warner, Lieberman ... what do these four have in common? As far as can be seen, they share one common characteristic: they all think they will be President after 2008.
Wesley Clark, another Democrat who hopes to be redecorating the Oval in 2009, took the whole thing one big step further with an editorial in Tuesday's New York Times titled "The Next Iraq Offensive." The article detailed a series of troop maneuvers that would redeploy American and Iraqi forces along the borders with Syria and Iran. Clark warned that Iraq was becoming a Shia-dominated buffer state that serves to protect Iran, and that a radical shift in tactics must be undertaken to avoid the creation of an Iran/Iraq superstate. At bottom, Clark said the United States must remain in Iraq, and that his plan was one that could achieve victory in this conflict.
It was a cogent and effective argument centered around an undeniable fact: this occupation has empowered Shia fundamentalism in Iraq, said fundamentalism being deeply tied to Shia fundamentalism in Iran. This union poses a danger to the Mideast region and, in the long run, a danger to the United States both at home and abroad. There is one significant dent in Clark's thinking, however. In making his argument, he accepted a number of premises that should be rejected as deeply flawed.
-----
[Read more.]
But we went. And we slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children. We rounded up hundreds of others and tortured them. We trashed their infrastructure to the point where, almost three years later, they're still waiting for the rebuilding that we promised. And we refuse to leave.
And we wonder why they're shooting at us.
Bush's "strategy" is clearly not working. It's time to change the course. But will we ever make progress as long as the politicians just keep on stubbornly playing politics?
Anyway, the above summarizes my thoughts upon reading the following excellent article by Will Pitt.
From truthout:
-----
There is a tactic in the art of debate and argument known as "Rejecting the premise." To wit: when someone tosses a straw-man into a debate, you are wise to point it out as such, instead of validating its existence by arguing against it. A perfect example of where this can apply comes in the latest round of nonsense from the far Right about a so-called "War on Christmas."
Person #1: "Do you think the liberal elite are aiding in the war against Christmas?"
Person #2: "I reject the premise. There is no war against Christmas. Christmas is doing just fine."
Here's another good one. Vice President Cheney was speaking on Tuesday to troops at Fort Drum, NY.
Cheney: "Some have suggested that by liberating Iraq, we simply stirred up a hornet's nest. They overlook a fundamental fact: We were not in Iraq, and the terrorists hit us anyway."
Me: "I reject the premise. The fact that we had not invaded Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. As Richard Cohen said of Cheney's comments in Thursday's Washington Post, 'Yes, and the crowing of the rooster makes the sun come up. Cause and effect is being mocked here.'"
See? It's that simple. By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?
There is a cluster of Democrats who could learn about rejecting the premise, especially when it comes to the occupation of Iraq. The most recent and galling example came after Congressman John Murtha made his courageous demand for a withdrawal from Iraq. Murtha is the guy the generals talk to, because the generals know they are wasting their breath trying to talk to Rumsfeld, Cheney or Bush. Murtha knows exactly how bad things are in Iraq. His call for withdrawal specifically said that such an action should come "at the earliest practicable date."
Nowhere but nowhere in the text of Murtha's resolution were the words "immediate withdrawal" to be found. The reaction of congressional Republicans, however, was to paint Murtha's call as exactly that, a "cut-and-run" demand for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The "immediate withdrawal" GOP talking point was broadbanded across the media spectrum, and was used in a farcical legislative attempt to derail the conversation. Congressional Republicans tossed up a resolution demanding "immediate withdrawal," daring the Democrats to vote for it.
Scott Shields, writing on the MyDD blog, pegged it perfectly. "My advice to the entire Democratic caucus," wrote Shields when this garbage GOP resolution was introduced, "is to not take the bait. Theentire caucus should abstain from voting altogether. And the Republicans should be called out for their bullying tactics. The Democrats must make it clear to anyone who will listen that this 'Murtha vote' is not a vote on the Murtha resolution at all, but rather a caricature of his resolution, thrown together by hot headed Republicans, eager to jam up the opposition."
Was this advice heeded? Did we hear, "I reject the premise that Murtha's resolution called for immediate withdrawal" and expose the GOP's scurrilous actions for what they were? Hardly. A bunch of dumb Democrats instead took the bait and threw Rep. Murtha under the bus. They knocked over furniture and old people in their rush to the microphones, where they validated the GOP talking point about "immediate withdrawal" by defending themselves against it.
Senator Clinton got up and said immediate withdrawal would be a "big mistake" before beginning a hare-brained crusade against flag-burning.
Senator Biden echoed Clinton by saying immediate withdrawal would be a mistake, never bothering to point out that "immediate withdrawal" was not part of Murtha's resolution.
Governor Mark Warner of Virginia, in rejecting Murtha's non-existent call for immediate withdrawal, said, "This Democrat doesn't think we need to re-fight how we got into the Iraq war. I think we need to focus more on how to finish it." Great work, Governor.
Rather than call this administration to account for the manner in which we were dragged into this disaster, let's give them a pass and trust them to do the right thing in the future. Brilliant. Oh, psssst, Murtha never said "immediate withdrawal" in his resolution. Pass it on.
Senator Lieberman, whose pandering to Republican extremism has reached an extraordinary level of sublime hilarity, outstripped his fellow Democrats by orders of magnitude. On top of dismissing "immediate withdrawal," he went on to say, "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."
It should be noted that Murtha thumped Lieberman's defense of Bush but good. "Undermining his credibility?" asked Murtha. "What has he said that would give him credibility?" That, friends and neighbors, is a golden example of rejecting the premise.
Joementum wants us to do as we are told, shut up, and accept the Bush/Cheney view of things. Criticism of the administration is tantamount to treason. Let the word go forth from this time and place that silence is golden and critics are aiding terrorism. Even for Joe, this was a spectacular statement. One wonders if the word on the street about him replacing Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense has anything to do with this gibberish. From the sound of things, he already believes himself to be a member of Bush's Cabinet.
Sadly, four Democratic ninnies cuddled right up to it, validating a GOP talking point intended to destroy debate on the signal issue of our day. Clinton, Biden, Warner, Lieberman ... what do these four have in common? As far as can be seen, they share one common characteristic: they all think they will be President after 2008.
Wesley Clark, another Democrat who hopes to be redecorating the Oval in 2009, took the whole thing one big step further with an editorial in Tuesday's New York Times titled "The Next Iraq Offensive." The article detailed a series of troop maneuvers that would redeploy American and Iraqi forces along the borders with Syria and Iran. Clark warned that Iraq was becoming a Shia-dominated buffer state that serves to protect Iran, and that a radical shift in tactics must be undertaken to avoid the creation of an Iran/Iraq superstate. At bottom, Clark said the United States must remain in Iraq, and that his plan was one that could achieve victory in this conflict.
It was a cogent and effective argument centered around an undeniable fact: this occupation has empowered Shia fundamentalism in Iraq, said fundamentalism being deeply tied to Shia fundamentalism in Iran. This union poses a danger to the Mideast region and, in the long run, a danger to the United States both at home and abroad. There is one significant dent in Clark's thinking, however. In making his argument, he accepted a number of premises that should be rejected as deeply flawed.
-----
[Read more.]
08 December 2005
Voting machines under scrutiny
Ever since the 2000 election results were called into question, I've been concerned about the accuracy of voting machines, and how easily they can apparently be rigged. Bev Harris of Black Box Voting has demonstrated how easily they can be hacked.
The Republicans dismiss these concerns, because they like the last few rounds of results. But they need to consider that it would only take one disgruntled programmer to turn things against them in another election. So it's in everyone's best interest (not to mention the interest of democracy itself) to have every vote counted accurately and have a verifiable paper trail in place.
According to the article below, the machines are under some scrutiny in preparation for the 2006 mid-term elections. Will this be enough?
From the Associated Press via the Washington Post:
-----
The potential perils of electronic voting systems are bedeviling state officials as a Jan. 1 deadline approaches for complying with standards for the machines' reliability.
Across the country, officials are trying multiple methods to ensure that touch-screen voting machines can record and count votes without falling prey to software bugs, hackers, malicious insiders or other ills.
These are not theoretical problems - in some states they have led to lost or miscounted votes.
One of the biggest concerns - the frequent inability of computerized ballots to produce a written receipt of a vote - has been addressed or is being tackled in most states.
An October report from the Government Accountability Office predicted that steps to improve the reliability of electronic voting "are unlikely to have a significant effect" in the 2006 off-year elections, partly because certification procedures remain a work in progress.
"There's not a lot of precedents in dealing with these electronic systems, so people are slowly figuring out the best way to do this," said Thad E. Hall, a political scientist at the University of Utah and co-author of "Point, Click, and Vote: The Future of Internet Voting."
In North Carolina, more stringent requirements - which include placing the machines' software code in escrow for examination in case of a problem - have led one supplier, Diebold Inc., to say it will withdraw from the state, where about 20 counties use Diebold voting machines.
A different type of showdown is brewing in California, where Secretary of State Bruce McPherson says he might force makers of the machines to prove their systems can withstand attacks from a hacker. One such test on a Diebold system - Diebold machines were blamed for voting disruptions in a 2004 California primary - is planned.
The state has been negotiating details with Harri Hursti, a security expert from Finland who uncovered severe flaws in a Diebold system used in Leon County, Fla. (He demonstrated how vote results could be changed, then made screens flash "Are we having fun yet?")
Similarly, elections officials in Franklin County, Ohio - where older voting machines gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in a preliminary count in 2004 - recently asked computer experts to test newly purchased touch-screen voting machines from Election Systems and Software Inc.
Such designated hack attempts might be a flawed approach, because a failure proves only that a particular hacker could not break into a machine under certain conditions. That is not the same as opening things up to a broader group of researchers, as software developers sometimes do. Many critics of touch-screen election computers argue that the software should be publicly examined to make sure vote tampering could not occur.
A McPherson spokeswoman said the hacking test would be one of many factors in deciding whether to approve the voting machines. McPherson has released a 10-point plan for certification efforts, including a software code escrow system.
The scrutiny is likely to make California miss a Jan. 1 deadline set under the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002.
That law was aimed at phasing out the punch-card ballots and other old-fashioned systems that proved problematic in 2000. It requires states to improve disability access at polling places in addition to standardizing electronic voting systems.
A report by Election Data Services Inc., a political consulting firm, for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission determined that 23 percent of American voters used electronic ballots in 2004, a 12 percent increase over 2000.
Since then, largely because of warnings from computer security experts and grass-roots activism, many states have began requiring the machines to produce paper receipts that voters can examine. At least 25 states have such rules and 14 more have requirements pending, according to the Verified Voting Foundation.
-----
[Read more.]
The Republicans dismiss these concerns, because they like the last few rounds of results. But they need to consider that it would only take one disgruntled programmer to turn things against them in another election. So it's in everyone's best interest (not to mention the interest of democracy itself) to have every vote counted accurately and have a verifiable paper trail in place.
According to the article below, the machines are under some scrutiny in preparation for the 2006 mid-term elections. Will this be enough?
From the Associated Press via the Washington Post:
-----
The potential perils of electronic voting systems are bedeviling state officials as a Jan. 1 deadline approaches for complying with standards for the machines' reliability.
Across the country, officials are trying multiple methods to ensure that touch-screen voting machines can record and count votes without falling prey to software bugs, hackers, malicious insiders or other ills.
These are not theoretical problems - in some states they have led to lost or miscounted votes.
One of the biggest concerns - the frequent inability of computerized ballots to produce a written receipt of a vote - has been addressed or is being tackled in most states.
An October report from the Government Accountability Office predicted that steps to improve the reliability of electronic voting "are unlikely to have a significant effect" in the 2006 off-year elections, partly because certification procedures remain a work in progress.
"There's not a lot of precedents in dealing with these electronic systems, so people are slowly figuring out the best way to do this," said Thad E. Hall, a political scientist at the University of Utah and co-author of "Point, Click, and Vote: The Future of Internet Voting."
In North Carolina, more stringent requirements - which include placing the machines' software code in escrow for examination in case of a problem - have led one supplier, Diebold Inc., to say it will withdraw from the state, where about 20 counties use Diebold voting machines.
A different type of showdown is brewing in California, where Secretary of State Bruce McPherson says he might force makers of the machines to prove their systems can withstand attacks from a hacker. One such test on a Diebold system - Diebold machines were blamed for voting disruptions in a 2004 California primary - is planned.
The state has been negotiating details with Harri Hursti, a security expert from Finland who uncovered severe flaws in a Diebold system used in Leon County, Fla. (He demonstrated how vote results could be changed, then made screens flash "Are we having fun yet?")
Similarly, elections officials in Franklin County, Ohio - where older voting machines gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in a preliminary count in 2004 - recently asked computer experts to test newly purchased touch-screen voting machines from Election Systems and Software Inc.
Such designated hack attempts might be a flawed approach, because a failure proves only that a particular hacker could not break into a machine under certain conditions. That is not the same as opening things up to a broader group of researchers, as software developers sometimes do. Many critics of touch-screen election computers argue that the software should be publicly examined to make sure vote tampering could not occur.
A McPherson spokeswoman said the hacking test would be one of many factors in deciding whether to approve the voting machines. McPherson has released a 10-point plan for certification efforts, including a software code escrow system.
The scrutiny is likely to make California miss a Jan. 1 deadline set under the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002.
That law was aimed at phasing out the punch-card ballots and other old-fashioned systems that proved problematic in 2000. It requires states to improve disability access at polling places in addition to standardizing electronic voting systems.
A report by Election Data Services Inc., a political consulting firm, for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission determined that 23 percent of American voters used electronic ballots in 2004, a 12 percent increase over 2000.
Since then, largely because of warnings from computer security experts and grass-roots activism, many states have began requiring the machines to produce paper receipts that voters can examine. At least 25 states have such rules and 14 more have requirements pending, according to the Verified Voting Foundation.
-----
[Read more.]
07 December 2005
Condi to Europe: Torture saves European lives
In defending extraordinary rendition against a skeptical European audience, Condi Rice is using the Bush administration's trusty old scare tactic (along with a hefty dose of condescension). Gotta torture people in order to ensure your safety.
But I don't think that the Europeans are going to be as gullible to that sort of thing as the red-state Americans were.
From yesterday's New York Times:
-----
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice chastised European leaders on Monday, saying that before they complain about secret jails for terror suspects in European nations, they should realize that interrogations of these suspects have produced information that helped "save European lives."
Her remarks were the Bush administration's official response to the reports of a network of secret detention centers in at least eight European nations, said to house dozens of terror suspects.
At the same time, she denied that the United States has moved suspects to these prisons to allow interrogators to use torture. "The United States," she said, "does not permit, tolerate or condone torture under any circumstances." At another point, she said, "The United States does not transport and has not transported detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture."
Intelligence gathered from these interrogations, she said, "has stopped terrorist attacks and saved innocent lives in Europe as well as the United States." But she declined to offer examples or provide any specific information to support her assertions. She said any information related to the prisons was classified. Ms. Rice did not explicitly confirm the existence of the detention centers, first described in news reports early last month. But acknowledgment of them was implicit in her remarks. Without the debate over the covert jails, there would have been no reason for her statement.
[...]
"Democracies are going to debate these things," she said. "But they need to debate them not just on one side of the issue - that is, how the actual activities are being carried out." They should also consider, "are we doing everything we can to protect innocent lives?"
-----
[Read more.]
But I don't think that the Europeans are going to be as gullible to that sort of thing as the red-state Americans were.
From yesterday's New York Times:
-----
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice chastised European leaders on Monday, saying that before they complain about secret jails for terror suspects in European nations, they should realize that interrogations of these suspects have produced information that helped "save European lives."
Her remarks were the Bush administration's official response to the reports of a network of secret detention centers in at least eight European nations, said to house dozens of terror suspects.
At the same time, she denied that the United States has moved suspects to these prisons to allow interrogators to use torture. "The United States," she said, "does not permit, tolerate or condone torture under any circumstances." At another point, she said, "The United States does not transport and has not transported detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture."
Intelligence gathered from these interrogations, she said, "has stopped terrorist attacks and saved innocent lives in Europe as well as the United States." But she declined to offer examples or provide any specific information to support her assertions. She said any information related to the prisons was classified. Ms. Rice did not explicitly confirm the existence of the detention centers, first described in news reports early last month. But acknowledgment of them was implicit in her remarks. Without the debate over the covert jails, there would have been no reason for her statement.
[...]
"Democracies are going to debate these things," she said. "But they need to debate them not just on one side of the issue - that is, how the actual activities are being carried out." They should also consider, "are we doing everything we can to protect innocent lives?"
-----
[Read more.]
Condi's senseless defense of renditions
It's interesting to read how differently the European press reports on this sort of thing as compared to the U.S. mainstream media.
From The Guardian (UK):
-----
The robust defence of rendition offered yesterday by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, marks the export to a European audience of a position on torture that is becoming increasingly uncomfortable for the Bush administration.
Ms Rice's arguments yesterday hinge on her insistence that rendition was a legitimate and necessary tool for the changed circumstances brought by the war on terror. "The captured terrorists of the 21st century do not fit easily into traditional systems of criminal or military justice," she said.
Ms Rice went on to note that the practice had been deployed "for decades" before the terror attacks of September 11 2001. "Its use is not unique to the United States, or to the current administration," she said.
However, her assurances that spiriting terror suspects away to clandestine prisons is a legitimate tactic did not carry much weight with human rights organisations or legal scholars yesterday.
They argued that the sole use of extraordinary rendition was to transport a suspect to a locale that was beyond the reach of the law - and so at risk of torture.
"The argument makes no sense unless there is an assumption that the purpose of rendition is to send people to a place where things could be done to them that could not be done in the United States," said David Luban, a law professor at Georgetown University who is presently a visiting professor at Stanford University.
"Rendition doesn't become a tool in the war against terror unless people are being sent to a place where they can be interrogated harshly."
In her statement yesterday, Ms Rice said rendition was necessary in instances where local governments did not have the capacity to prosecute a terror suspect, or in cases where al-Qaida members were operating in remote areas far from an operational justice system.
However, the majority of the two dozen or so terror suspects known to have been subjected to rendition were captured in urban areas. Some were taken in Europe.
[...]
Amid the outrage in Europe over the secret prisons, the administration faces calls at home from Democrats for an investigation into the treatment of so-called "ghost detainees". The vice-president, Dick Cheney, meanwhile, has been criticised for resisting efforts to include the CIA in a ban on "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of detainees.
However, in her remarks yesterday, Ms Rice appeared to offer repeated and firm assurances that al-Qaida suspects transported to clandestine prisons for interrogation would not be subjected to torture. "The US does not permit, tolerate or condone torture under any circumstances," she said.
Critics say that depends on one's definition of torture. During the last four years, they say the Bush administration has adopted an exceedingly narrow definition of torture, allowing interrogators to use a variety of harsh techniques such as stress positions, sleep deprivation, and waterboarding, where suspects are strapped to a board and plunged into water.
"The reason she is able to say that the United States does not engage in torture is that the administration has redefined torture to exclude any technique that they use," said Tom Malinowski, Washington director of Human Rights Watch. "What makes this awkward for Secretary Rice is that the state department has continued to condemn as torture techniques such as waterboarding when they are used by other countries - in other words the very techniques the CIA has used against these high level detainees."
-----
[Read more.]
From The Guardian (UK):
-----
The robust defence of rendition offered yesterday by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, marks the export to a European audience of a position on torture that is becoming increasingly uncomfortable for the Bush administration.
Ms Rice's arguments yesterday hinge on her insistence that rendition was a legitimate and necessary tool for the changed circumstances brought by the war on terror. "The captured terrorists of the 21st century do not fit easily into traditional systems of criminal or military justice," she said.
Ms Rice went on to note that the practice had been deployed "for decades" before the terror attacks of September 11 2001. "Its use is not unique to the United States, or to the current administration," she said.
However, her assurances that spiriting terror suspects away to clandestine prisons is a legitimate tactic did not carry much weight with human rights organisations or legal scholars yesterday.
They argued that the sole use of extraordinary rendition was to transport a suspect to a locale that was beyond the reach of the law - and so at risk of torture.
"The argument makes no sense unless there is an assumption that the purpose of rendition is to send people to a place where things could be done to them that could not be done in the United States," said David Luban, a law professor at Georgetown University who is presently a visiting professor at Stanford University.
"Rendition doesn't become a tool in the war against terror unless people are being sent to a place where they can be interrogated harshly."
In her statement yesterday, Ms Rice said rendition was necessary in instances where local governments did not have the capacity to prosecute a terror suspect, or in cases where al-Qaida members were operating in remote areas far from an operational justice system.
However, the majority of the two dozen or so terror suspects known to have been subjected to rendition were captured in urban areas. Some were taken in Europe.
[...]
Amid the outrage in Europe over the secret prisons, the administration faces calls at home from Democrats for an investigation into the treatment of so-called "ghost detainees". The vice-president, Dick Cheney, meanwhile, has been criticised for resisting efforts to include the CIA in a ban on "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of detainees.
However, in her remarks yesterday, Ms Rice appeared to offer repeated and firm assurances that al-Qaida suspects transported to clandestine prisons for interrogation would not be subjected to torture. "The US does not permit, tolerate or condone torture under any circumstances," she said.
Critics say that depends on one's definition of torture. During the last four years, they say the Bush administration has adopted an exceedingly narrow definition of torture, allowing interrogators to use a variety of harsh techniques such as stress positions, sleep deprivation, and waterboarding, where suspects are strapped to a board and plunged into water.
"The reason she is able to say that the United States does not engage in torture is that the administration has redefined torture to exclude any technique that they use," said Tom Malinowski, Washington director of Human Rights Watch. "What makes this awkward for Secretary Rice is that the state department has continued to condemn as torture techniques such as waterboarding when they are used by other countries - in other words the very techniques the CIA has used against these high level detainees."
-----
[Read more.]
German man claims U.S. tortured him
Whenever I write against torture, I invariably get responses from people telling me that we need to torture "the terrorists" or else we'll have more 9/11's.
Apparently it's OK with them if we torture some innocent people along with the guilty (although they usually tell me that all of our detainees are clearly guilty, and they shrug off any facts to the contrary).
From The Guardian (UK):
-----
A German man alleged in a lawsuit Tuesday that the CIA held him captive and tortured him in Afghanistan last year after the spy agency mistakenly identified him as an associate of the Sept. 11 hijackers.
In the latest controversy surrounding the CIA's "rendition" program in the war on terror, Khaled al-Masri said he was taken into custody while attempting to enter Macedonia on New Year's Eve 2003 and flown to Afghanistan.
During five months in captivity, he was subjected to "torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment," says his lawsuit in U.S. District Court in suburban Alexandria, Va. The American Civil Liberties Union is representing him.
At an ACLU news conference in Washington, al-Masri's lawyer revealed that U.S. authorities on Saturday night refused to let al-Masri into the country. Al-Masri spoke by video hookup from Germany, telling reporters that in Afghanistan, one of his interrogators told him, "You might be buried here."
In Berlin, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refused later to discuss the case with reporters.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the U.S. has acknowledged making a mistake in the man's arrest.
"I'm happy to say we have discussed the one case, which the government of the United States has of course accepted as a mistake," Merkel said after meeting with Rice.
The suit names as the main defendant former CIA Director George Tenet. In addition to torture, he claims his due process rights were violated and that he was subjected to "prolonged, arbitrary detention." He is seeking damages of at least $75,000.
-----
[Read more.]
Apparently it's OK with them if we torture some innocent people along with the guilty (although they usually tell me that all of our detainees are clearly guilty, and they shrug off any facts to the contrary).
From The Guardian (UK):
-----
A German man alleged in a lawsuit Tuesday that the CIA held him captive and tortured him in Afghanistan last year after the spy agency mistakenly identified him as an associate of the Sept. 11 hijackers.
In the latest controversy surrounding the CIA's "rendition" program in the war on terror, Khaled al-Masri said he was taken into custody while attempting to enter Macedonia on New Year's Eve 2003 and flown to Afghanistan.
During five months in captivity, he was subjected to "torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment," says his lawsuit in U.S. District Court in suburban Alexandria, Va. The American Civil Liberties Union is representing him.
At an ACLU news conference in Washington, al-Masri's lawyer revealed that U.S. authorities on Saturday night refused to let al-Masri into the country. Al-Masri spoke by video hookup from Germany, telling reporters that in Afghanistan, one of his interrogators told him, "You might be buried here."
In Berlin, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refused later to discuss the case with reporters.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the U.S. has acknowledged making a mistake in the man's arrest.
"I'm happy to say we have discussed the one case, which the government of the United States has of course accepted as a mistake," Merkel said after meeting with Rice.
The suit names as the main defendant former CIA Director George Tenet. In addition to torture, he claims his due process rights were violated and that he was subjected to "prolonged, arbitrary detention." He is seeking damages of at least $75,000.
-----
[Read more.]
06 December 2005
9/11 panel gives the U.S. government bad grades on security
Remember how Bush and Cheney told us last year that we needed to reelect them in order to ensure our safety?
From the Associated Press via MSNBC:
-----
The former Sept. 11 commission gave dismal grades Monday to the federal government's efforts to shore up national security and prevent another terror attack on the United States.
Meeting for the last time since being appointed by Congress in 2002, commission members gave the government "more F's than A's" among the 41 grades measuring progress on security recommendations they issued last year.
"We're frustrated, all of us — frustrated at the lack of urgency in addressing these various problems," said former commission chairman Thomas Kean, a Republican and former New Jersey governor.
Specifically, the panel gave the government an "F" on homeland security spending for cities most at risk, on improving radio communication for emergency agencies and on airline passenger prescreening. They awarded only one A — actually an A-minus — for the administration’s efforts to curb terrorist financing.
"We shouldn't need another wake-up call," Kean said. "We believe that the terrorists will strike again, so does every responsible expert that we have talked to. And if they do, and these reforms that might have prevented such an attack have not been implemented, what will our excuse be?"
The official commission, tasked with investigating government missteps that led to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, disbanded after issuing its recommendations in July 2004.
It has since been operating with private funds as the 9-11 Public Discourse Project to monitor government progress.
-----
[Read more.]
From the Associated Press via MSNBC:
-----
The former Sept. 11 commission gave dismal grades Monday to the federal government's efforts to shore up national security and prevent another terror attack on the United States.
Meeting for the last time since being appointed by Congress in 2002, commission members gave the government "more F's than A's" among the 41 grades measuring progress on security recommendations they issued last year.
"We're frustrated, all of us — frustrated at the lack of urgency in addressing these various problems," said former commission chairman Thomas Kean, a Republican and former New Jersey governor.
Specifically, the panel gave the government an "F" on homeland security spending for cities most at risk, on improving radio communication for emergency agencies and on airline passenger prescreening. They awarded only one A — actually an A-minus — for the administration’s efforts to curb terrorist financing.
"We shouldn't need another wake-up call," Kean said. "We believe that the terrorists will strike again, so does every responsible expert that we have talked to. And if they do, and these reforms that might have prevented such an attack have not been implemented, what will our excuse be?"
The official commission, tasked with investigating government missteps that led to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, disbanded after issuing its recommendations in July 2004.
It has since been operating with private funds as the 9-11 Public Discourse Project to monitor government progress.
-----
[Read more.]
05 December 2005
Bush's war on Al Jazeera (If you can't control them, bomb them)
The Bush administration has been pretty successful at keeping the American mainstream media from publishing too many incriminating facts.
But they cannot control the foreign press, especially Al Jazeera. So Bush's solution, apparently, is to bomb them.
From an article by Jeremy Scahill in The Nation:
-----
Nothing puts the lie to the Bush Administration's absurd claim that it invaded Iraq to spread democracy throughout the Middle East more decisively than its ceaseless attacks on Al Jazeera, the institution that has done more than any other to break the stranglehold over information previously held by authoritarian forces, whether monarchs, military strongmen, occupiers or ayatollahs. The United States bombed its offices in Afghanistan in 2001, shelled the Basra hotel where Al Jazeera journalists were the only guests in April 2003, killed Iraq correspondent Tareq Ayoub a few days later in Baghdad and imprisoned several Al Jazeera reporters (including at Guantanamo), some of whom say they were tortured. In addition to the military attacks, the US-backed Iraqi government banned the network from reporting in Iraq.
Then in late November came a startling development: Britain's Daily Mirror reported that during an April 2004 White House meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, George W. Bush floated the idea of bombing Al Jazeera's international headquarters in Qatar. This allegation was based on leaked "Top Secret" minutes of the Bush-Blair summit. British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith has activated the Official Secrets Act, threatening any publication that publishes any portion of the memo (he has already brought charges against a former Cabinet staffer and a former parliamentary aide). So while we don't yet know the contents of the memo, we do know that at the time of Bush's meeting with Blair, the Administration was in the throes of a very public, high-level temper tantrum directed against Al Jazeera. The meeting took place on April 16, at the peak of the first US siege of Falluja, and Al Jazeera was one of the few news outlets broadcasting from inside the city. Its exclusive footage was being broadcast by every network from CNN to the BBC.
The Falluja offensive, one of the bloodiest assaults of the US occupation, was a turning point. In two weeks that April, thirty marines were killed as local guerrillas resisted US attempts to capture the city. Some 600 Iraqis died, many of them women and children. Al Jazeera broadcast from inside the besieged city, beaming images to the world. On live TV the network gave graphic documentary evidence disproving US denials that it was killing civilians. It was a public relations disaster, and the United States responded by attacking the messenger.
Just a few days before Bush allegedly proposed bombing the network, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Falluja, Ahmed Mansour, reported live on the air, "Last night we were targeted by some tanks, twice...but we escaped. The US wants us out of Falluja, but we will stay." On April 9 Washington demanded that Al Jazeera leave the city as a condition for a cease-fire. The network refused. Mansour wrote that the next day "American fighter jets fired around our new location, and they bombed the house where we had spent the night before, causing the death of the house owner Mr. Hussein Samir. Due to the serious threats we had to stop broadcasting for few days because every time we tried to broadcast the fighter jets spotted us we became under their fire."
On April 11 senior military spokesperson Mark Kimmitt declared, "The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda, and that is lies." On April 15 Donald Rumsfeld echoed those remarks in distinctly undiplomatic terms, calling Al Jazeera's reporting "vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.... It's disgraceful what that station is doing." It was the very next day, according to the Daily Mirror, that Bush told Blair of his plan. "He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere," a source told the Mirror. "There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do--and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it."
Al Jazeera's real transgression during the "war on terror" is a simple one: being there. While critical of the Bush Administration and US policy, it is not anti-American -- it is independent. In fact, it has angered almost every Arab government at one point or another and has been kicked out of or sanctioned by many Arab countries. It holds the rare distinction of being shut down by both Saddam and the new US-backed government. It was the first Arab station to broadcast interviews with Israeli officials. It is hardly the Al Qaeda mouthpiece the Administration has wanted us to believe it is. The real threat Al Jazeera poses is in its unembedded journalism--precisely what is needed now to uncover the truth about the Bush-Blair meeting.
-----
[Read more.]
But they cannot control the foreign press, especially Al Jazeera. So Bush's solution, apparently, is to bomb them.
From an article by Jeremy Scahill in The Nation:
-----
Nothing puts the lie to the Bush Administration's absurd claim that it invaded Iraq to spread democracy throughout the Middle East more decisively than its ceaseless attacks on Al Jazeera, the institution that has done more than any other to break the stranglehold over information previously held by authoritarian forces, whether monarchs, military strongmen, occupiers or ayatollahs. The United States bombed its offices in Afghanistan in 2001, shelled the Basra hotel where Al Jazeera journalists were the only guests in April 2003, killed Iraq correspondent Tareq Ayoub a few days later in Baghdad and imprisoned several Al Jazeera reporters (including at Guantanamo), some of whom say they were tortured. In addition to the military attacks, the US-backed Iraqi government banned the network from reporting in Iraq.
Then in late November came a startling development: Britain's Daily Mirror reported that during an April 2004 White House meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, George W. Bush floated the idea of bombing Al Jazeera's international headquarters in Qatar. This allegation was based on leaked "Top Secret" minutes of the Bush-Blair summit. British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith has activated the Official Secrets Act, threatening any publication that publishes any portion of the memo (he has already brought charges against a former Cabinet staffer and a former parliamentary aide). So while we don't yet know the contents of the memo, we do know that at the time of Bush's meeting with Blair, the Administration was in the throes of a very public, high-level temper tantrum directed against Al Jazeera. The meeting took place on April 16, at the peak of the first US siege of Falluja, and Al Jazeera was one of the few news outlets broadcasting from inside the city. Its exclusive footage was being broadcast by every network from CNN to the BBC.
The Falluja offensive, one of the bloodiest assaults of the US occupation, was a turning point. In two weeks that April, thirty marines were killed as local guerrillas resisted US attempts to capture the city. Some 600 Iraqis died, many of them women and children. Al Jazeera broadcast from inside the besieged city, beaming images to the world. On live TV the network gave graphic documentary evidence disproving US denials that it was killing civilians. It was a public relations disaster, and the United States responded by attacking the messenger.
Just a few days before Bush allegedly proposed bombing the network, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Falluja, Ahmed Mansour, reported live on the air, "Last night we were targeted by some tanks, twice...but we escaped. The US wants us out of Falluja, but we will stay." On April 9 Washington demanded that Al Jazeera leave the city as a condition for a cease-fire. The network refused. Mansour wrote that the next day "American fighter jets fired around our new location, and they bombed the house where we had spent the night before, causing the death of the house owner Mr. Hussein Samir. Due to the serious threats we had to stop broadcasting for few days because every time we tried to broadcast the fighter jets spotted us we became under their fire."
On April 11 senior military spokesperson Mark Kimmitt declared, "The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda, and that is lies." On April 15 Donald Rumsfeld echoed those remarks in distinctly undiplomatic terms, calling Al Jazeera's reporting "vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.... It's disgraceful what that station is doing." It was the very next day, according to the Daily Mirror, that Bush told Blair of his plan. "He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere," a source told the Mirror. "There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do--and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it."
Al Jazeera's real transgression during the "war on terror" is a simple one: being there. While critical of the Bush Administration and US policy, it is not anti-American -- it is independent. In fact, it has angered almost every Arab government at one point or another and has been kicked out of or sanctioned by many Arab countries. It holds the rare distinction of being shut down by both Saddam and the new US-backed government. It was the first Arab station to broadcast interviews with Israeli officials. It is hardly the Al Qaeda mouthpiece the Administration has wanted us to believe it is. The real threat Al Jazeera poses is in its unembedded journalism--precisely what is needed now to uncover the truth about the Bush-Blair meeting.
-----
[Read more.]
04 December 2005
After Innocence - See this film, then consider: You could be wrongfully convicted
Today, in Philadelphia, I saw a new documentary film called After Innocence. The film details the stories of seven men who were convicted of serious crimes that they did not commit and who were later exonerated.
The film highlights the difficulties that these men have had in adjusting to society after exoneration. They are victims of a flawed system, but yet they continue to be persecuted. Their records are not expunged, so they have trouble finding jobs, renting apartments, etc., even though their innocence has been proven in a court of law! And the state gives them no compensation or restitution. Most don't even get an apology.
After the screening, I got to personally meet and speak with two exonerees, one of whom was featured in the film. The one thing that struck me most about these two men was their selfless commitment to addressing the issues of compensation, expungement, etc., to try to make the transition easier for future exonerees.
This Sundance award-winning film is now showing in select cities across the country. Everyone should see it, even if you must wait for its release on DVD.
For more information, click here.
The film highlights the difficulties that these men have had in adjusting to society after exoneration. They are victims of a flawed system, but yet they continue to be persecuted. Their records are not expunged, so they have trouble finding jobs, renting apartments, etc., even though their innocence has been proven in a court of law! And the state gives them no compensation or restitution. Most don't even get an apology.
After the screening, I got to personally meet and speak with two exonerees, one of whom was featured in the film. The one thing that struck me most about these two men was their selfless commitment to addressing the issues of compensation, expungement, etc., to try to make the transition easier for future exonerees.
This Sundance award-winning film is now showing in select cities across the country. Everyone should see it, even if you must wait for its release on DVD.
For more information, click here.
FBI is taking another look at forged prewar intelligence
Hopefully this is another step towards verifying the truth.
From yesterday's Los Angeles Times:
-----
The FBI has reopened an inquiry into one of the most intriguing aspects of the pre-Iraq war intelligence fiasco: how the Bush administration came to rely on forged documents linking Iraq to nuclear weapons materials as part of its justification for the invasion.
The documents inspired intense U.S. interest in the buildup to the war - and they led the CIA to send a former ambassador to the African nation of Niger to investigate whether Iraq had sought the materials there. The ambassador, Joseph C. Wilson IV, found little evidence to support such a claim, and the documents were later deemed to have been forged.
But President Bush referred to the claim in his 2003 State of the Union address in making the case for the invasion. Bush's speech, Wilson's trip and the role Wilson's wife played in sending him have created a political storm that still envelops the White House.
The documents in question included letters on Niger government letterhead and purported contracts showing sales of uranium to Iraq. They were provided in 2002 to an Italian magazine, which turned them over to the U.S. Embassy in Rome.
The FBI's decision to reopen the investigation reverses the agency's announcement last month that it had finished a two-year inquiry and concluded that the forgeries were part of a moneymaking scheme - and not an effort to manipulate U.S. foreign policy.
Those findings concerned some members of the Senate Intelligence Committee after published reports that the FBI had not interviewed a former Italian spy named Rocco Martino, who was identified as the original source of the documents. The committee had requested the initial investigation.
"This is such a high-profile issue for a lot of reasons, and we think it's important to make sure there aren't lingering questions," said an aide to Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee. "There's always a chance that you do a little more investigating and you uncover something you hadn't seen before or you hadn't realized."
A senior federal law enforcement official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation, confirmed late Friday that the bureau had reopened the inquiry.
-----
[Read more.]
From yesterday's Los Angeles Times:
-----
The FBI has reopened an inquiry into one of the most intriguing aspects of the pre-Iraq war intelligence fiasco: how the Bush administration came to rely on forged documents linking Iraq to nuclear weapons materials as part of its justification for the invasion.
The documents inspired intense U.S. interest in the buildup to the war - and they led the CIA to send a former ambassador to the African nation of Niger to investigate whether Iraq had sought the materials there. The ambassador, Joseph C. Wilson IV, found little evidence to support such a claim, and the documents were later deemed to have been forged.
But President Bush referred to the claim in his 2003 State of the Union address in making the case for the invasion. Bush's speech, Wilson's trip and the role Wilson's wife played in sending him have created a political storm that still envelops the White House.
The documents in question included letters on Niger government letterhead and purported contracts showing sales of uranium to Iraq. They were provided in 2002 to an Italian magazine, which turned them over to the U.S. Embassy in Rome.
The FBI's decision to reopen the investigation reverses the agency's announcement last month that it had finished a two-year inquiry and concluded that the forgeries were part of a moneymaking scheme - and not an effort to manipulate U.S. foreign policy.
Those findings concerned some members of the Senate Intelligence Committee after published reports that the FBI had not interviewed a former Italian spy named Rocco Martino, who was identified as the original source of the documents. The committee had requested the initial investigation.
"This is such a high-profile issue for a lot of reasons, and we think it's important to make sure there aren't lingering questions," said an aide to Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee. "There's always a chance that you do a little more investigating and you uncover something you hadn't seen before or you hadn't realized."
A senior federal law enforcement official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation, confirmed late Friday that the bureau had reopened the inquiry.
-----
[Read more.]
Anatomy of a CIA 'rendition' gone wrong
Not only is the CIA violating international law in the mistreatment and rendition of detainees in the "war on terror", they're doing it to innocent people.
From the Washington Post via MSNBC:
-----
In May 2004, the White House dispatched the U.S. ambassador in Germany to pay an unusual visit to that country's interior minister. Ambassador Daniel R. Coats carried instructions from the State Department transmitted via the CIA's Berlin station because they were too sensitive and highly classified for regular diplomatic channels, according to several people with knowledge of the conversation.
Coats informed the German minister that the CIA had wrongfully imprisoned one of its citizens, Khaled Masri, for five months, and would soon release him, the sources said. There was also a request: that the German government not disclose what it had been told even if Masri went public. The U.S. officials feared exposure of a covert action program designed to capture terrorism suspects abroad and transfer them among countries, and possible legal challenges to the CIA from Masri and others with similar allegations.
The Masri case, with new details gleaned from interviews with current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials, offers a rare study of how pressure on the CIA to apprehend al Qaeda members after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has led in some instances to detention based on thin or speculative evidence. The case also shows how complicated it can be to correct errors in a system built and operated in secret.
The CIA, working with other intelligence agencies, has captured an estimated 3,000 people, including several key leaders of al Qaeda, in its campaign to dismantle terrorist networks. It is impossible to know, however, how many mistakes the CIA and its foreign partners have made.
Unlike the military's prison for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- where 180 prisoners have been freed after a review of their cases -- there is no tribunal or judge to check the evidence against those picked up by the CIA. The same bureaucracy that decides to capture and transfer a suspect for interrogation-- a process called "rendition" -- is also responsible for policing itself for errors.
[...]
The CIA inspector general is investigating a growing number of what it calls "erroneous renditions," according to several former and current intelligence officials.
One official said about three dozen names fall in that category; others believe it is fewer. The list includes several people whose identities were offered by al Qaeda figures during CIA interrogations, officials said. One turned out to be an innocent college professor who had given the al Qaeda member a bad grade, one official said.
"They picked up the wrong people, who had no information. In many, many cases there was only some vague association" with terrorism, one CIA officer said.
While the CIA admitted to Germany's then-Interior Minister Otto Schily that it had made a mistake, it has labored to keep the specifics of Masri's case from becoming public. As a German prosecutor works to verify or debunk Masri's claims of kidnapping and torture, the part of the German government that was informed of his ordeal has remained publicly silent. Masri's attorneys say they intend to file a lawsuit in U.S. courts this week.
Masri was held for five months largely because the head of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center's al Qaeda unit "believed he was someone else," one former CIA official said. "She didn't really know. She just had a hunch."
The CIA declined to comment for this article, as did Coats and a spokesman at the German Embassy in Washington. Schily did not respond to several requests for comment last week.
-----
[Read more.]
From the Washington Post via MSNBC:
-----
In May 2004, the White House dispatched the U.S. ambassador in Germany to pay an unusual visit to that country's interior minister. Ambassador Daniel R. Coats carried instructions from the State Department transmitted via the CIA's Berlin station because they were too sensitive and highly classified for regular diplomatic channels, according to several people with knowledge of the conversation.
Coats informed the German minister that the CIA had wrongfully imprisoned one of its citizens, Khaled Masri, for five months, and would soon release him, the sources said. There was also a request: that the German government not disclose what it had been told even if Masri went public. The U.S. officials feared exposure of a covert action program designed to capture terrorism suspects abroad and transfer them among countries, and possible legal challenges to the CIA from Masri and others with similar allegations.
The Masri case, with new details gleaned from interviews with current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials, offers a rare study of how pressure on the CIA to apprehend al Qaeda members after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has led in some instances to detention based on thin or speculative evidence. The case also shows how complicated it can be to correct errors in a system built and operated in secret.
The CIA, working with other intelligence agencies, has captured an estimated 3,000 people, including several key leaders of al Qaeda, in its campaign to dismantle terrorist networks. It is impossible to know, however, how many mistakes the CIA and its foreign partners have made.
Unlike the military's prison for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- where 180 prisoners have been freed after a review of their cases -- there is no tribunal or judge to check the evidence against those picked up by the CIA. The same bureaucracy that decides to capture and transfer a suspect for interrogation-- a process called "rendition" -- is also responsible for policing itself for errors.
[...]
The CIA inspector general is investigating a growing number of what it calls "erroneous renditions," according to several former and current intelligence officials.
One official said about three dozen names fall in that category; others believe it is fewer. The list includes several people whose identities were offered by al Qaeda figures during CIA interrogations, officials said. One turned out to be an innocent college professor who had given the al Qaeda member a bad grade, one official said.
"They picked up the wrong people, who had no information. In many, many cases there was only some vague association" with terrorism, one CIA officer said.
While the CIA admitted to Germany's then-Interior Minister Otto Schily that it had made a mistake, it has labored to keep the specifics of Masri's case from becoming public. As a German prosecutor works to verify or debunk Masri's claims of kidnapping and torture, the part of the German government that was informed of his ordeal has remained publicly silent. Masri's attorneys say they intend to file a lawsuit in U.S. courts this week.
Masri was held for five months largely because the head of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center's al Qaeda unit "believed he was someone else," one former CIA official said. "She didn't really know. She just had a hunch."
The CIA declined to comment for this article, as did Coats and a spokesman at the German Embassy in Washington. Schily did not respond to several requests for comment last week.
-----
[Read more.]
ACLU to sue CIA over extraordinary rendition
A number of separate indictments and lawsuits are springing up all over the nation and all over the world that will attempt to bring members of the Bush administration to justice for their violations of domestic and international law.
Will the Powers That Be somehow manage to dodge them all, or might justice eventually be served?
From the BBC:
-----
A US civil rights groups says it is taking the CIA to court to stop the transportation of terror suspects to countries outside US legal authority.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says the intelligence agency has broken both US and international law.
It is acting for a man allegedly flown to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says she'll comment on recent reports of alleged CIA prisons abroad before starting a visit to Europe on Monday.
Ms Rice has said she will provide an answer to a EU letter expressing concern over reports last month alleging the US intelligence agency was using secret jails - particularly in eastern Europe.
[...]
"The lawsuit will charge that CIA officials at the highest level violated US and universal human rights laws when they authorised agents to abduct an innocent man, detain him incommunicado, beat him, drug and transport him to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan," the ACLU said in a news release.
[...]
The ACLU also wants to name corporations which it accuses of owning and operating the aircraft used to transport detainees secretly from country to country.
The highly secretive process is known as "extraordinary rendition" whereby intelligence agencies move and interrogate terrorism suspects outside the US, where they have no American legal protection.
It has become extremely controversial, the BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington reports.
Some individuals have claimed they were flown by the CIA to countries like Syria and Egypt, where they were tortured.
-----
[Read more.]
Will the Powers That Be somehow manage to dodge them all, or might justice eventually be served?
From the BBC:
-----
A US civil rights groups says it is taking the CIA to court to stop the transportation of terror suspects to countries outside US legal authority.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says the intelligence agency has broken both US and international law.
It is acting for a man allegedly flown to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says she'll comment on recent reports of alleged CIA prisons abroad before starting a visit to Europe on Monday.
Ms Rice has said she will provide an answer to a EU letter expressing concern over reports last month alleging the US intelligence agency was using secret jails - particularly in eastern Europe.
[...]
"The lawsuit will charge that CIA officials at the highest level violated US and universal human rights laws when they authorised agents to abduct an innocent man, detain him incommunicado, beat him, drug and transport him to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan," the ACLU said in a news release.
[...]
The ACLU also wants to name corporations which it accuses of owning and operating the aircraft used to transport detainees secretly from country to country.
The highly secretive process is known as "extraordinary rendition" whereby intelligence agencies move and interrogate terrorism suspects outside the US, where they have no American legal protection.
It has become extremely controversial, the BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington reports.
Some individuals have claimed they were flown by the CIA to countries like Syria and Egypt, where they were tortured.
-----
[Read more.]
Bush flip-flops on torture and endangers us all
After the photos from Abu Ghraib sickened the nation and the world last year, George W. Bush assured us that it was merely the work of "a few bad apples". He told us that "this country does not believe in torture."
In fact, on June 26, 2004, in a statement commemorating the U.N. International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, Bush proclaimed that "freedom from torture is an inalienable human right, and we are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law."
Those are some noble words, George. But talk is cheap.
If Bush stands so firmly against torture, why then has he threatened to veto a defense spending bill if that bill includes Senator John McCain's amendment that expressly prohibits the use of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of any detainee held by the United States government?
And if, as Bush insists, "this country does not believe in torture," why has Vice President Dick Cheney (emphasis on "Vice") been spending so much time lobbying Congress to exempt the CIA from any anti-torture legislation?
It seems that the real "bad apples" are a bit farther up the tree than they would like us to believe.
With these efforts to legitimize torture, the Bush administration is further damaging our country's reputation while also putting our own citizens at risk. How could we expect an enemy to refrain from torturing any U.S. soldier or civilian who might be captured, when we have set the trend?
Some Americans believe that torture is sometimes necessary to protect us from terrorism. They like to raise the "ticking time bomb" scenario, in which a bomb is set to explode in minutes, and the captured terrorist refuses to divulge the bomb's location. These people claim that torture would be justified in this situation, if it could force the terrorist to divulge the bomb's location. Because of the many lives that would be saved, they say, the ends would justify the means.
That dramatic scenario may work in a TV movie, but not in real life. Intelligence experts have said that it usually takes at least 24 hours to "break" a prisoner to the point where he will tell the truth (if he will tell the truth at all). In the meantime, a prisoner under torture will often say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear, just to make the pain stop. And some prisoners will remain silent under torture indefinitely, as an act of defiance or self-discipline (or simply because they're innocent and have no useful information to give).
That aside, shouldn't the United States of America be above that sort of thing? The Bush administration cited Saddam Hussein's brutal torture practices as a justification for invading Iraq. How much weight does that argument carry when we ourselves torture our Iraqi prisoners - and in the same prison where Saddam did his dirty work?
I was raised to regard the United States as a champion of democracy and human rights. Indeed, that is how much of the world saw us until very recently. Now we are viewed as torturers, and our actions have sparked a new generation of terrorists who seek revenge for their tortured brethren.
The "war on terror" cannot be won this way.
We would do well to keep in mind the words of Dr. William F. Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA, who said: "Torture never makes the world safer, only more hideous."
In fact, on June 26, 2004, in a statement commemorating the U.N. International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, Bush proclaimed that "freedom from torture is an inalienable human right, and we are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law."
Those are some noble words, George. But talk is cheap.
If Bush stands so firmly against torture, why then has he threatened to veto a defense spending bill if that bill includes Senator John McCain's amendment that expressly prohibits the use of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of any detainee held by the United States government?
And if, as Bush insists, "this country does not believe in torture," why has Vice President Dick Cheney (emphasis on "Vice") been spending so much time lobbying Congress to exempt the CIA from any anti-torture legislation?
It seems that the real "bad apples" are a bit farther up the tree than they would like us to believe.
With these efforts to legitimize torture, the Bush administration is further damaging our country's reputation while also putting our own citizens at risk. How could we expect an enemy to refrain from torturing any U.S. soldier or civilian who might be captured, when we have set the trend?
Some Americans believe that torture is sometimes necessary to protect us from terrorism. They like to raise the "ticking time bomb" scenario, in which a bomb is set to explode in minutes, and the captured terrorist refuses to divulge the bomb's location. These people claim that torture would be justified in this situation, if it could force the terrorist to divulge the bomb's location. Because of the many lives that would be saved, they say, the ends would justify the means.
That dramatic scenario may work in a TV movie, but not in real life. Intelligence experts have said that it usually takes at least 24 hours to "break" a prisoner to the point where he will tell the truth (if he will tell the truth at all). In the meantime, a prisoner under torture will often say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear, just to make the pain stop. And some prisoners will remain silent under torture indefinitely, as an act of defiance or self-discipline (or simply because they're innocent and have no useful information to give).
That aside, shouldn't the United States of America be above that sort of thing? The Bush administration cited Saddam Hussein's brutal torture practices as a justification for invading Iraq. How much weight does that argument carry when we ourselves torture our Iraqi prisoners - and in the same prison where Saddam did his dirty work?
I was raised to regard the United States as a champion of democracy and human rights. Indeed, that is how much of the world saw us until very recently. Now we are viewed as torturers, and our actions have sparked a new generation of terrorists who seek revenge for their tortured brethren.
The "war on terror" cannot be won this way.
We would do well to keep in mind the words of Dr. William F. Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA, who said: "Torture never makes the world safer, only more hideous."
03 December 2005
An open letter to Congress from a veteran and military dad
From StanGoff.com:
-----
(Disclaiming in advance for the rare exceptions in Congress)
If there is one thing we can always count on, it’s politicians who walk over human corpses to show fear only in the face of something as formless and abstract as an opinion poll. The veterans and military families antiwar movement are well-versed on so-called realism – and that deference we are supposed to exercise when we approach elected officials, hat in hand, for a few crumbs of your attention and support.
We understand power very well.
You are fighting each other for your careers, and you are retaining your power over us through distance and guile, and trying to promote that power by pretending you are hearing our “concerns.” But we have more than “concerns” at stake here.
It is because we understand power that we haven’t the slightest intention of allowing ourselves to be used to promote your careers past the 2006 elections. If you fail to demand US withdrawal now, you are supporting the war; and if you support the war, as far as we are concerned, you can go straight to hell in 2006.
It is because we understand power that we are not going to forgive and forget that when the war fever was up, fed by the lies of Republicans, the war was facilitated by the eager xenophobic complicity of most Democrats, and by the slavish obedience of the corporate press. Most of you not only co-signed what you knew to be an illegal invasion – you have continued to sign the checks to perpetuate the war.
You wanted to be lied to about the war, because the polls supported the war, and you were sniffing the political air.
It is because we understand power that we know that most of you did this out of craven opportunism and a concern for your political ambitions – knowing full well that no one you loved was likely to be sent home without a limb, without an eye, without a life.
It is because we understand power that we know how cynically cavalier you are with the lives of others, and how narcissistically self-promoting.
It is because we understand power that we understand why many of you are backpedaling in your support for the war. You are maneuvering to be “critical” of the war. You “demand” the administration provide “an effective exit strategy.” And you haven’t said a goddamned substantive thing, as the cameras shutter away for you. And you want us to play along – so you can beat Republicans without taking a single real position. You don’t want to stop this war. You want to win an election. By the time you win that election, another thousand troops and another 20,000 Iraqis could be dead. We do not calculate time the way you do.
It is because we understand power that we know most of you will stand by while those of us with less privilege see our loved ones sent to kill and die. The real corpses produced by the exercise of power are no more to you than a political calculation.
We understand power, because we know what really stands behind it. Power is embodied in the mounted cops you use to police our protests. Power is expressed by the armed guards for your gated communities. Power is the ability to kill and maim and get away with it, even if you dress it up in $5,000 suits and trot it out on the talk-show circuit, on C-Span, in your interviews with CNN.
Power is projected onto other peoples using your Cruise missiles and A-10s and Bradley fighting vehicles and the people who join the military. And the price of that power doesn’t merely come from our pockets. We probably wouldn’t fight you about how you rob us for your pork barrel defense contracts. The price that has us in motion right now – you really must understand this, because it means we will never back off – is exacted on the bodies of human beings.
The price is exacted with mortars, with IEDs, with high powered rifle ammunition, with bombs, with the same A-10s and Bradleys; and it is exacted on the bodies of our loved ones and the loved ones of the Iraqi people.
That’s why we are not going to grant you the power to manipulate us, to contain us, to corral us, or to pimp our grief over this war and its costs on behalf of your political careers or the needs of a political party. That’s why were are going to be rudely explicit when we say that your bombast against the Bush administration – as if they did this without your help – in calling for a more effective “exit strategy” and demanding that people merely think about a plan for withdrawal from Iraq that will take months or years… this verbiage is meaningless and manipulative. We will never stand for studying a withdrawal, for phasing a withdrawal, for delaying a withdrawal, for setting conditions for a withdrawal, or for partial withdrawal. Never.
Our demand from the beginning remains unchanged. It is for withdrawal, and for immediate, unilateral, unconditional withdrawal; and if political careers go up in smoke as a consequence, we do not give a good goddamn. People are dying in Iraq as a direct result of this war every single day. Go back to your fucking law offices and let our children live.
Gradual, phased, planned, strategized, conditioned, delayed, partial withdrawals get implemented, if at all, while those military sedans continue to roll up in front of people’s houses to announce the extinction of a human being to his or her family… and while the bodies are dropped into the fresh graves at the cemeteries of Iraq.
Gradual, phased, planned, strategized, conditioned, delayed, partial withdrawals get implemented, if at all, while the poisons accumulate in the soil and water and food of Iraq, and in the bodies of Iraqis and occupation troops.
Gradual, phased, planned, strategized, conditioned, delayed, partial withdrawals get implemented, if at all, while the hospitals fill up with the lamed, maimed, blinded, and disfigured.
Gradual, phased, planned, strategized, conditioned, delayed, partial withdrawals get implemented, if at all, while the grief and horror associated with this criminal war become the daily emotional fare of more and more people, occupation forces and Iraqis.
No member of Congress has the moral right to dither on the question of his or her precious career while a single constituent is facing the fear of that devastating knock on the door. We say the emperor has no clothes; and we say we know you when you feign “concern” with your eye fixed firmly on your ambition.
An exit is not a strategy. An exit is a command.
If the commander in chief won’t give that command, then you in Congress – if you want to salvage anything that looks vaguely like a conscience or a soul – will refuse to grant this administration another penny to continue this war. We are not hearing you when you tap dance about political “realism.” The mounting mass of corpses, that you have walked over every time you voted a cent to continue this war, is about as real as it gets. Don’t you dare ever lecture military families and veterans about realism. And don’t you doubt that we understand power.
-----
[Read more.]
-----
(Disclaiming in advance for the rare exceptions in Congress)
If there is one thing we can always count on, it’s politicians who walk over human corpses to show fear only in the face of something as formless and abstract as an opinion poll. The veterans and military families antiwar movement are well-versed on so-called realism – and that deference we are supposed to exercise when we approach elected officials, hat in hand, for a few crumbs of your attention and support.
We understand power very well.
You are fighting each other for your careers, and you are retaining your power over us through distance and guile, and trying to promote that power by pretending you are hearing our “concerns.” But we have more than “concerns” at stake here.
It is because we understand power that we haven’t the slightest intention of allowing ourselves to be used to promote your careers past the 2006 elections. If you fail to demand US withdrawal now, you are supporting the war; and if you support the war, as far as we are concerned, you can go straight to hell in 2006.
It is because we understand power that we are not going to forgive and forget that when the war fever was up, fed by the lies of Republicans, the war was facilitated by the eager xenophobic complicity of most Democrats, and by the slavish obedience of the corporate press. Most of you not only co-signed what you knew to be an illegal invasion – you have continued to sign the checks to perpetuate the war.
You wanted to be lied to about the war, because the polls supported the war, and you were sniffing the political air.
It is because we understand power that we know that most of you did this out of craven opportunism and a concern for your political ambitions – knowing full well that no one you loved was likely to be sent home without a limb, without an eye, without a life.
It is because we understand power that we know how cynically cavalier you are with the lives of others, and how narcissistically self-promoting.
It is because we understand power that we understand why many of you are backpedaling in your support for the war. You are maneuvering to be “critical” of the war. You “demand” the administration provide “an effective exit strategy.” And you haven’t said a goddamned substantive thing, as the cameras shutter away for you. And you want us to play along – so you can beat Republicans without taking a single real position. You don’t want to stop this war. You want to win an election. By the time you win that election, another thousand troops and another 20,000 Iraqis could be dead. We do not calculate time the way you do.
It is because we understand power that we know most of you will stand by while those of us with less privilege see our loved ones sent to kill and die. The real corpses produced by the exercise of power are no more to you than a political calculation.
We understand power, because we know what really stands behind it. Power is embodied in the mounted cops you use to police our protests. Power is expressed by the armed guards for your gated communities. Power is the ability to kill and maim and get away with it, even if you dress it up in $5,000 suits and trot it out on the talk-show circuit, on C-Span, in your interviews with CNN.
Power is projected onto other peoples using your Cruise missiles and A-10s and Bradley fighting vehicles and the people who join the military. And the price of that power doesn’t merely come from our pockets. We probably wouldn’t fight you about how you rob us for your pork barrel defense contracts. The price that has us in motion right now – you really must understand this, because it means we will never back off – is exacted on the bodies of human beings.
The price is exacted with mortars, with IEDs, with high powered rifle ammunition, with bombs, with the same A-10s and Bradleys; and it is exacted on the bodies of our loved ones and the loved ones of the Iraqi people.
That’s why we are not going to grant you the power to manipulate us, to contain us, to corral us, or to pimp our grief over this war and its costs on behalf of your political careers or the needs of a political party. That’s why were are going to be rudely explicit when we say that your bombast against the Bush administration – as if they did this without your help – in calling for a more effective “exit strategy” and demanding that people merely think about a plan for withdrawal from Iraq that will take months or years… this verbiage is meaningless and manipulative. We will never stand for studying a withdrawal, for phasing a withdrawal, for delaying a withdrawal, for setting conditions for a withdrawal, or for partial withdrawal. Never.
Our demand from the beginning remains unchanged. It is for withdrawal, and for immediate, unilateral, unconditional withdrawal; and if political careers go up in smoke as a consequence, we do not give a good goddamn. People are dying in Iraq as a direct result of this war every single day. Go back to your fucking law offices and let our children live.
Gradual, phased, planned, strategized, conditioned, delayed, partial withdrawals get implemented, if at all, while those military sedans continue to roll up in front of people’s houses to announce the extinction of a human being to his or her family… and while the bodies are dropped into the fresh graves at the cemeteries of Iraq.
Gradual, phased, planned, strategized, conditioned, delayed, partial withdrawals get implemented, if at all, while the poisons accumulate in the soil and water and food of Iraq, and in the bodies of Iraqis and occupation troops.
Gradual, phased, planned, strategized, conditioned, delayed, partial withdrawals get implemented, if at all, while the hospitals fill up with the lamed, maimed, blinded, and disfigured.
Gradual, phased, planned, strategized, conditioned, delayed, partial withdrawals get implemented, if at all, while the grief and horror associated with this criminal war become the daily emotional fare of more and more people, occupation forces and Iraqis.
No member of Congress has the moral right to dither on the question of his or her precious career while a single constituent is facing the fear of that devastating knock on the door. We say the emperor has no clothes; and we say we know you when you feign “concern” with your eye fixed firmly on your ambition.
An exit is not a strategy. An exit is a command.
If the commander in chief won’t give that command, then you in Congress – if you want to salvage anything that looks vaguely like a conscience or a soul – will refuse to grant this administration another penny to continue this war. We are not hearing you when you tap dance about political “realism.” The mounting mass of corpses, that you have walked over every time you voted a cent to continue this war, is about as real as it gets. Don’t you dare ever lecture military families and veterans about realism. And don’t you doubt that we understand power.
-----
[Read more.]
02 December 2005
New Alito documents underscore emerging credibility gap
From yesterday's Washington Post:
-----
Newly released documents by Samuel A. Alito Jr. touching on abortion and other issues have pumped new life into efforts to sharply challenge his nomination to the Supreme Court, liberal activists said yesterday.
Details of Alito's 1985 strategy to undermine the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling have energized abortion rights groups, they said, but broader questions about his overall credibility may eventually prove more problematic to the Bush administration's confirmation efforts. One Democratic senator demanded yesterday that Alito explain why he omitted references to a 17-page abortion-strategy memo in a questionnaire recently returned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, while another senator -- Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the committee's senior member -- said that "a credibility gap is emerging with each new piece of information released on Judge Alito's record."
In a sign of Republican nervousness about the criticisms, Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) quickly scheduled a meeting with Alito for today, after which the senator will speak to reporters. Although Specter sometimes differs with President Bush, the White House credits him with stepping in to smooth out controversies in the previous confirmation efforts, for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and White House counsel Harriet Miers, who ultimately withdrew and was replaced by Alito.
The flurry of events was triggered by the release Wednesday of the lengthy 1985 memo in which Alito, then a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration, outlined a strategy for attacking the 1973 Roe ruling without making a "frontal assault" that might prove unwinnable. "What can be made of this opportunity to advance the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in the meantime, of mitigating its effects?" he asked in the memo concerning a Pennsylvania case before the Supreme Court, Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Alito did not cite the case in his responses to the Senate questionnaire, also released on Wednesday, which asked him to describe the most significant litigation matters he has handled. The omission angered Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, which will convene for Alito's confirmation hearing on Jan. 9.
"In light of your 17-page memorandum and the accounts of your former colleagues, your 'participation in the litigation' was clearly substantial," Schumer said in a letter asking Alito to explain. Citing a previously disclosed memo in which Alito successfully sought a promotion in the Justice Department, Schumer added: "In your 1985 job application, written only a few months later, you appeared to highlight your work on the Thornburgh case."
-----
[Read more.]
-----
Newly released documents by Samuel A. Alito Jr. touching on abortion and other issues have pumped new life into efforts to sharply challenge his nomination to the Supreme Court, liberal activists said yesterday.
Details of Alito's 1985 strategy to undermine the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling have energized abortion rights groups, they said, but broader questions about his overall credibility may eventually prove more problematic to the Bush administration's confirmation efforts. One Democratic senator demanded yesterday that Alito explain why he omitted references to a 17-page abortion-strategy memo in a questionnaire recently returned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, while another senator -- Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the committee's senior member -- said that "a credibility gap is emerging with each new piece of information released on Judge Alito's record."
In a sign of Republican nervousness about the criticisms, Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) quickly scheduled a meeting with Alito for today, after which the senator will speak to reporters. Although Specter sometimes differs with President Bush, the White House credits him with stepping in to smooth out controversies in the previous confirmation efforts, for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and White House counsel Harriet Miers, who ultimately withdrew and was replaced by Alito.
The flurry of events was triggered by the release Wednesday of the lengthy 1985 memo in which Alito, then a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration, outlined a strategy for attacking the 1973 Roe ruling without making a "frontal assault" that might prove unwinnable. "What can be made of this opportunity to advance the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in the meantime, of mitigating its effects?" he asked in the memo concerning a Pennsylvania case before the Supreme Court, Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Alito did not cite the case in his responses to the Senate questionnaire, also released on Wednesday, which asked him to describe the most significant litigation matters he has handled. The omission angered Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, which will convene for Alito's confirmation hearing on Jan. 9.
"In light of your 17-page memorandum and the accounts of your former colleagues, your 'participation in the litigation' was clearly substantial," Schumer said in a letter asking Alito to explain. Citing a previously disclosed memo in which Alito successfully sought a promotion in the Justice Department, Schumer added: "In your 1985 job application, written only a few months later, you appeared to highlight your work on the Thornburgh case."
-----
[Read more.]
Update on Rove/Plamegate
From today's New York Times via truthout:
-----
A conversation between Karl Rove's lawyer and a journalist for Time magazine led Mr. Rove to change his testimony last year to the grand jury in the C.I.A. leak case, people knowledgeable about the sequence of events said Thursday.
Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, spoke in the summer or early fall of 2004 with Viveca Novak, a reporter for Time magazine. In that conversation, Mr. Luskin heard from Ms. Novak that a colleague at Time, Matthew Cooper, might have interviewed Mr. Rove about the undercover C.I.A. officer at the heart of the case, the people said.
Time reported this week that the prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has summoned Ms. Novak to testify about a conversation she had with Mr. Luskin, but provided no explanation of what Mr. Fitzgerald might be looking for. The account provided Thursday by people with knowledge of the discussions between Ms. Novak and Mr. Luskin suggests that Mr. Fitzgerald is still trying to determine whether Mr. Rove was fully forthcoming with investigators and whether he altered his grand jury testimony about his dealings with reporters only after learning that one, Mr. Cooper, might identify him as a source.
Ms. Novak declined to comment, as did Mr. Luskin and Randall Samborn, Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman. Jim Kelly, Time's managing editor, said he would not comment on the matter. Mr. Cooper and James Carney, the magazine's Washington bureau chief, also declined to comment.
The people who agreed to discuss the case were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter and could face reprisals if they did so. Ms. Novak's involvement is the latest twist in a case that has cast light on the close relationships between journalists, lawyers and government officials in Washington. I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is the only person who has been charged with a crime, in an indictment that says he misled a grand jury and investigators about his conversations in 2003 with journalists about Valerie Wilson, the undercover Central Intelligence Agency officer.
Lawyers in the case have said that Mr. Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, remains in legal jeopardy because his initial statements to investigators and to the grand jury were not accurate.
Months before the conversation between Ms. Novak and Mr. Luskin, Mr. Rove testified to the grand jury that he had held a conversation about the C.I.A. officer with only one journalist, Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist. Mr. Rove did not disclose that he had also spoken to Mr. Cooper either in his first appearance before the grand jury, in February 2004, or in an earlier interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
But after his conversation with Ms. Novak, who is not related to the columnist, Mr. Luskin asked Mr. Rove to have the White House search for any record of a discussion between Mr. Rove and Mr. Cooper around the time that Ms. Wilson's identity became public in July 2003.
The search turned up an e-mail message from Mr. Rove to another senior White House official, Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, that recounted a conversation between Mr. Rove and Mr. Cooper. On Oct. 14, 2004, Mr. Rove went before the grand jury again to alter his earlier account, by saying he had also discussed the C.I.A. officer with Mr. Cooper.
Associates of Mr. Rove said that he did not initially recall the conversation with Mr. Cooper amid the hundreds of calls and e-mail messages he deals with each day, and that once the message to Mr. Hadley was uncovered he brought it to prosecutors and testified fully.
They have said Mr. Rove had signed a waiver to allow reporters to testify about their confidential discussions with him and that he testified about his conversation with Mr. Cooper long before Mr. Cooper did.
But Mr. Fitzgerald appears to be evaluating whether Mr. Rove came forward with the information only after it became apparent that Mr. Cooper might be compelled to testify about it. It is not clear precisely what Ms. Novak told Mr. Luskin, or what the context for their conversation had been.
People involved in the case said that at a minimum Ms. Novak communicated to Mr. Luskin that Mr. Rove might face legal problems because of potential testimony from Mr. Cooper, her colleague. They said Ms. Novak had told Mr. Luskin that Mr. Cooper might have been in contact with Mr. Rove about Ms. Wilson in the days before her identity became public. Mr. Cooper helped write an article on Time's Web site in July 2003 that was the second, after Mr. Novak's column, to divulge Ms. Wilson's identity, using her maiden name, Valerie Plame.
-----
[Read more.]
-----
A conversation between Karl Rove's lawyer and a journalist for Time magazine led Mr. Rove to change his testimony last year to the grand jury in the C.I.A. leak case, people knowledgeable about the sequence of events said Thursday.
Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, spoke in the summer or early fall of 2004 with Viveca Novak, a reporter for Time magazine. In that conversation, Mr. Luskin heard from Ms. Novak that a colleague at Time, Matthew Cooper, might have interviewed Mr. Rove about the undercover C.I.A. officer at the heart of the case, the people said.
Time reported this week that the prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has summoned Ms. Novak to testify about a conversation she had with Mr. Luskin, but provided no explanation of what Mr. Fitzgerald might be looking for. The account provided Thursday by people with knowledge of the discussions between Ms. Novak and Mr. Luskin suggests that Mr. Fitzgerald is still trying to determine whether Mr. Rove was fully forthcoming with investigators and whether he altered his grand jury testimony about his dealings with reporters only after learning that one, Mr. Cooper, might identify him as a source.
Ms. Novak declined to comment, as did Mr. Luskin and Randall Samborn, Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman. Jim Kelly, Time's managing editor, said he would not comment on the matter. Mr. Cooper and James Carney, the magazine's Washington bureau chief, also declined to comment.
The people who agreed to discuss the case were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter and could face reprisals if they did so. Ms. Novak's involvement is the latest twist in a case that has cast light on the close relationships between journalists, lawyers and government officials in Washington. I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is the only person who has been charged with a crime, in an indictment that says he misled a grand jury and investigators about his conversations in 2003 with journalists about Valerie Wilson, the undercover Central Intelligence Agency officer.
Lawyers in the case have said that Mr. Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, remains in legal jeopardy because his initial statements to investigators and to the grand jury were not accurate.
Months before the conversation between Ms. Novak and Mr. Luskin, Mr. Rove testified to the grand jury that he had held a conversation about the C.I.A. officer with only one journalist, Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist. Mr. Rove did not disclose that he had also spoken to Mr. Cooper either in his first appearance before the grand jury, in February 2004, or in an earlier interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
But after his conversation with Ms. Novak, who is not related to the columnist, Mr. Luskin asked Mr. Rove to have the White House search for any record of a discussion between Mr. Rove and Mr. Cooper around the time that Ms. Wilson's identity became public in July 2003.
The search turned up an e-mail message from Mr. Rove to another senior White House official, Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, that recounted a conversation between Mr. Rove and Mr. Cooper. On Oct. 14, 2004, Mr. Rove went before the grand jury again to alter his earlier account, by saying he had also discussed the C.I.A. officer with Mr. Cooper.
Associates of Mr. Rove said that he did not initially recall the conversation with Mr. Cooper amid the hundreds of calls and e-mail messages he deals with each day, and that once the message to Mr. Hadley was uncovered he brought it to prosecutors and testified fully.
They have said Mr. Rove had signed a waiver to allow reporters to testify about their confidential discussions with him and that he testified about his conversation with Mr. Cooper long before Mr. Cooper did.
But Mr. Fitzgerald appears to be evaluating whether Mr. Rove came forward with the information only after it became apparent that Mr. Cooper might be compelled to testify about it. It is not clear precisely what Ms. Novak told Mr. Luskin, or what the context for their conversation had been.
People involved in the case said that at a minimum Ms. Novak communicated to Mr. Luskin that Mr. Rove might face legal problems because of potential testimony from Mr. Cooper, her colleague. They said Ms. Novak had told Mr. Luskin that Mr. Cooper might have been in contact with Mr. Rove about Ms. Wilson in the days before her identity became public. Mr. Cooper helped write an article on Time's Web site in July 2003 that was the second, after Mr. Novak's column, to divulge Ms. Wilson's identity, using her maiden name, Valerie Plame.
-----
[Read more.]
1,000th execution carried out
Earlier today, North Carolina carried out the 1,000th execution in the U.S. since the death penalty was reinstated in the 1970s. [Read story.]
We know that some of them were innocent.
The next person to be wrongfully accused could be you.
We know that some of them were innocent.
The next person to be wrongfully accused could be you.
An African country is more enlightened than the U.S.
South Africa just passed a ruling that extends marriage equality to same-sex couples.
Think about it: An African nation has demonstrated more advanced social progress than we could ever hope for under the current administration in Washington.
The following is from a press release issued yesterday by the Human Rights Campaign:
-----
"This ruling demonstrates South Africa's commitment to equality for all of its citizens," said Human Rights Campaign Marriage Project Vice-President Seth Kilbourn
WASHINGTON - South Africa's Constitutional Court extended equal rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples and their families today in a decision that will allow same-sex couples the freedom to marry in the next year. All 11 justices on the court ruled for marriage equality, with one justice advocating that the ruling go into effect immediately.
"This ruling demonstrates South Africa's commitment to equality for all of its citizens," said Seth Kilbourn, vice-president for the Human Rights Campaign marriage project. "South Africa joins the trend of nations around the world empowering every couple with the same tools to protect their families, and recognizing their equal dignity as citizens."
South Africa becomes the first African nation to extend marriage to same-sex couples. Elsewhere, Canada, Belgium, Netherlands and Spain grant equal marriage rights. Additionally Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom all offer some level of domestic partnership or civil union protections to same-sex couples and their families.
The decision is the result of two cases - one filed by Marie Adriaana Fourie and Cecelia Johanna Bonthuys and the other filed by the Gay and Lesbian Equality Project. South Africa holds the distinction as having the only constitution in the world that explicitly includes protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Among the rulings supporters is Anglican Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane who stated, "We recognize that we live in a country which is home to many beliefs, cultures and practices." As is the case in Massachusetts - the only state in the U.S. where same-sex couples can marry - Ndungane noted, "This ruling does not compel any religious denomination or minister of religion to approve or perform same-sex marriages, therefore it should not cause alarm."
Think about it: An African nation has demonstrated more advanced social progress than we could ever hope for under the current administration in Washington.
The following is from a press release issued yesterday by the Human Rights Campaign:
-----
"This ruling demonstrates South Africa's commitment to equality for all of its citizens," said Human Rights Campaign Marriage Project Vice-President Seth Kilbourn
WASHINGTON - South Africa's Constitutional Court extended equal rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples and their families today in a decision that will allow same-sex couples the freedom to marry in the next year. All 11 justices on the court ruled for marriage equality, with one justice advocating that the ruling go into effect immediately.
"This ruling demonstrates South Africa's commitment to equality for all of its citizens," said Seth Kilbourn, vice-president for the Human Rights Campaign marriage project. "South Africa joins the trend of nations around the world empowering every couple with the same tools to protect their families, and recognizing their equal dignity as citizens."
South Africa becomes the first African nation to extend marriage to same-sex couples. Elsewhere, Canada, Belgium, Netherlands and Spain grant equal marriage rights. Additionally Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom all offer some level of domestic partnership or civil union protections to same-sex couples and their families.
The decision is the result of two cases - one filed by Marie Adriaana Fourie and Cecelia Johanna Bonthuys and the other filed by the Gay and Lesbian Equality Project. South Africa holds the distinction as having the only constitution in the world that explicitly includes protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Among the rulings supporters is Anglican Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane who stated, "We recognize that we live in a country which is home to many beliefs, cultures and practices." As is the case in Massachusetts - the only state in the U.S. where same-sex couples can marry - Ndungane noted, "This ruling does not compel any religious denomination or minister of religion to approve or perform same-sex marriages, therefore it should not cause alarm."
01 December 2005
Second annual World AIDS Day report card gives poor marks to U.S. Response
Today is World AIDS Day. In commemoration of this date, the Human Rights Campaign has issued the following press release:
-----
"These grades are not simply letters in the alphabet; they are emblems of our government's failure to respond to one of the most devastating health crises in history," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.
WASHINGTON - The U.S. response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic was given poor grades today in the Human Rights Campaign's second annual World AIDS Day report card. The report card rates the U.S. government's response to the HIV/AIDS crisis in four key areas: prevention, care and treatment, research, and global AIDS.
"These grades are not simply letters in the alphabet; they are emblems of our government's failure to respond to one of the most devastating national and global health crises in history," said Joe Solmonese, Human Rights Campaign president. "Every hour, two young Americans become infected with HIV and the government's irresponsible response is to cut funding and abandon science. The Bush administration and Congressional leadership's response to this disease has been abysmal."
The Human Rights Campaign issued its first World AIDS Day report card in 2004. Since then, grades have declined even further. 2004 grades were: Prevention (F); Care and Treatment (D); Research (C); and Global Aids (C).
"We need a coordinated and comprehensive approach to fight HIV and AIDS," said Solmonese. "Many leaders have courageously and diligently championed HIV/AIDS issues and this report card does nothing to take away from the good work they are doing. This assessment reminds us all that much critical work remains to be done. We cannot idly sit by and watch as treatment goes under-funded, prevention efforts deny people at risk the unvarnished truth about how protect themselves. Ideology should never drive our response to HIV and AIDS."
Prevention: F
As AIDS ravages minority communities, government programs are failing to adequately respond to the epidemic among vulnerable populations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that approximately 46 percent of African-American men who have sex with men in five major U.S. cities are HIV positive and almost two-thirds of those infected do not know their status. Infections among gay and bisexual men rose eight percent and still comprise the largest percentage of new HIV cases.
Care and Treatment: F
This year has seen significant cuts to federal HIV/AIDS treatment and care programs. After consistently flat-funding most of the Ryan White CARE Act for five years and passing billions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid, a CDC study determined that 211,000 Americans are not receiving antiretroviral treatments they need.
Research: D
The most recent version of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill contained a less than 1 percent increase to the National Institute of Health, the smallest percentage increase since 1970.
Global AIDS: C
The highest mark on the report card goes to Global AIDS as Congress passed and the President signed the Assistance for Orphans and Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act this year. However, this year the U.S. will not fully meet its funding commitment to the Global Fund and the U.S. government has mandated that at least one-third of contributions to international programs must be devoted to abstinence-only programs that are seriously flawed and leave little control to local experts.
-----
"These grades are not simply letters in the alphabet; they are emblems of our government's failure to respond to one of the most devastating health crises in history," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.
WASHINGTON - The U.S. response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic was given poor grades today in the Human Rights Campaign's second annual World AIDS Day report card. The report card rates the U.S. government's response to the HIV/AIDS crisis in four key areas: prevention, care and treatment, research, and global AIDS.
"These grades are not simply letters in the alphabet; they are emblems of our government's failure to respond to one of the most devastating national and global health crises in history," said Joe Solmonese, Human Rights Campaign president. "Every hour, two young Americans become infected with HIV and the government's irresponsible response is to cut funding and abandon science. The Bush administration and Congressional leadership's response to this disease has been abysmal."
The Human Rights Campaign issued its first World AIDS Day report card in 2004. Since then, grades have declined even further. 2004 grades were: Prevention (F); Care and Treatment (D); Research (C); and Global Aids (C).
"We need a coordinated and comprehensive approach to fight HIV and AIDS," said Solmonese. "Many leaders have courageously and diligently championed HIV/AIDS issues and this report card does nothing to take away from the good work they are doing. This assessment reminds us all that much critical work remains to be done. We cannot idly sit by and watch as treatment goes under-funded, prevention efforts deny people at risk the unvarnished truth about how protect themselves. Ideology should never drive our response to HIV and AIDS."
Prevention: F
As AIDS ravages minority communities, government programs are failing to adequately respond to the epidemic among vulnerable populations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that approximately 46 percent of African-American men who have sex with men in five major U.S. cities are HIV positive and almost two-thirds of those infected do not know their status. Infections among gay and bisexual men rose eight percent and still comprise the largest percentage of new HIV cases.
Care and Treatment: F
This year has seen significant cuts to federal HIV/AIDS treatment and care programs. After consistently flat-funding most of the Ryan White CARE Act for five years and passing billions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid, a CDC study determined that 211,000 Americans are not receiving antiretroviral treatments they need.
Research: D
The most recent version of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill contained a less than 1 percent increase to the National Institute of Health, the smallest percentage increase since 1970.
Global AIDS: C
The highest mark on the report card goes to Global AIDS as Congress passed and the President signed the Assistance for Orphans and Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act this year. However, this year the U.S. will not fully meet its funding commitment to the Global Fund and the U.S. government has mandated that at least one-third of contributions to international programs must be devoted to abstinence-only programs that are seriously flawed and leave little control to local experts.
U.S. military covertly pays to run stories in Iraqi press
Big Brother goes to Baghdad.
From yesterday's Los Angeles Times:
-----
As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.
The articles, written by U.S. military "information operations" troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times.
Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country.
Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles, with headlines such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism," since the effort began this year.
The operation is designed to mask any connection with the U.S. military. The Pentagon has a contract with a small Washington-based firm called Lincoln Group, which helps translate and place the stories. The Lincoln Group's Iraqi staff, or its subcontractors, sometimes pose as freelance reporters or advertising executives when they deliver the stories to Baghdad media outlets.
The military's effort to disseminate propaganda in the Iraqi media is taking place even as U.S. officials are pledging to promote democratic principles, political transparency and freedom of speech in a country emerging from decades of dictatorship and corruption.
It comes as the State Department is training Iraqi reporters in basic journalism skills and Western media ethics, including one workshop titled "The Role of Press in a Democratic Society." Standards vary widely at Iraqi newspapers, many of which are shoestring operations.
Underscoring the importance U.S. officials place on development of a Western-style media, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday cited the proliferation of news organizations in Iraq as one of the country's great successes since the ouster of President Saddam Hussein. The hundreds of newspapers, television stations and other "free media" offer a "relief valve" for the Iraqi public to debate the issues of their burgeoning democracy, Rumsfeld said.
The military's information operations campaign has sparked a backlash among some senior military officers in Iraq and at the Pentagon who argue that attempts to subvert the news media could destroy the U.S. military's credibility in other nations and with the American public.
"Here we are trying to create the principles of democracy in Iraq. Every speech we give in that country is about democracy. And we're breaking all the first principles of democracy when we're doing it," said a senior Pentagon official who opposes the practice of planting stories in the Iraqi media.
The arrangement with Lincoln Group is evidence of how far the Pentagon has moved to blur the traditional boundaries between military public affairs — the dissemination of factual information to the media — and psychological and information operations, which use propaganda and sometimes misleading information to advance the objectives of a military campaign.
The Bush administration has come under criticism for distributing video and news stories in the United States without identifying the federal government as their source and for paying American journalists to promote administration policies, practices the Government Accountability Office has labeled "covert propaganda."
Military officials familiar with the effort in Iraq said much of it was being directed by the "Information Operations Task Force" in Baghdad, part of the multinational corps headquarters commanded by Army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were critical of the effort and were not authorized to speak publicly about it.
A spokesman for Vines declined to comment for this article. A Lincoln Group spokesman also declined to comment.
-----
[Read more.]
From yesterday's Los Angeles Times:
-----
As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.
The articles, written by U.S. military "information operations" troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times.
Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country.
Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles, with headlines such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism," since the effort began this year.
The operation is designed to mask any connection with the U.S. military. The Pentagon has a contract with a small Washington-based firm called Lincoln Group, which helps translate and place the stories. The Lincoln Group's Iraqi staff, or its subcontractors, sometimes pose as freelance reporters or advertising executives when they deliver the stories to Baghdad media outlets.
The military's effort to disseminate propaganda in the Iraqi media is taking place even as U.S. officials are pledging to promote democratic principles, political transparency and freedom of speech in a country emerging from decades of dictatorship and corruption.
It comes as the State Department is training Iraqi reporters in basic journalism skills and Western media ethics, including one workshop titled "The Role of Press in a Democratic Society." Standards vary widely at Iraqi newspapers, many of which are shoestring operations.
Underscoring the importance U.S. officials place on development of a Western-style media, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday cited the proliferation of news organizations in Iraq as one of the country's great successes since the ouster of President Saddam Hussein. The hundreds of newspapers, television stations and other "free media" offer a "relief valve" for the Iraqi public to debate the issues of their burgeoning democracy, Rumsfeld said.
The military's information operations campaign has sparked a backlash among some senior military officers in Iraq and at the Pentagon who argue that attempts to subvert the news media could destroy the U.S. military's credibility in other nations and with the American public.
"Here we are trying to create the principles of democracy in Iraq. Every speech we give in that country is about democracy. And we're breaking all the first principles of democracy when we're doing it," said a senior Pentagon official who opposes the practice of planting stories in the Iraqi media.
The arrangement with Lincoln Group is evidence of how far the Pentagon has moved to blur the traditional boundaries between military public affairs — the dissemination of factual information to the media — and psychological and information operations, which use propaganda and sometimes misleading information to advance the objectives of a military campaign.
The Bush administration has come under criticism for distributing video and news stories in the United States without identifying the federal government as their source and for paying American journalists to promote administration policies, practices the Government Accountability Office has labeled "covert propaganda."
Military officials familiar with the effort in Iraq said much of it was being directed by the "Information Operations Task Force" in Baghdad, part of the multinational corps headquarters commanded by Army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were critical of the effort and were not authorized to speak publicly about it.
A spokesman for Vines declined to comment for this article. A Lincoln Group spokesman also declined to comment.
-----
[Read more.]
30 November 2005
U.S. gums up works at Montreal climate talks
From Grist Magazine:
-----
Representatives of the world's governments are currently gathered in Montreal for a historic summit on the most pressing problem facing civilization: global warming. And the U.S.? "The United States is opposed to any such discussions," says Harlan Watson, who bears the somewhat misleading title of "chief U.S. climate negotiator." Watson is quite open about the fact that he's in Montreal to prevent negotiation. Instead, he argues that "there's more than one way to approach climate change," though the only alternative he's mentioned is ... can't you just guess? ... more research and technology. Other summit participants are putting on a brave face, hoping to, as the head of the British delegation puts it, "start a dialogue," but behind the scenes it's widely acknowledged that no real progress is possible without the participation of the U.S., and the U.S. isn't going to participate under the Bush administration. Until 2009, meaningful global efforts to fight climate change would seem to be at a stalemate.
straight to the source: BBC News, 30 Nov 2005
straight to the source: Reuters, Alister Doyle and Jeffrey Jones, 29 Nov 2005
straight to the source: CNN.com, Associated Press, 29 Nov 2005
-----
[Read more environmental news from Grist.]
-----
Representatives of the world's governments are currently gathered in Montreal for a historic summit on the most pressing problem facing civilization: global warming. And the U.S.? "The United States is opposed to any such discussions," says Harlan Watson, who bears the somewhat misleading title of "chief U.S. climate negotiator." Watson is quite open about the fact that he's in Montreal to prevent negotiation. Instead, he argues that "there's more than one way to approach climate change," though the only alternative he's mentioned is ... can't you just guess? ... more research and technology. Other summit participants are putting on a brave face, hoping to, as the head of the British delegation puts it, "start a dialogue," but behind the scenes it's widely acknowledged that no real progress is possible without the participation of the U.S., and the U.S. isn't going to participate under the Bush administration. Until 2009, meaningful global efforts to fight climate change would seem to be at a stalemate.
straight to the source: BBC News, 30 Nov 2005
straight to the source: Reuters, Alister Doyle and Jeffrey Jones, 29 Nov 2005
straight to the source: CNN.com, Associated Press, 29 Nov 2005
-----
[Read more environmental news from Grist.]
Peace group blames U.S., U.K. for Iraq hostages
Occupying Muslim countries only exacerbates the problem of radical Islamic terrorism.
As long as Bush and Blair hide behind their blinders, westerners - even peace activists - will continue to be as risk.
From MSNBC:
-----
A peace group blamed the United States and Britain for the abduction of four activists shown in an insurgent video, saying the kidnapping was the direct result of the occupation of Iraq.
Meanwhile, in the central town of Baqouba, unidentified gunmen opened fire on a minibus early Wednesday, killing nine construction workers and wounding two others, the Diyala police said in a statement.
After a monthslong hiatus in the kidnapping of foreigners, television footage on Tuesday once again showed Westerners held captive: A German archaeologist — bound and blindfolded — knelt among masked gunmen in one video. Four frightened peace activists were shown in another blurry tape.
The latest attacks are part of a new wave of kidnappings police fear is aimed at disrupting next month’s national elections.
Christian Peacemaker Teams, a group that has had activists in Iraq since October 2002, said it was saddened by the video of their workers. The workers, the group said, were working against the occupation of Iraq.
[...]
"We are angry because what has happened to our teammates is the result of the actions of the U.S. and U.K. government due to the illegal attack on Iraq and the continuing occupation and oppression of its people," the group said.
-----
[Read more.]
As long as Bush and Blair hide behind their blinders, westerners - even peace activists - will continue to be as risk.
From MSNBC:
-----
A peace group blamed the United States and Britain for the abduction of four activists shown in an insurgent video, saying the kidnapping was the direct result of the occupation of Iraq.
Meanwhile, in the central town of Baqouba, unidentified gunmen opened fire on a minibus early Wednesday, killing nine construction workers and wounding two others, the Diyala police said in a statement.
After a monthslong hiatus in the kidnapping of foreigners, television footage on Tuesday once again showed Westerners held captive: A German archaeologist — bound and blindfolded — knelt among masked gunmen in one video. Four frightened peace activists were shown in another blurry tape.
The latest attacks are part of a new wave of kidnappings police fear is aimed at disrupting next month’s national elections.
Christian Peacemaker Teams, a group that has had activists in Iraq since October 2002, said it was saddened by the video of their workers. The workers, the group said, were working against the occupation of Iraq.
[...]
"We are angry because what has happened to our teammates is the result of the actions of the U.S. and U.K. government due to the illegal attack on Iraq and the continuing occupation and oppression of its people," the group said.
-----
[Read more.]
Bush spins victory in Iraq
In a speech today at the U.S. Naval Academy, Bush told us how well things are going in Iraq. His speech corresponds to a new 35-page document that the White House released this morning titled "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq".
Bush's speech was loaded with distortions. He was spinning so fast that I'm still dizzy.
It appears that Karl Rove is back in full force, with his spin machine working overtime in damage control mode.
[Read the text of Bush's speech.]
[Read the "Victory in Iraq" document.]
[Read a Washington Post review of the speech and document.]
Bush's speech was loaded with distortions. He was spinning so fast that I'm still dizzy.
It appears that Karl Rove is back in full force, with his spin machine working overtime in damage control mode.
[Read the text of Bush's speech.]
[Read the "Victory in Iraq" document.]
[Read a Washington Post review of the speech and document.]
American women have less political power than women in some third-world countries
Here in our industrialized high-tech nation, we're not nearly as enlightened as we might think were are.
Is there any American woman who could possibly be a worse president than George W. Bush?
From Capital Hill Blue:
-----
An extraordinary thing happened last week and we barely noticed.
Two women were installed as national leaders, one in Europe and one in Africa. The United States, still years away from this political breakpoint, continues to consider itself advanced on women's rights.
In some ways, American women enjoy economic freedoms not enjoyed by women elsewhere. But we also use that false sense of enlightenment to delude ourselves that American women possess political parity, which in fact we do not. Not only have we never had a female chief executive, the Inter-Parliamentary Union ranked 181 countries by the percentage of women legislators in March 2003 -- and the United States ranked 59th in the world.
On top of that, an African nation elected _ yes, elected _ its first female president. Africa. Continent of poverty, tribal wars, ancient customs and low-tech. And yet this region, which many in the United States consider less advanced than our own, passed a milestone way ahead of our educated, trend-setting, high-tech nation.
The Voice of America Web site reports that during the past half-century or so, just fewer than 50 women have served as heads of state around the world, with numbers rising most rapidly since the 1980s. With the additions of Angela Merkel as Germany's chancellor and Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf as president of Liberia, about 10 women currently serve as (non-royal) female heads of state.
Of those who have led countries, many were legacies. Indira Gandhi of India, for example, virtually inherited the prime-minister post from her father, Jawaharlal Nehru. Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan could never have gained such political power without her father, Zulfikar, who also once held that post. We Americans used to look down our noses at political legacies as something we outgrew. Then we elected one president in 2000.
The United States, meanwhile, seems decades away from its first female president. Even Mackenzie Allen, the president played by Geena Davis on ABC's "Commander in Chief," took over the top spot when her president died in office. Her highest elected position was vice president.
By some indicators, American women in politics are slipping further behind, as more and more women overseas go on to lead nations. Rutgers University's Center for American Women & Politics reports that in 2004 women comprised 25.4 percent of all U.S. statewide elected executives. State office is the premier pool from which future national political leaders are promoted.
But women's representation of 25.4 percent in 2004 was down from a high of 28.5 percent in 2000. This is a scary indication of a backward slide.
[...]
Women make up more than half of the American electorate. Women pay just as much in taxes as men. Why not fair representation?
-----
[Read more.]
Is there any American woman who could possibly be a worse president than George W. Bush?
From Capital Hill Blue:
-----
An extraordinary thing happened last week and we barely noticed.
Two women were installed as national leaders, one in Europe and one in Africa. The United States, still years away from this political breakpoint, continues to consider itself advanced on women's rights.
In some ways, American women enjoy economic freedoms not enjoyed by women elsewhere. But we also use that false sense of enlightenment to delude ourselves that American women possess political parity, which in fact we do not. Not only have we never had a female chief executive, the Inter-Parliamentary Union ranked 181 countries by the percentage of women legislators in March 2003 -- and the United States ranked 59th in the world.
On top of that, an African nation elected _ yes, elected _ its first female president. Africa. Continent of poverty, tribal wars, ancient customs and low-tech. And yet this region, which many in the United States consider less advanced than our own, passed a milestone way ahead of our educated, trend-setting, high-tech nation.
The Voice of America Web site reports that during the past half-century or so, just fewer than 50 women have served as heads of state around the world, with numbers rising most rapidly since the 1980s. With the additions of Angela Merkel as Germany's chancellor and Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf as president of Liberia, about 10 women currently serve as (non-royal) female heads of state.
Of those who have led countries, many were legacies. Indira Gandhi of India, for example, virtually inherited the prime-minister post from her father, Jawaharlal Nehru. Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan could never have gained such political power without her father, Zulfikar, who also once held that post. We Americans used to look down our noses at political legacies as something we outgrew. Then we elected one president in 2000.
The United States, meanwhile, seems decades away from its first female president. Even Mackenzie Allen, the president played by Geena Davis on ABC's "Commander in Chief," took over the top spot when her president died in office. Her highest elected position was vice president.
By some indicators, American women in politics are slipping further behind, as more and more women overseas go on to lead nations. Rutgers University's Center for American Women & Politics reports that in 2004 women comprised 25.4 percent of all U.S. statewide elected executives. State office is the premier pool from which future national political leaders are promoted.
But women's representation of 25.4 percent in 2004 was down from a high of 28.5 percent in 2000. This is a scary indication of a backward slide.
[...]
Women make up more than half of the American electorate. Women pay just as much in taxes as men. Why not fair representation?
-----
[Read more.]
Supreme Court to hear case today on a state's parental-notification law for abortion
Hopefully this will move quickly through the court while Justice O'Connor still sits on the bench.
In any case, it will give us some insight into what kind of baggage Roberts might be bringing to the Court.
From today's Christian Science Monitor:
-----
Wednesday the US Supreme Court takes up a case that could change the abortion battle in a fundamental way, potentially allowing state lawmakers across the nation to enact more-restrictive regulations on a woman's right to choose abortion.
The case, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, examines the constitutionality of a New Hampshire law requiring teenage girls to notify at least one parent before obtaining abortions. It carries broad implications for reproductive rights nationwide, and could be a turning point in a debate that has divided the country for more than three decades.
Instead of seeking to overturn the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, the case marks a change in tactics by antiabortion forces trying to narrow and constrain the reach of the 1973 abortion precedent.
In addition, it highlights the significance of the potential replacement on the high court of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a supporter of abortion rights, with nominee Samuel Alito, who is believed to personally oppose abortion. If a majority of justices vote to uphold the New Hampshire law, their decision could lay the groundwork for a major shift in the constitutional framework erected by Justice O'Connor upholding women's reproductive rights.
Timing could be everything. O'Connor will participate in Wednesday's oral argument, but unless she is still on the sharply divided court when the decision is announced, her vote won't count. If Judge Alito is confirmed in the meantime, the case might have to be reargued next year. Should that happen, O'Connor's vote would be replaced by that of Alito.
While the case does not threaten the central holding of Roe v. Wade, analysts are watching to see if the court's conservatives - and new Chief Justice John Roberts - are willing to use the New Hampshire case to topple a pillar of O'Connor's abortion jurisprudence.
In decisions since 1992, O'Connor has insisted that the Constitution requires invalidation of state laws that create an "undue burden" on a woman's right to an abortion when the procedure is necessary to preserve her health.
[...]
In addition to the health-exception issue, the high court will consider a second, equally significant question. The justices agreed to examine whether the appeals panel used the proper test when it struck down the entire New Hampshire statute as unconstitutional.
-----
[Read more.]
In any case, it will give us some insight into what kind of baggage Roberts might be bringing to the Court.
From today's Christian Science Monitor:
-----
Wednesday the US Supreme Court takes up a case that could change the abortion battle in a fundamental way, potentially allowing state lawmakers across the nation to enact more-restrictive regulations on a woman's right to choose abortion.
The case, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, examines the constitutionality of a New Hampshire law requiring teenage girls to notify at least one parent before obtaining abortions. It carries broad implications for reproductive rights nationwide, and could be a turning point in a debate that has divided the country for more than three decades.
Instead of seeking to overturn the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, the case marks a change in tactics by antiabortion forces trying to narrow and constrain the reach of the 1973 abortion precedent.
In addition, it highlights the significance of the potential replacement on the high court of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a supporter of abortion rights, with nominee Samuel Alito, who is believed to personally oppose abortion. If a majority of justices vote to uphold the New Hampshire law, their decision could lay the groundwork for a major shift in the constitutional framework erected by Justice O'Connor upholding women's reproductive rights.
Timing could be everything. O'Connor will participate in Wednesday's oral argument, but unless she is still on the sharply divided court when the decision is announced, her vote won't count. If Judge Alito is confirmed in the meantime, the case might have to be reargued next year. Should that happen, O'Connor's vote would be replaced by that of Alito.
While the case does not threaten the central holding of Roe v. Wade, analysts are watching to see if the court's conservatives - and new Chief Justice John Roberts - are willing to use the New Hampshire case to topple a pillar of O'Connor's abortion jurisprudence.
In decisions since 1992, O'Connor has insisted that the Constitution requires invalidation of state laws that create an "undue burden" on a woman's right to an abortion when the procedure is necessary to preserve her health.
[...]
In addition to the health-exception issue, the high court will consider a second, equally significant question. The justices agreed to examine whether the appeals panel used the proper test when it struck down the entire New Hampshire statute as unconstitutional.
-----
[Read more.]
29 November 2005
EU threatens sanctions for states operating secret CIA camps
From Agence France-Presse via Yahoo! News:
-----
European Union Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini threatened sanctions for any EU nation found to have allowed secret CIA prison camps to operate on their soil.
"Should the accusations be accurate, I would be forced to draw serious consequences," Frattini said at a security conference in Berlin.
He said that any EU country found to have harboured one of the reported prison camps could have their voting rights in the Council of Ministers, the body which groups the 25 EU heads of government, suspended.
Frattini said the operation of such camps on EU soil would violate the bloc's rules governing freedom and human rights.
The EU had made contact several days ago with the White House about possible secret CIA activities in Europe, but Washington had "unfortunately not yet given any formal assurance" that the reports were untrue, he said.
The US State Department said Monday it was ready to answer queries "in as complete and forthright a manner as we possibly can" as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced a trip to Europe next week.
[...]
The Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly had already announced a probe into reports of the CIA operating clandestine prisons in some European countries.
Germany and other EU countries are demanding the US government provide "clarifications" after reports that the CIA flew suspected Islamist extremists to secret prisons in Europe.
Germany has already opened an investigation into a case in which an Egyptian suspect was transported via Ramstein in western Germany, the largest US airbase in Europe, to Egypt where his supporters say he was tortured.
A number of other European countries have opened inquiries into alleged CIA plane landings, including Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden.
New German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier was expected to raise the issue of the flights when he meets Rice in Washington on Tuesday.
[...]
Steinmeier said in an interview published Sunday that he was concerned by the CIA plane accounts but would reserve judgment until Washington addressed the subject.
German Defence Minister Franz Josef Jung, on a visit to Paris on Monday, said his country wanted to know if "acts of torture" had taken place.
"That's the point that worries us, legitimately I think. I hope that all this can be explained away," Jung said.
-----
[Read more.]
-----
European Union Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini threatened sanctions for any EU nation found to have allowed secret CIA prison camps to operate on their soil.
"Should the accusations be accurate, I would be forced to draw serious consequences," Frattini said at a security conference in Berlin.
He said that any EU country found to have harboured one of the reported prison camps could have their voting rights in the Council of Ministers, the body which groups the 25 EU heads of government, suspended.
Frattini said the operation of such camps on EU soil would violate the bloc's rules governing freedom and human rights.
The EU had made contact several days ago with the White House about possible secret CIA activities in Europe, but Washington had "unfortunately not yet given any formal assurance" that the reports were untrue, he said.
The US State Department said Monday it was ready to answer queries "in as complete and forthright a manner as we possibly can" as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced a trip to Europe next week.
[...]
The Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly had already announced a probe into reports of the CIA operating clandestine prisons in some European countries.
Germany and other EU countries are demanding the US government provide "clarifications" after reports that the CIA flew suspected Islamist extremists to secret prisons in Europe.
Germany has already opened an investigation into a case in which an Egyptian suspect was transported via Ramstein in western Germany, the largest US airbase in Europe, to Egypt where his supporters say he was tortured.
A number of other European countries have opened inquiries into alleged CIA plane landings, including Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden.
New German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier was expected to raise the issue of the flights when he meets Rice in Washington on Tuesday.
[...]
Steinmeier said in an interview published Sunday that he was concerned by the CIA plane accounts but would reserve judgment until Washington addressed the subject.
German Defence Minister Franz Josef Jung, on a visit to Paris on Monday, said his country wanted to know if "acts of torture" had taken place.
"That's the point that worries us, legitimately I think. I hope that all this can be explained away," Jung said.
-----
[Read more.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)