- Signs of the Times for Fri, 17 Feb 2006 -





Editorial: What Can You Do?

Signs of the Times and Cassiopaea

The other day SOTT received an email from a popular “Activist” website soliciting funds. The message said:

Dear member,

Yesterday 6,613 of us contributed $389,900 towards our $3.5 million field organizing plan for the election, smashing our goal of $250,000 for the week. Amazing. This generosity gives us a great deal of hope--and we've got to keep the momentum going. Can we make it to $600,000 by Friday?

A contribution of $100 from 2,100 more of us will get us there. Can you pitch in? You can contribute by credit card or check at the link below—it takes just a minute.

Wow! In one day they were able to raise $389,900.00 !!! And they are shooting for Three and a Half MILLION? What for?

Well, for their political ads and campaigns.

We wondered just what planet the people live on who gave this kind of money? Haven't they been paying attention? Don't they know that there is absolutely NO possibility that buying political ads or backing political candidates is going to make one bit of difference?

Think about it: Bush and the Neocons have been spying illegally for over a year now, and he has the gall to brag about it and shove it in our faces, and to declare that he's going to continue. In the midst of this uproar, he even gets his court pick accepted ensuring that no legal action will ever be taken against him. And while we are on the subject, just WHO have the Neocons been spying on that were such sensitive targets that they couldn't even be bothered with getting a rubber stamp approval?

The object of the illegal spying wasn't really to target innocent Americans as the Neocons would like us all to think.

Does anyone actually think that Bush and Gang would spend their time listening in on conversations between Junior and his granny in Pakistan? Does anyone seriously think that the arrogant Karl Rove is going to waste his time on “average Americans?” Do you think he - or ANY of them - really think that there are "terrorists" in America?

Of course not. They know that the whole "terrorist threat" is manufactured. They aren't going to waste their time looking for something that they created in their sick imaginations.

So, WHO are they REALLY spying on? And why did they out themselves as Bush did just before Christmas?

Sure, we read that it was done because the NY Times was going to publish a story that they had withheld for over a year. "President George W. Bush was so desperate to stop The New York Times' secret spy program story he summoned Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Executive Editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office to try to talk them out of running it, Newsweek reported on its Web site on Monday."

That smacks of smokescreen. Does anyone really believe that if the President wanted the NY Times to keep quiet that there would be a problem? After Judy Miller? Not a chance.

The whole thing stinks of a smokescreen. So, what are they trying to hide? What are they trying to distract attention away from? As Paul Craig Roberts has written:

We have reached a point where the Bush administration is determined to totally eclipse the people. Bewitched by neoconservatives and lustful for power, the Bush administration and the Republican Party are aligning themselves firmly against the American people. Their first victims, of course, were the true conservatives. Having eliminated internal opposition, the Bush administration is now using blackmail obtained through illegal spying on American citizens to silence the media and the opposition party.

Before flinching at my assertion of blackmail, ask yourself why President Bush refuses to obey the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The purpose of the FISA court is to ensure that administrations do not spy for partisan political reasons. The warrant requirement is to ensure that a panel of independent federal judges hears a legitimate reason for the spying, thus protecting a president from the temptation to abuse the powers of government. The only reason for the Bush administration to evade the court is that the Bush administration had no legitimate reasons for its spying. This should be obvious even to a naif.[...]

The years of illegal spying have given the Bush administration power over the media and the opposition. Journalists and Democratic politicians don't want to have their adulterous affairs broadcast over television or to see their favorite online porn sites revealed in headlines in the local press with their names attached. Only people willing to risk such disclosures can stand up for the country.

So, what other journalists, congressmen, judges, various other government officials are they REALLY spying on? After all, considering the nature of these creatures that have taken over the U.S., you have to know that they are only going to expend their energy on things that will bring them the biggest rewards of money and power. The hoopla about spying on innocent Americans to ferret out terrorists is just a smokescreen; it was, purely and simply, to spy on political opponents, journalists, and to obtain material for blackmail so as to completely control the political process.

And that means that all those hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions of dollars even, that are flowing into the coffers of various “Political Action” groups are all going to waste. It's all for nothing. Nothing will change. They will spend your money, make a big show, make a good living off of it, and nothing, NOTHING, will change.

Yes indeed, the desire for change in the country is intense – 60% think America is on the wrong track.

Yes, President Bush is very unpopular. Only 39% approve of him in one poll – his polls are as bad as Nixon's were around Watergate.

No, the news isn't any better for Congress; 63% of Americans want Congress to move in a new direction. Based on very good information it seems that many members of Congress did NOT approve of the confirmation of Samuel Alito. But he was confirmed anyway with some notable Democratic switchovers! (A little domestic spying bearing fruit?)

Yes, it is true that the Republican-controlled Congress' approval ratings are at 29%, but don't think for a minute that the wheels are coming off the right-wing machine. Sure, Karl Rove is under scrutiny, Tom DeLay is under indictment and the Abramoff scandal keeps everyone titillated while the Neocon juggernaut just keeps on stomping across America.

Yes, it is true that everywhere, on all the issues, the people are rejecting the Bush/Neocon agenda from Iraq to Social Security to budget cuts, to funding the war machine, to drilling in the Arctic. But none of it makes one bit of difference to an administration that owns the media, the Intelligence agencies, the military, the Congress and now, the Supreme Court. While the pundits tell us Bush is in trouble, he continues to get his victories on the ground.

Nothing that the political activists have done or said or advertised about has made one whit of difference. Nothing. The same game is being played with Iran that was played with Iraq, and if something doesn't change in a very fundamental way very, very soon, America IS going to be embroiled in a global war that may, indeed, be the end of America.

With so many of our readers writing to us asking “What to do?”, we thought that we would make an experiment. We fought like hell against the Alito confirmation for weeks. We activated our group members, wrote letters, sent emails, made phone calls, sent FAXes, day after day after day. We blogged, we posted to internet forums, we listened to the agreement of hundreds of thousands of people who stood with us against the confirmation of Alito.

We KNOW we were having an effect because, toward the end, there WERE notable congressional reps responding to this pressure and calling for the filibuster. We don't think for a minute that they were serious, we think that rather they were giving lip-service to the idea to calm down all the activists.

The facts “on the ground” are that Alito was confirmed. He was confirmed because the Neocons OWN everything, including the Democrats. It's that simple.

As it now stands, the Republican juggernaut is unbreakable. The corruption scandals, the admitted lying, the low approval ratings, none of that makes any difference. This fall, there is absolutely NO chance of ending the Republican stranglehold on Congress. Anybody who does not see this is deluding themselves and taking you for your money. It's that simple.

As long as the Neocons own the media, the intelligence agencies, the military, the courts, congress AND the voting machines, NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE.

Would it make a difference if the Democrats returned to power?

MoveOn.org, the organisation who's email we cited above, is a front for the Democratic Party in the US. They serve to rally and deflect liberals who want to do something in the face of the Bush gang into doing exactly the kinds of activities that can change nothing. Their latest plan is to try and raise money to fight the Republicans in the next election. What? So that the spineless and equally corrupt Democrats, who have allowed Bush to capture the Supreme Court, illegally spy on Americans, get away with phoney commissions about 9/11, allowed the neo-cons and Israel to get away with 9/11, allowed Israel to continue its genocide of the Palestinians, who say that Bush needs to get serious about the war in Iraq and win it, who may not have received as much money from Abramoff as the Republicans, but who have their own lobbyists and slush funds, be put into power in order to improve things??? Is it really going to change anything? Is any dollar given to this cause going to be better spent than if it were thrown into a fire and burned?

You might as well imagine that Ariel Sharon going to rise from his sickbed and lead the Palestinians to a just and equitable one-state solution.

If there is no political opposition in the United States, if none of this anti-Bush busy work can have any beneficial affect, we come back to the question "What can I do?"

We receive many emails from people asking us this question. They can objectively see the situation in the United States, they understand that the Bush gang are imposing fascism, that the neo-cons and Israel were behind 9/11, that the administration lies, that the US Constitution has been torn into tiny pieces... they understand all that. So they ask us, "What can we do?"

As John Kaminski says with his usual eloquence in his article "Pain in the Brain":

Over and over I keep repeating: It doesn't matter who gets elected. All that stuff is a waste of time. America will continue to bomb and poison the world no matter who's in the White House.... The conversation on the radio show was about peace demonstrations. I commented that large peace events were nice for meeting people, but didn't accomplish anything, except reinforce the hollow illusion that we have free speech in the USA.

Indeed. Letters to the editor, peace marches, petitions, phone calls to your congressmen, these are only symbolic acts, moments when one can take a stand for the truth, doing so with no thought or anticipation to the outcome. They will change nothing... yet.

No amount of money that you give to any political organization is going to make any difference whatsoever.

That's the bad news. Activism based on the old model simply doesn't work against fascism.

Is there any good news? What does work? Can anything work? What can we DO?

We think there IS something that can be done, but it is going to require something that we talk about a lot on this website: Networking, colinearity and nonlinear dynamics. To just briefly explain, colinearity is when a lot of people are networked together, all going in the same direction. Nonlinear dynamics are the laws of physics that tell us that constantly applied pressure can keep building and building until it reaches a “popping” point when EVERYTHING shifts, and no one can know beforehand exactly when, where or how that critical mass will be reached.

We think that the solution to the problems facing America today can't yet be seen because there aren't enough people going in the same direction, all applying the pressure to the same goal/point.

That has got to change. And that can only change by a mass change of thinking. Americans needs to stop wasting energy on the wrong things and start spending it on the right things in the right way at the right time. We think that those who are sincerely working for change need to network together, to support each other not only in word and deed, but financially.

Yes, we have a plan. But like any plan, it requires funding. And unlike useless political plans, we can't reveal all the details because we want the plan to work. For those of you who have figured it out, yes, this is an information war, and we don't have the trillions of dollars that the Pentagon has to wage it. We have very limited funds, in fact.

In order to begin to implement our plan, we are going to need a lot of money. But we aren't asking you for that money, we aren't asking you for $3.25 million like certain political activist groups that don't accomplish anything. We are asking for something quite different. We are asking you to help us fund a real, significant Conscience Network. We already contribute financially to several 9-11 researchers and Activists who are struggling to stay afloat. We need to do more. Every day we see the sincere one, the ones that can't be bought off or co-opted, falling by the wayside, giving up in frustration and despair. Everyday we see the agents of COINTELPRO spreading their clever lies wrapped in truths over an ever widening sphere of influence, and those who can see, those who KNOW, are helpless. If they say a word, the small income they have will be cut off and they will have no further means of continuing to speak out.

That's how it works. First they try to buy off the sincere Truth seeker and speaker. If that doesn't work, then they try to destroy them financially. If that doesn't work, then they try to destroy your reputation. We've seen it and experienced it.

If you read these pages, it is likely to be because you get something from them. Readers of Signs of the Times and the Cassiopaea sites, as well as Laura's books, tell us how much our work means to them. You have come across this work, and it has touched you. It may even have changed you.

You know this to be true.

What if you could help us to support others of like mind, and then to help more and more people to have access to that work? And then, what if those others began to open their eyes and minds to what a true NETWORK is all about?

Up until now limited financial resources have meant that we have not been able to compete with the Pentagon COINTELPRO and Propaganda Budget. We've had to bootstrap every phase of our activity for the past eight years. You, the reader, can see the changes, the development of the site, the spreading influence and increasing readership. That has been due mostly to steady and consistent work, word of mouth advertising, and extremely positive feedback. But, it has now become clear that unless we can get make some serious moves, we will never reach those millions of people that are asking serious questions, thirsting for answers and receiving only lies and disinformation from their government and mainstream media. We won't reach them in time. And if we don't reach them in time, the rest of our plan cannot be put into effect. It all depends on a shift in mass consciousness.

Last year, we asked our readers to help to us raise the money to buy new computer and sound recording equipment in order to improve the services that we offer to our readers free. Thanks to your generosity, the Signs Team has been equipped with the necessary tools to increase our ability to give back, to reach more people, and it has caused a dramatic increase in our readership. More and more people are looking for exactly what Signs of the Times offers: a daily charting of the changing face of our world that keeps our readers abreast of essential information, the news behind the news, that may literally save their lives.

Now, more than ever, as galloping fascism stalks the world, there is a need for as many people as possible to be appraised of the reality of the world in which they live so that this knowledge can be utilised to protect themselves and those they love. It is clear that there is absolutely no chance that the mainstream media will ever provide this service to the people of the world.

It is also clear that there are plans afoot to shut down the Internet as a source of alternative news and points of view that point out the lies, that give people an accurate account of what is happening on our planet, and that demand that the will of the majority be respected. When that happens, sites like Signs of the Times will no longer be available, the information that you get today for free will not even be available if you were willing to pay. To prepare for this, we have been publishing as much of our material as possible as books. To date, we have books totalling over 4000 pages. We have plans for much more during the coming year.

But the books serve no purpose if they sit on shelves or boxed up in cartons. They need to move, they need to get out into bookstores, and from bookstores into homes. For that, we need to advertise. And that costs money. People thirsty for knowledge need the opportunity to learn about our work so that they, too, will understand the gravity of the situation we face and can see the possibility of a different way of living, of be ing.

We CAN make a difference; we just have to go about it in an altogether different way than has been tried up to this point. We need a bootstrap to the next level. That's what we are asking you for.

But we don't have much time. We need to work fast. The Darkness is falling and we need a lot of fuel to keep the lighthouse going. As Bob Dylan put, “It's not dark yet, but it's getting there”.

If every one of our daily readers could give $100.00 to help us counter the propaganda of the dark forces occupying America and open the eyes of others to the infinite possibilities of a colinear network pushing the envelope, we could create a network of Light and Truth that will shine from Sea to Shining Sea.

At this point, none of us have anything to lose anymore, except the last vestiges of our freedom. So, please, dig as deep as you can TODAY. If you can't possibly afford $100, then give what you can. It's time to Rock and Roll!

Click here to donate now!


Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: The British Government: Long-Time Sponsor of Islamic Terror

Signs of the Times
17/02/2006

You want the news behind the news? You want to know just how far from reality the official truth is? Consider the following story from today's UK Guardian:

href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/egypt/story/0,,1711892,00.html" target="_blank">UK to build ties with banned Islamist group

Friday February 17, 2006

A leaked Foreign Office memo published yesterday reveals that the government is to establish ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group banned by the Egyptian government.

Like other western countries, Britain is struggling with the dilemma posed by the electoral successes of Islamist groups either directly linked to terrorism or alleged to be fronts for violent organisations.

The memo, written on January 17 and leaked to the New Statesman, recommends increased engagement with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest Islamist group in the world. The recommendation has been accepted by Jack Straw, the foreign secretary.

Now reading the above, you could easily come away with the idea that the proposed contact between the British government and the Muslim Brotherhood is a first. In reality however...

The "Muslim Brotherhood" was founded in Egypt in the late 1920s by Hassan al-Banna, and has fought for over 70 years for the formation of a pure pan-Islamic theocratic state. Inside the Middle East, Egypt has been the most vigorous opponent of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian government has been at war with the Muslim Brotherhood since the early 1950s, when then Egyptian president Gamal Abdul Nasser banned the group and arrested many of its leaders.

As an organization committed to the establishment of a pan-Islamic state, the Muslim Brotherhood bitterly opposed Nasser's secular form of pan-Arab nationalism. The Muslim Brotherhood's staunch opposition to secular nationalism has also attracted financial support, particularly from Saudi Arabia.

The British War Against Nasser

In their dealings with Nasser (Egyptian Prime Minister 1952-1970) the British used any means necessary, including espionage, diplomacy, bribery and even direct military might to retain control over Egypt and the Suez Canal. The newly founded CIA also became interested in Egypt when Nasser showed signs of tilting to the Soviet Union. Aburish explains h ow this new avenue of intrigue evolved.

"According to CIA agent Miles Copeland, the Americans began looking for a Muslim Billy Graham around 1955... When finding or creating a Muslim Billy Graham proved elusive, the CIA began to cooperate with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim mass organization founded in Egypt but with followers throughout the Arab Middle East... This signalled the beginning of an alliance between the traditional regimes and mass Islamic movements against Nasser and other secular forces." (1)

The CIA was following the example of British Intelligence and sought to use Islam to further its goals. They wanted to find a charismatic religious leader that they could promote and control and they began to cooperate with groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood. With the rise of Nasser the Brotherhood was also courted more seriously by the pro-Western Arab regimes of Saudi Arabia and Jordan. They needed all the popular support that they could muster against the rise of Nasser-inspired Arab nationalism to keep their regimes intact.

The Muslim Brotherhood was an obvious ally against Nasser, because he had abolished it from Egypt after it was involved in a failed assassination attempt on his life in 1954. The Brotherhood rejected Nasser's policy that, for the most part, kept religion out of politics. Officially the Brotherhood was an outlawed organization, but it remained influential and active within Egypt working against the secular regime, often hand-in-hand with British Intelligence. In June of 1955 MI6 was already approaching the Brotherhood in Syria to agitate against the new government that showed strong left-wing tendencies and a desire to merge with Egypt (2). The Brotherhood became an even more important asset after Nasser announced the Egyptian takeover of the Suez. Author Stephen Dorril documents how this move was viewed from Britain,

"On 26 July in Alexandria, in a calm speech, but one that was described by London as hysterical, Nasser made his nationalisation announcement, which from a strictly legal point of view was no more 'than a decision to buy out the shareholders.' That night in Downing Street, [British Prime Minister] Eden's bitterness at the decision was not concealed from his guests... Eden summoned a council of war, which continued until 4 a.m. An emotional Prime Minister told his colleagues that Nasser could not be allowed, in Eden's phrase, 'to have his hand on our windpipe.' The 'muslim Mussolini' must be 'destroyed.' Eden added: 'I want him removed and I don't give a damn if there's anarchy and chaos in Egypt.'" (3)

Former Prime Minister Churchill had fueled Eden's fire by counseling him about the Egyptians, saying, "Tell them if we have any more of their cheek we will set the Jews on them and drive them into the gutter, from which they should have never emerged." (4)

Sir Anthony Nutting, a member of the Foreign Office at the time, recalls an irate phone call from Eden who was upset at the slow pace of the campaign against Nasser. Eden raged, "What's all this poppycock you've sent me? ... What's all this nonsense about isolating Nasser or "neutralizing" him, as you call it? I want him destroyed, can't you understand? I want him murdered..." (5)

To prepare the way for the desired coup the British Information Research Department (IRD) was called into action. They ratcheted up their efforts to control radio broadcasts into Egypt and they planted false stories in the BBC, the London Press Service and the Arab News Agency. Forged documents were created that suggested that Nasser was planning to take over the entire Middle East oil trade, and a bogus report was disseminated that alleged that Egyptian dissidents were being sent to a concentration camp manned by ex-Nazis. (6)

Kurt Nimmo wrote in September 2004:

Larry Franklin: Just a Sideshow on the Road to Total War

By Kurt Nimmo
Wednesday, September 01, 2004

Isn't it curious that right smack in the middle of an investigation of Israel spying on its best "friend," Hamas pulls off back-to-back suicide bombings—after a lull of nearly six months—in Beersheba? Hamas declares the bombing was revenge for Israel's assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi. Rantissi was assassinated on April 17 and Yassin on March 22.

Is there a reason Hamas waited so long to take revenge? Of course there is. Hamas is essentially an Israeli contrivance. It's used for effect when politically expedient.

Israel "aided Hamas directly—the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO," Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies, told the UPI's Richard Sale in 2002. Hamas is a descendant of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic organization long ago penetrated by the CIA. "There is a long historic alliance between the CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood," writes Peter Goodgame. "The entire Bin Laden-CIA created ‘mujahideen' network came from the Muslim Brotherhood." As we now know, Prince Turki of Saudi intelligence, in cahoots with William Casey of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI, sent bin Laden to Afghanistan and bankrolled the Services Center (Makhtab al-Khidmat) of the Jordanian Palestinian Abdullah Azzam, in the offices of the World Muslim League and Muslim Brotherhood in Peshawar (see Rashid, Taliban, p.131). After Azzam was assassinated, Makhtab al-Khidmat became al-Qaeda, although bin Laden did not call his organization such.

It should be obvious by now that the CIA and Mossad manufactured a virulent strain of Islamic terrorism for their own purposes. For instance, as an excuse for the Zionists to never make peace with the Palestinians. "What does frighten Sharon," Yossi Sarid, chairman of the Meretz party, told Haaretz in 2002, "is any prospect or sign of calm or moderation. If the situation were to calm down and stabilize, Sharon would have to return to the negotiating table and, in the wake of pressure from within and without, he would have to raise serious proposals for an agreement. This moment terrifies Sharon and he wants to put it off for as long as he possibly can."

No doubt Sharon is also keen to deflect attention from the fact that Israel has a long-standing spy operation in America. Of course, considering how the Bushites and Congress bend over backwards to please the Likudites in Israel, such a spy operation may not even be necessary. Regardless, the casual relationship between the Zionist neocons in the Pentagon and the Zionists in Israel—for the moment splashed all over the front page—looks bad for Sharon, especially during the US election cycle. Hamas strikes when the Likudites need a diversion. Same thing for Bush and his facile cave dweller terror threats.

In addition, the latest terror attack in Israel gives Sharon all the more reason to push his 720-kilometre apartheid wall, as Reuters quoted Sharon as saying he would do hours after the attack. Last month the UN General Assembly put forward a resolution demanding Israel dismantle the apartheid wall after the International Court of Justice declared it to be in violation of international law. But then the Likudites and the Bushcons are above international law. International law is to be used as a crowbar against Iran as it scrambles to develop a few nukes, knowing full well what the Zionists in Tel Aviv and Washington have in mind for the Iranian people. As North Korea understands full well, saber-rattling enemies think twice when you have a few nuclear warheads under your belt.

Israel is truly an outlaw nation. Its criminal government is run by racist settlers who are pushing for war against Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinians. Israel realizes it cannot possibly wage war against the Arabs and the Iranians without America's military prowess—and its large supply of naive bullet-stoppers—so it has spent years undermining the US government and buying off Congress through AIPAC. It has exploited the mental problems of the Christian Zionists—who believe Israeli murder and hegemony are key to their fanatical biblical fantasies—and has worked tirelessly to subvert the highest reaches of the American government by installing the conniving Zionist neocons in the White House and Pentagon. Sharon really does not want John Kerry in the White House, but if push comes to shove Kerry will do in a pinch because he is also an avowed Zionist—some say more of a Zionist than even Bush—and he would be the first Jewish president of the United States (not only was his grandfather born Fritz Kohn, but his brother, Cameron Kerry, converted to Judaism when he married a Jewish woman, Kathy Weinman).

Lost in the chatter about Larry Franklin is the fact the neocons and Sharon are itching to invade Iran, possibly before the election in November. "News of the investigation of Larry Franklin, a middle-level functionary working for the Wolfowitz-Feith-Luti-Shulsky clique in the Pentagon, indicates that we are now approaching a critical choice-point on the road to war with Iran, and towards a synthetic terrorism attack inside the US which would be used as an additional pretext to start such a war," Webster Griffin Tarpley warns. "War with Iran means a military draft, just for starters. If Iran can close the Straits of Hormuz, it might mean rationing of food and fuel. ... [The] goal is now to establish a neocon fascist dictatorship in the United States, complete with martial law, special tribunals, press and media censorship, and the full pervasive apparatus of the modern police state." For the Straussian neocons, it would be a dream come true.

The FBI may copy the hard drive of Steve Rosen, AIPAC's director of foreign policy issues—and it may even arrest a neocon or two (certainly not Douglas Feith or Paul Wolfowitz)—but this momentary sideshow will not put an end to or even slow down appreciably the demented neocon Master Plan for war against Islam in the name of Greater Israel. "This is not an Israeli problem. This time it is a world problem," Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Israeli parliament's foreign affairs and defense committee, said last month. "Iran is seeking to become a world power." In other words, Iran must be attacked soon, before it can patch together a few nukes and give Israel a run for its money—or, rather, a run for the money weaseled out of increasingly stressed American taxpayers. No number of FBI agents running around Washington, interviewing traitorous neocons and copying hard drives, will slow down the Zionists, not when the entire political establishment of the United States—both sides of the Property Party—are spoony over Arab killing Zionists.

Once again, Sharon has used Hamas—a Frankenstein monster devised by Mossad, as al-Qaeda was devised by the CIA—to not only distract from the minor problem presented by Larry Franklin, but also to remind the timorous and easily bamboozled (American and Israeli citizens alike) that terrorism is alive and well, even if it takes a long and inexplicable hiatus on occasion. Blowing up commuter buses drives home an unrelenting message: there is evil lurking out there, Muslim evil, and it is supported by malevolent mullahs in Tehran, the minions of Arafat in Ramallah, and the crafty cave dwellers of Osama. As Bush says, the war on terrorism cannot be won—terrorism is interminable, perpetual, and unending.

The point being made by these authors is that the current "clash of civilisations" is not a result of chance, "divine will" (at least not in the traditional sense), or the innate nature of humanity, but rather the concerted efforts of a small group of "power brokers" who, over a period of time spanning many generations, have sought to manufacture the right conditions that will facilitate the ushering in of a "new world order".

Such a theory is not new or groundbreaking by any means. There are many authors sounding the alarm over what they see as clear evidence of a "hegelian" plot to deliberately create facts on the ground (the clash of civilisations) so that, when things get bad enough, humanity will be ready to accept a "new paradigm", a new perception of reality - presented to us, of course, by these same "power brokers". To date, we are not aware of any theories about the deeper reasons, if any, for such a dastardly scheme, other than the accrual of power for its own sake.

No one will deny that our history, and in particular the successive human cultures and societies that have defined it, has been periodically subjected to powerful "forces", which washed away (usually with much bloodshed) the preceding status quo (or popular view of reality). But the question we must answer, and it is a question that goes to the very heart of the nature of our existence here on this planet, is: have such events occurred as a result of the chaotic, random and essentially unintelligent nature of life and the forces that drive it, or is there some necessarily intelligent "guiding hand" that has been shaping the course of our history, and which logically should have have very definite plans for our future.

If we take the former to be true, a brief look at our history will soon prompt the nagging question of, why then have we, as a species, repeatedly received such a "raw deal" from random fate? The repeated suffering that typifies the human experience in general, seems to lead those who take the time to ponder this "why" towards the conclusion that there must be some conscious, intelligent force that somehow intervenes in, shapes, and even creates, world events, and does so with decidedly negative results for the masses of humanity. By nature, such a force would have to be in some way 'supernatural', given that such consistent and generation-spanning manipulations would be difficult to maintain with any degree of success for the average mortal human being.

A third possibility is the idea that, while there is no supernatural intelligent force shaping world events, within each generation there have been intelligent and particularly self-centered individuals or groups who have taken advantage of the prevailing conditions of the day and merely profited from the apathy of the masses and their disinclination to facing into this unsavory reality and taking an active role in attempting to shape our collective future.

Ironically, this theory, in combining the two preceding and opposing arguments and creating a third supposedly more true thesis, uses the dictates of the very hegelian dialectic that many conspiracy authors accuse the "power brokers" of employing to usher in the New World Order/New Paradigm/New Reality.

From our point of view, there is more than enough evidence to suggest that the truth is a combination of the second and third theories - that there does indeed exist some 'supernatural power' or better said, a 'hyperdimensional control system' that overlays our own, the denizens of which, not being subject to or restricted by the laws of our third density reality, are able to control and manipulate (over many generations) the human power brokers who, in the final analysis, are little more than puppets of this 'higher power', whether they know it or not.


Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: Land of the Puppet People

Manuel Valenzuela
15/02/2006

From Valenzuela's Veritas

American Heroin

It oftentimes boggles the mind to try and understand the ease with which the Establishment can manipulate the American citizenry into another warmongering escapade, this time an ominous foray into the Persian lands of Iran, a nation rich in history, culture, location and most importantly to the Evil Empire, oil and gas. Yet upon further inspection it is easy to comprehend this phenomenon, for we live, as Gore Vidal has labeled it, inside the United States of Amnesia, a country where all semblance of the yesterday becomes but a haze of blatant forgetfulness and convenient whitewash, a black hole of Alzheimer’s-like darkness from where no recollection of past lessons, mistakes, errors or history can be seen or touched.

We live in a nation of gluttonous stupor and comfortable surroundings, easily distracted by the cocktail of materialism that lines our homes. We are trained to live to work, not work to live, sacrificing love of life for love for the Almighty dollar, becoming worker bees and soldier ants, selling our souls to the demons of capitalism in exchange for the happiness and stress-free lives of yesteryear, needing pharmaceutical drugs to escape the depression of our daily lives, willingly choosing to indebt our present and future in order to possess the vast array of adult toys marketed to manipulate our emotions, wrongly thinking this or that product will reincarnate lost happiness. America is the land of plenty, where waistlines expand, stress increases, mental problems grow, work hours increase and vehicles get bigger and bigger, a land addicted to the devil’s excrement, like a heroin user injecting black gold into its ever thirsty veins, becoming a violent, warmongering junkie when the perpetual case of cold turkey arises.

Never before has a society been afforded the wealth and excessiveness that we possess, yet neither has a citizenry been subjected to the consequences invariably arising in order to achieve those ends. Unhappiness, depression, financial hardship, stress, inner demons, anger, dislike, psychological problems, undisciplined and unreared children are some of the costs of maintaining our standards of living. The escapism needed to forget the madness of these costs, accumulated year after year, in daily life, work, finances and society, stands like an idol ready to be worshipped in the middle of our homes, its dark screen awakened with the push of a remote control.

It is the television, that drug of mental escapism and intellectual erosion, the invaluable purveyor of fantasy and fiction, that serves to distract, distort and alleviate the stresses of a life made exceedingly harder by the continued growth of the corporatist state, where profit will always supercede people and the interests of the corporation will always trump those of the People. Yet in the television we also see the greatest tool of mass manipulation ever created, in the last few decades discovered by government and corporate interests for the incredible power emanating from its warm glow. In the span of a couple of decades it has transformed human society, acting as the corporate and governmental invasion of our homes, and into our brainwaves, affecting both the innocent and the old, indiscriminately penetrating the minds of black and white, male and female.

The propaganda emanating from its waves and the fiction produced by its owners has mutated American society into one of slouching couch potatoes, dumbed down ignoramuses, lazy and indifferent citizens, unthinking drones and brainwashed primates, turning a citizenry of creativity, vision, imagination and intelligence into one devoid of each, eroding the minds of experience and altering those of innocence, slowly catapulting America into the precipice of intellectual and knowledge collapse. It is the television that has created the amnesia running rampant from Pacific to Atlantic, saturating us with the brain manipulations of the corporatist world, creating a population needing the sensationalist programming designed to dumb down and distract, feeding into our minds senseless garbage of celebrity adoration and idol worship, introducing us to wave after wave of scheming advertisements and the thoughts and opinions the Establishment want us to incorporate as our own.

Television is the greatest addiction we face, a malignancy that controls entire populations, becoming a drug infiltrating all regions of the brain, altering brainwaves in children, thoughts in adults, creating a population easily controlled and programmed, becoming, over the course of a lifetime, the human antenna receiving the endless stream of propaganda disseminated by government and corporate entities. The effects of television on the human brain have become quite clear after only sixty years in existence. At no other time in human history had our primitive minds been subjected to the rapid imagery, fictionalized programming, brainwashing techniques, ceaseless propaganda, video capabilities and sound distortions of television.

We can now see the results of a decades old experiment, and Americans of today, as the people that most watch the monitor on a daily basis, with our rapid intellectual decline, loss of knowledge, extinction of logic and analytical reasoning, erosion of free thought and our propensity to absorb as our own anything aired on television, are the end result.

Leapfrogging Towards War

Our masters can today do with us as they wish, using the television as the instrument used to implant corporatist propaganda into our minds, knowing that millions upon millions of Americans no longer think for themselves, certain that the anemic education prevalent throughout the nation is succeeding in molding loyal sheep conditioned to obey, consume and produce. Our thoughts are being homogenized; our minds now linger in the assembly lines of corporate propaganda, robbing us of individuality, of different personalities, of various tastes and wants. We are the pawns in the front lines of the corporatist takeover of our nation and most importantly, our minds, with those in power toying with us, making us marionettes whose strings are easily manipulated by the few who control television.

Behind the magic curtain of power we can see that once again America is going on the warpath, getting herself ready for another imperialist offensive preemptive attack, disguised in the full spectrum of colors that are coordinated to hide the real reasons for war. Thus, the conditioning of the War Culture has for a few months now been set in motion with a media blitzkrieg engineered to prepare the nation’s consciousness for further conflict. Gently, slowly, systematically and methodically propaganda is being delivered into our comfortable homes on a daily basis that is designed to mold us into hating another nation, another people, using the same mold as before to deceive and manipulate an always gullible citizenry. The powers that decide the destiny of the nation have very little challenge in brainwashing the American public.

Knowing that Americans have perfected the art of amnesia, easily forgetting yesterday in a haze of distraction and escapism, possessing the attention spans of gnats and the enlightenment existing during the Dark Ages, ignorant to the world beyond our bubble of excessiveness, finding us addicted to television, videogames and prescription pills, relying on ten second sound bites and the subjective drivel of talking heads for information, our minds made distorted by the fantasy and fiction we watch incessantly, with free thought now made extinct by the massive abandonment of reading books, with mental lethargy now the rule rather than the exception, the Establishment can recycle long used and recently implemented blueprints to steer the nation towards the acceptance of illegal offensive war and further crimes against humanity.

The warmonger rulers realize that with such a dumbed down populace, readily accepting as true everything told them by their government, believing everything their television generates, no lie is too big or outlandish, no deception will ever be rebelled against and no whitewash will ever be questioned. Using television, which is today but an instrument furthering corporate control of our lives, spewing only what is of interest to the corporatist world, Americans are bombarded with the propaganda that will manufacture an enemy out of Iran. Without the television, able to reach hundreds of millions of people, able to penetrate our psyches and minds, able to affect our emotions and behaviors, getting our full attention as we sit glued to the set, listening to talking heads and government lackeys, the brainwashing of the masses by the government and the corporatist world would be a much harder endeavor. With it, however, the mobilization of minds is a relatively easy accomplishment, and the conditioning of hundreds of millions of citizens becomes cheap, efficient and successful.

With the same manual as that used to mobilize us for the war on Iraq, the warmongers begin instilling fear into our minds, repeating lie after lie, over and over again, that the new enemy is a threat to America, our way or life, our freedoms and democracy. They realize that most people do not want war, so they must be cajoled into supporting what is already a predetermined inevitability. Thus, exploiting our mammalian emotions and behaviors, using our own animal instincts against us, the warmongers in power envelope us with the fear factor, repeating the perceived threat enough times, in so many different ways and mediums, that most people instinctively begin to believe what their “trusted” leaders are telling them. With Iraq it was the threat of mushroom clouds, of WMD, of terrorists. Similarly, the mirage that is the Iranian threat has been marketed to penetrate our deepest fears, scaring us into believing that Iran seeks nuclear weapons, with the inherent lie that as our enemy, they would not hesitate to bomb one or more of our cities.

War marketers understand fully that rationality and common sense vanish in the wake of introduced fear and hatred. Therefore, the use of fear and terror to condition the masses into believing that only through war can their lives be made safer will once again be used, conveniently attaching the illusion of George W. Bush as the one man that will insure their security. Over the next few weeks and perhaps even months, the propaganda used to vilify Iran will intensify, just as it was prior to the Iraq War. We will be forced to hear, repeatedly, the evils of the regime, the wicked intentions of the new president and the manufactured threat to our security. We will be told over and over again how Iran has been a pariah on the world stage, that they overthrew our puppet dictator a few decades back, held America’s embassy hostage, support most of the world’s terrorists, are a tyrannical regime, want to destroy Israel, are a clear and present danger to our national security and, if we are lucky, that they even harbor the bogeymen of the moment, Al-Qaeda.

The newspapers of importance and prestige, those in New York and Washington, will be used to conjure up false intelligence and bogus news reports, most manufactured by the war marketers using cherry-picked intelligence, the false reporting of reporters with vested interests, concocted documents and reports from foreign intelligence services, and the false accusations by so-called Iranian dissidents and defectors. These newspapers, whose weight is heavy in the media world, will begin pasting on the front pages articles of deception regarding Iran’s nuclear energy program, making us believe in the imminent threat to our security and that of certain Middle Eastern nation whose interests are well protected by the newspapers’ editors.

Stories unfavorable to Iran will appear, making it look like the member of the Axis of Evil, making it hated in the mind of Americans. President Ahmadinejad will become the new Osama, Zarqawi and Saddam, a new evildoer extraordinaire, becoming the new poster child for the perpetual, and fictional, war on terror, just the latest incarnation of America’s enemy. Again, fear and hatred will be used to cloud reason and logic; terror will be introduced to exploit both our emotions and still-fragile post 9/11 psychology.

The lies, deceptions and propaganda first outlined in print will invariably make their way to the televised media, where they will be disseminated far and wide, their content picked apart and dissected by talking heads and media hacks whose only purpose in life is to become the stenographers of the corporatists, as always pushing the idea of war into the mind of the viewer. Partisan talking heads from certain think tanks, many with the interests of foreign nations at heart, will make the rounds, chatting without stop in support of preemption, appearing incessantly in a barrage of subjective opinion and prepared propaganda, as always offering only the views for war and preemptive attack, as always appearing without dissenting views and opinion. Along with partisan talking heads, certain influential politicians, those carrying the mantra of deceived trust, will also appear incessantly on television, making the case for war and preemption using the same failed logic and manipulated lies used to sell the Iraq war, again without dissenting views present to contradict and debate the push for attack.

Like an advertising campaign, where the entire organization at a company’s disposal is used to sell the product, the push to sell the American people into accepting an attack on Iran will be all-encompassing, reaching hundreds of millions of Americans through the television, radio and printed media. The public relations campaign run out of the White House will be relentless and assiduous, in the end convincing millions that an American attack is in the best interests of the nation. Already, for example, over 50 percent of the public has made it known that they would have no problem if Bush attacked Iran, a figure that perhaps reflects the ignorance, mass amnesia and incomprehensible idiocy of half the population. This figure represents a high percentage favoring attack, even before the campaign of propaganda, lies and deceptions even heats up. The percentage will only rise once the campaign hits its peak.

Iran will be made out to be a lawless nation at odds with the rest of the world. Of course diplomacy will be designed to fail, as it was prior to the Iraq war. While shouting that the UN must act, thereby being able to claim legitimacy, America will maneuver its vast system of control and inevitably lead the charade of the UN to fail, granting Bush the excuse to attack. Terror threats will be manufactured, danger to us will be reborn and, in the end, Iran will be attacked and crippled, killing tens of thousands, escalating tensions, creating insecurity, perpetuating an already never-ending war and unleashing human violence upon the globe. Using the naiveté and ignorance of the citizenry to its advantage, the military industrial energy complex will claim to fight for freedom, democracy and an end to tyranny, again jumping on the fictional war on terror bandwagon to excuse its offensive attacks for imperial aspirations and control of the world’s remaining oil fields.

The threat of nuclear attack by Iran will of course be exaggerated, as will its failure to comply with international law and its use of nuclear technology. Orwellian newspeak and doubletalk will permeate the airwaves; news reports will be manipulated to fit the predetermined storyline. Facts and figures will be contorted and altered, their true meanings erased, their mirror image twisted. And it will all be repeated, over and over and over again, designed to manipulate, condition and steer us toward accepting further death and destruction in the Muslim world. The plethora of broken UN resolutions of a certain Middle Eastern nation will never be mentioned, nor its possession of 200 nuclear missiles, nor the fact that Iran would be committing suicide if it attacked with nuclear weapons either America or Israel, nor the fact that any nation under the intense threat faced by Iran will inevitably seek to defend itself through nuclear weapons, nor the fact that every nation is entitled to sovereign creation of civilian nuclear technology for energy purposes, nor the fact that Iran possesses roughly thirteen percent of the world’s available fossil fuels, nor the fact that its new oil bourse threatens the stability of the US dollar, nor the fact that we are in the age of resource wars, already engaged in clandestine battle with China, Russia, Europe and India, nor the fact that America has over 700 bases worldwide, including four new permanent bases in Iraq, wishing for a few more in the geopolitical treasure that is Iran, nor the fact that this rebranded offensive strategy and attack is nothing more than pursuit of strategic oil fields close to Iraq, containment of a very potent rival, control over oil and, as always when America interferes in the Middle East, proxy wars benefiting Israel.

Using the bully pulpit afforded the President, George W. Bush will release the hounds of his administration, parading known liars and immoral miscreants, each shouting loudly the case for war. Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Goss, Chertoff, Hadley, the nest of neocons festering in Washington and Bush himself will be given a podium and a microphone from which to preach the virtue of offensive warfare, as usual manipulating our instincts and emotions, as always resurrecting 9/11 to engender fear, hatred and anger amongst the populace. They will grace our television monitors, given all the airtime they desire, their lies and deceptions heard around the nation, never to be contradicted, always to be believed.

It will not matter that they lied, deceived and manipulated the case for war against Iraq. It will not matter that they took America to war on false pretenses, creating a wasted debacle in Mesopotamia. It will not matter that their incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and immorality have made us less safe, not more, creating more terrorists, not less, endangering our “way of life” more by their actions at home than by their ineptitude abroad. It will not matter that their potential actions could engulf an entire region in violence, conflagrating the Eurasian land mass in a very dangerous and long-lasting new Cold War against potent rivals. It will not matter that with each new attack or act of humiliation upon the Muslim world the fire of hatred continues to boil inside the minds of one billions Muslims, threatening to destabilize the entire planet. Of course it will not matter that these warmongers seek to perpetuate the vicious cycle of Muslim killing Westerner and Westerner killing Muslim, thereby giving rise to the perpetual war on terror, now remarketed “Long War,” for they have been wishing for this for a very long time, finally giving rise to their “clash of civilizations,” thus birthing their self-fulfilling prophesy. None of the above will matter, for all has been forgotten and disregarded, for we live in the United States of Amnesia.

Land of Paradoxes and Certainties

This is the America of the early 21st century, a land of paradoxes and of certainties, at once the richest nation on the planet yet offering anemic and dilapidating educations to the bearers of its future torch; a nation rich in technology yet its people dumbed down to the point that ignorance of both the natural world and human civilization prevails; a nation industrialized and modern yet a place where tens of millions remain captive to the theologies and beliefs more in tune to those of the Middle Ages; a country once enlightened by creativity and imagination now eviscerating both through the incessant illumination every night of that disseminator of fiction, fantasy and propaganda called television; a people once shining bright, allowed innumerable freedoms and rights, now extinguished by the same system they protect and defend; a citizenry once active, loud and knowledgeable now made indifferent and servile thanks to the comforts inherent in mass consumerism and materialism; a people at one time questioning and seeking accountability of government now transformed into the acquiescent and complicit serfs of corporatism; a land once fighting for the rights of workers now a land fighting for the rights of slaves; a nation of, by and for the People mutated into a country of, by and for the Corporate World.

Such is the state of affairs inside the borders of the War Culture, with almost 300 million human beings conditioned from birth to become subservient instruments of war aiding and abetting the war machine of the Pentagon. Thanks to the military industrial complex and its vast instruments of control, they have become a nation of warmongers and xenophobes, clandestinely cheering the rumbles of tanks and the cracks of guns, the dropping of bombs and the sadistic torture of Arabs. Like Pavlovian dogs, hundreds of millions of American citizens drool at the sounds of the trumpets of war blasted into their minds by the television monitor, eager to satisfy the destructive cravings of inner conscious propagated throughout the citizenry by an ingenious mechanism of mass manipulation.

When the drums of war commence their thunderous beat the inbred thirst for bloodshed and violence is unleashed, with the population instinctively aware that the Empire’s addiction to war will soon be satisfied. Half of Americans, at once eager to smell the blood of brown-skinned humans, their hidden xenophobia and bigotry having a chance to finally rise to the surface, ingratiated by the sounds of destruction, mesmerized by the pyrotechnics and concussions of military might, are quick to march in lock step behind the tanks and battalions of the Empire, becoming an army of chickenhawks, yellow elephants and armchair generals, as always extolling war yet living in cowardice, preaching Jesus yet practicing Satan, preferring the safety of jingoism rather than the bravery of service, hiding behind the Flag and the charade of 9/11, made deaf by the hymns of that fantasy called American exceptionalism, becoming members of the cult which follows White House incompetence and ineptitude, all the while basking in their debt-ridden comforts and toys of escapism while the less fortunate among us fight their wars and battles.

At the first hints of military mobilization by the state, this half of the population, otherwise decent and law abiding people, jump at attention, ready to become the clandestine storm troopers that will blindly follow those in power into battle, never questioning the reasoning behind the push for war, never wondering why America must again go to battle and never thinking for themselves as to whose interests are being furthered and what ramifications will arise from mass murder and destruction. Without thinking and rationalizing tens of millions of citizens will support the military industrial complex and its sinister designs without ever knowing what the military industrial complex is.

At the sound of war drums these millions blindly align themselves behind the President, regardless of the incompetence, the ineptitude, the chicanery, the criminality, the illegality and the immorality. To these sheeple, the herd mentality is in full effect, in essence eagerly following a wolf dressed in shepherd’s clothing, unable to see the horizon, unable to see the journey, unable to think independently, blinded by fear, needing the diapers of bed wetters and the pacifiers of security, eager to follow and be led to the slaughterhouse disguised as so-called security and protection, unable to see anything except the blind manifestation of ignorant loyalty.

The other half of America, meanwhile, talk the talk but rarely, if ever, walk the walk, preferring instead to protest and dissent from the comfort and security of their keyboard or through the messages on their car bumper, as if that alone grants them entitlement to call themselves self-proclaimed anti-war activist, with many placing more interest and exerting more energy in the asinine, non-important, relatively insignificant news regarding the quail hunting adventures of Dick Cheney than in the much larger issues affecting the nation, with many unwilling to sacrifice time, effort and energy to fight for the future of the country.

They criticize without remorse but cannot bring it upon themselves to mobilize and take to the streets in protest, preferring losing freedoms and rights than being bothered into joining a mass movement. From their pajamas they proclaim vitriol at the chicanery of the Bush Administration yet refuse to take the direct action those that came before once did, voicing their frustrations at the direction America is taking through Internet message boards and simple family gatherings.

Merrily this half proclaims undying and blind loyalty to the impotent and spineless minority party, unwilling to see, thanks to the denial so prevalent among diehard Democrats, that their beloved party is but the lesser of two evils, naïve in their belief that this side of the army of corrupt politicians will ever again have their interest at the forefront, their ideology acting to mask the fact that their cherished heroes are but the prostitutes of corporatism and that their party is an illusion designed to convey the mistaken belief that an opposition exists.

Gone from their core, thanks to the comfortable and pampered existence they have been granted and the conditioning that has enveloped them from birth, is the fire that once lit brightly during the time of another American debacle, thriving inside the youth of a now vanished generation, a fire that granted radiance to bravery and warmth to courage, transforming a nation and a time, bringing truth to power and justice to criminality.

The fire that engulfed the sixties has been extinguished by consumerism, materialism and the glow of television, by an indifference that gives complacency a welcome embrace, by a collective amnesia that forgets yesterday and fails to recognize today, by videogame distractions and unenlightened passivity, and by the dark covers that have virtually eliminated from our consciousness the lost war in the Middle East, with millions of armchair protesters made placid to the cries of an America hemorrhaging to death, unwilling to create a movement, unable to leave the comfortable warmth of their homes, preferring to protest on the Internet, unable to mobilize more than a minute and insignificant number of souls while the nation rots and fascism grows.

Gone are the massive marches, campus insurrections, the defying solidarity, the movement that altered history. A giant tsunami of change that once brought the upper echelons of government to its knees has given way to those who have sold out to principles once held dear, no longer to be bothered by truth, justice and peace, and to younger generations suffering the laziness and ignorance spawned by the excessiveness of living in America. Gone is the military draft and the threat of conscription, once a tinderbox that fed fuel to the peace movement’s fire, for without it middle class America, white America, has no real vested interest in protesting, no loved ones to bring home, no friends to fight for, no sons and fathers to protest over, no funerals to attend, no threat of them being drafted.

In Iraq it is not their sons or fathers or brothers or daughters being maimed and dying. It is not their relatives or friends being psychologically damaged; they do not see the devastation done and the demons spawned. This is a war that does not hit middle class America close to home or inside their sphere of existence, where the heart is, where emotion flows and anger grows. To the great majority, the Iraq war remains an abstract reality, seen in images and in articles, not in the flesh or in immediate suffering. As such, and as long as the lower castes of American society are made to “volunteer” for war, with those from urban jungles or of rural regions comprising the armed forces, as long as middle class America is not conscripted, there will not exist a massive peace movement, the kind that once moved mountains and introduced fear into the halls of power. This the Bush Administration knows all too well, which is why they avoid it at all costs, while at the same time manipulating the system in a myriad of ways to assure itself of enough cannon fodder to continue its war of imperialism and occupation.

Warmongers One and All

The War Culture we are called, birthed from the first images of cartoons our innocent minds are bombarded with, their entire content based on conflict, aggression, violence and destruction, our brainwaves slowly manipulated and altered to suit the ways of war. Conditioned from infancy to accept the sounds of gunfire, the dropping of bombs, the violence of war, the violent conflict of man versus man, we in time become immune to death and violence, suppressing inside us feelings of horror and revulsion. As we begin getting older we are introduced to the magical world of Hollywood, full of pyrotechnic wonder and digital artistry, making us awe and gawk at exploding bombs and reverberating waves of thunderous booms, becoming wide-eyed by the destruction unleashed by the weapons of war and the heroes we fantasize about.

Transfixed by Dolby digital sounds, the concussions of bombs exploding in our ears, the whizzing of bullets flying by, mushroom clouds of fire and smoke emanating on screen, blood and guts spilled throughout, we are made to accept war and violence and destruction as inherent mechanisms of conflict resolution. Slowly but surely we are conditioned to believe that the brutality of man killing man is not as severe as we believe it to be, that blood and guts are but movie magic, that death and injury are as fictional as that seen in the movies. We are made to love mayhem; we are made to love weapons; we are made to accept violence; we are made to believe death is nothing more than the role an actor must play.

In our deluded minds, thanks to years of watching television and movies, lies the ingrained propaganda that everything the military does is benevolent and altruistic, as always fighting for “freedom and democracy,” for “human rights,” for the salvation from “tyranny.” In our distorted view of human reality, the US military is always the good guy fighting the enemy, who is always evil, a dreaded evildoer. This black and white view of the world has been firmly planted into our minds by the happy ending, good-guy always wins bull manure manufactured by the fictional geniuses in Hollywood, where America is always the winner and where the evildoer of the moment always gets killed or caught. In a war such as the present debacle in Iraq, therefore, where reality is hidden and truth suppressed, our instinct will always be to blindly believe, in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary, that the US military has been sent to Iraq for good, altruistic and noble intentions.

The truth, though, is altogether different, as evidenced by the devastation unleashed by the American military inside Iraq. The sadistic images that emerged from Abu Ghraib, the crimes against humanity being committed in Guantanamo and other such clandestine gulags, the death of perhaps 200,000 innocent Iraqis, the complete devastation of Iraq’s infrastructure, the indiscriminate shooting of civilians, the immeasurable level of suffering created as a result of occupation, the destruction of Fallujah missile, bomb and use of white phosphorus, the lack of electricity, sewage, fuel and adequate drinking water, the ongoing dropping of bombs and an increase in the aerial war are but a few examples of the wickedness exported into Iraq by America’s illegal and immoral invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. The complete collapse of society and unfettered chaos in the streets, the civil war now raging and expanding, the insecurity prevalent throughout the nation and the deep seated anger and hate brewing in Iraq are all a result of what our cherished military, at the behest of George W. Bush, has helped birth in a nation once tranquil and secure.

Yet to millions of Americans who either do not care or will never know reality, what we have done in Iraq is bringing “freedom and democracy,” even though women now have fewer rights than before invasion, freeing a nation from its tyrant, even though America has become the new tyrant, that they hate us for our freedoms, when in reality they hate us for our foreign policies, our imperialism and our support of ruthless tyrants, and “fighting them over there so we do not have to fight them over here,” even though there were no terrorists in Iraq before but now it has become a training ground for thousands who will one day use their expertise in order to inflict blowback at the United States.

Lost from the memory of tens of millions of Americans, whether conveniently or from the general amnesia now prevalent throughout society, are the myriad of excuses used to justify the illegal invasion and occupation, from WMDs, mushroom clouds, connections to 9/11 and Al-Qaeda. Lost is the reality that we are the invading Red Coats fighting against American Revolutionaries in the Iraqi version of the Revolutionary War and War for Independence, that the truth behind the Iraq war is freedom fighters trying to cleanse their lands of the imperial invaders intent on dehumanizing Iraqis, raping their women, killing and brutalizing their children, conquering their oil fields and possessing their geostrategic lands. We cheer freedom fighters in expensive Hollywood productions, yet not when we are the invaders and occupiers. Such is the power of propaganda. Thanks to incessant propaganda, however, tens of millions of Americans will continue to live in the illusion that we are fighting the so-called war on terror against Al-Qaeda, that Iraq is the central front in this mirage, that we are the defenders of humanity, pursuing evildoer bogeymen with no interest in controlling the vast oil fields deemed vital to the continued expansion both of our economy and the coffers of the military-industrial-energy complex.

After years of propaganda and conditioning, and thanks to continued and incessant brainwashing by the mainstream media, we readily accept war as an institution, as a product re-introduced every few years for the benefit of the state. War thus becomes a necessary component that we inherently associate, perhaps subconsciously, with the continued health of the nation and its economy. By association, then, war is good not only for the country but for us as individuals, assuring our children of continued excessiveness. Inside our minds exists the charade that without war we would not possess the vast wealth we have or the comfortable lifestyles we live in.

Yet we also know that without war, without our reckless grab for land and exploitation, the nation would stutter and cease to be the power that has allowed us to dominate the globe, pillaging the world’s people and their resources in the process, in wanton fashion exacerbating misery, regional wars, global warming, poverty and thus further imperiling the security of the planet. It is this reality that we are fully aware of yet refuse to accept or openly talk about, becoming the ugly truth that must never be allowed to escape its dark closet. It is better to live in denial and in hypocrisy than in the shantytowns exclusively reserved for billions of our fellow human beings.

Millions of us know we owe our fruitful and gluttonous lifestyles to war, to the suffering of billions and the imperialist mechanisms controlled by us, yet many of us refuse to change our ways, refusing to act in opposition to the Empire, refusing to acknowledge that our lifestyle was born in sin, in human misery and in the invasion and colonization of alien lands. Living inside the belly of the beast, using and exploiting its many riches, living its comfortable reality, yet refusing to alter our standards of living or our comfortable existence, refusing to amend our crimes and stop our exploitation of the planet, we remain, as always, fully complicit in the crimes and destruction and misery unleashed by our government. Remaining silent, indifferent and ignorant to this reality does not absolve any of us.

Through silence we merely acquiesce to everything done in our name. Our failure or unwillingness to alter our ways, our inability or refusal to change the direction of this nation and the continued indifference or complicity to the plight of billions has unmasked us all. This hidden truth lies at the heart of us all, making us a nation of warmongers, one and all, of amnesiacs, one and all, of pampered and spoiled primates, one and all, a citizenry unapologetic in its complicity and acquiescence to imperialism, war and destruction through our excessiveness, comfortable lifestyles and deafening silence.

We are a nation asleep at the wheel, drunk off our self-exceptionalism and gluttony, ramming head on into the massive trunk of unthinking self-destruction, our arrogance blinding us to the giant cancer in our midst, addicted to materialism and television, every day dumbed down further, unwilling to learn about the world outside our infallible bubble, creating a snowball rolling downhill, gaining momentum and growing in size, in its path eviscerating the dreams and hopes of the future as well as an American past that once offered humanity a glimmer of hope in an ever-dwindling and myopic world.


Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: Gaza as the Warsaw Ghetto

Friday February 17th 2006
Kurt Nimmo

Ehud Olmert, acting like Governor-General Hans Frank, has decided to turn the Gaza Strip into the Warsaw Ghetto. Frank was of course Governor-General of occupied Poland and Olmert is the acting PM of Israel, also known as occupied Palestine (ministerial powers were transferred to Olmert after the war criminal Ariel Sharon suffered a severe hemorrhagic stroke). Frank was prosecuted during the Nuremberg trials and sent to the gallows. Olmert will never face trial for killing Palestinians and will likely go on to become a big cheese in the “centrist” Kadima party.

“Israeli officials on Friday discussed virtually sealing off the Gaza Strip, banning the entry of Palestinian day workers and freezing money due to the Palestinian Authority once a Hamas-dominated parliament is sworn in on Saturday,” reports the Financial Times. In other words, since “democracy” didn’t turn out the way the Israelis wanted, they will now wall up the Palestinians much the same way the Nazis in Poland “sealed off” the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto.

Obviously, not allowing Palestinians to work or receive money will result not only in massive misery and privation but ultimately starvation as well. But then, as the Jabotinsky Likudite and former Irgun terrorist, Menachem Begin, once quipped, Palestinians are beasts walking on two legs, so really their largely ignored abuse and even murder is no big deal. Ehud Olmert, a former member of the Beitar Youth Organization and a staunch Jabotinsky Likudite, is one of many of Begin’s successors, and thus determined to victimize the Palestinians relentlessly.


Comment on this Editorial


Iraqi government denounces Abu Ghraib abuse

CNN 16 Feb 06

U.S. officials have said the pictures and video should not have been released, with Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman telling The Associated Press their airing "could only further inflame and possibly incite unnecessary violence in the world."

The newly broadcast images do not appear to show any new perpetrators.

More than 25 people have been held accountable for criminal acts and other misconduct associated with prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, according to the U.S. Defense Department's Web site.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The Iraqi government Thursday condemned prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, following an Australian TV broadcast of newly released images, the aired timing of which a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq called "irresponsible" and "unnecessarily provocative."

A spokesman for Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said the events portrayed in the images are a "serious thing that completely conflicts with the human rights charter, and their repetition should be prevented."

The statement by Iraq's Council of Ministers went on to say it welcomed the "firm denunciation by the U.S. State Department and American officials."

On Wednesday, the Australian television network SBS broadcast videos and photos of apparent torture and sexual humiliation not seen before publicly. One of the more graphic videos shows five men wearing hoods and masturbating for the camera, presumably under orders from their guards.

The SBS program "Dateline" said the images were from 2003, taken around the same time as other photos leaked to the news media the following year. Publication of the original set of pictures in April 2004 sparked widespread international condemnation of the United States.

Salon.com published still more graphic photographs Thursday, apparently from the same set. Salon said it was given the photos by "someone who spent time at Abu Ghraib as a uniformed member of the military" and is familiar with the Army's investigation into them.

Iraqi notes improvements

Iraq's acting human rights minister, Nermin Othman, admitted that conditions at Iraqi prisons remain bad but said they have improved since the Abu Ghraib pictures first came to light nearly two years ago.

Othman said that an investigative committee is making spot checks at four detention facilities and the Human Rights Ministry is working to improve conditions. She said the panel is barred from access to detainees at a high-value detention center.

She said the ministry wants to switch management of Abu Ghraib from Western to Iraqi control but added that not enough Iraqi personnel are trained to run such a prison.
Coverage in Mideast papers

Arabic-language newspapers devoted a great deal of coverage to the images Thursday. Al Hayat published four pictures and an article about the apparent abuse under the headline: "New Image of Abu Ghraib Scandal: Torture, Killing and Mutilation."

Al-Rai in Jordan said on its Web site that revelations of the new images coincided with rage across the Islamic world over the publication of caricatures of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed.

But a U.S. military officer told reporters Thursday that the release of the new images has not resulted in any "increased hostility" in Iraq.

"Those pictures were pictures of criminal acts that took place many years ago, rogue soldiers doing activity that wasn't supported by their chain of command," Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch said.

The pictures are reflections "of what happened before," not "of what's happening now," Lynch said.

Nevertheless, U.S. officials have said the pictures and video should not have been released, with Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman telling The Associated Press their airing "could only further inflame and possibly incite unnecessary violence in the world."

The newly broadcast images do not appear to show any new perpetrators.

More than 25 people have been held accountable for criminal acts and other misconduct associated with prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, according to the U.S. Defense Department's Web site.

Army Reserve Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who was in charge of Abu Ghraib during the prison abuse scandal, was demoted to colonel. She also was formally relieved of command of the 800th Military Police Brigade.

Another officer, Col. Thomas Pappas, was reprimanded and fined.

The longest prison sentence -- 10 years -- was given to Army Cpl. Charles Graner. Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick, a U.S. Army reservist from Virginia, received an eight-year sentence.

Graner and his then-girlfriend, Pfc. Lynndie England -- who was sentenced to three years in prison -- were in many of the original photos. They show up again in some of the new images.

The uproar caused by the newly broadcast images coincides with a U.N. report condemning U.S. treatment of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The United Nations has called on the U.S. government to release all suspected terrorists being held there or try them.

Comment: Unfortunately, the REAL criminals have not been held accountable and the torture DOES continue! Why else would the Bush administration reserve the right to torture? Why would the US Administration refuse to have relations with countries that do not sign an agreement to not prosecute Americans for War Crimes?

Comment on this Article


Yet more Abu Ghraib

Salon.com

Just click the link and see what America has become.




Comment on this Article


Outrage Spreads over New Images

By Dahr Jamail and Arkan Hamed Inter Press Service 16 Feb 06

BASRA - New footage of British soldiers beating up young Iraqi men in Amarah city in 2003, and the release of more photographs of atrocities by U.S. soldiers against Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib prison has spread outrage across Iraq.

The timing of the new images is potent, in the wake of violence spreading through Iraq and much of the Muslim world over cartoons of Prophet Mohammed carried by a Danish newspaper and then other European publications.

"We in Basra have decided not to cooperate in any way with the British troops," 43 year-old food merchant Ali Shehab Najim told IPS. "These occupiers of Basra are invaders and we will not sell them any of their requirements."

Najim added, "None of us will work with them any longer either. My cousin used to work with them inside their base, but not any more. He refuses to go to work, and we have decided to show our contempt for them in every way possible."
Najim said people are particularly angry over the Danish military presence in Iraq.

He said he had first accepted the presence of occupation forces, but now "I think it's about time to tell them we do not respect them since they are behaving in a very bad way."

After footage of British troops beating young Iraqis with fists and batons was aired earlier, the Governorate of Basra announced it has severed ties to the British military. This included cancellation of joint security patrols.

"We condemn any of those actions by British and American troops in torturing our young people," former head city councillor of Basra governorate Qasim Atta Al-Joubori told IPS.

"Iraqis suffered a lot during the past 35 years, but now they are tortured by foreigners who invaded our country," said Al-Joubori, who was a city councillor in Basra for 40 years. "We can't accept having them any more."

Far from cooperating, people in Basra are now prepared to fight the occupation forces, he said. "What these beatings and torture show is that the occupiers are both assaulting and insulting all of the Iraqi people."

Similar views are being echoed around Basra, a relatively quieter area in the south under charge of British troops.

"We are looking to the day we see those bastards out of our country," 55 year-old factory owner Abdullah Ibraheem told IPS. "Now they are torturing the citizens of Basra, Baghdad and Amarah, so they have not only lost the support of the Iraqi Sunnis but the Shias in this country as well."

He said most Iraqis know someone who has been in a military detention centre, but said the new video footage and photographic evidence of torture have "demolished whatever credibility may have remained for the occupiers."

The Australian television network Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) aired previously unpublished video footage and photographs Wednesday of abuse of Iraqis by U.S. soldiers inside the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in 2003.

The images are similar to those published in 2004 that led to furore across the Middle East. But many of the new images show a brutality and extent of sexual humiliation that many news outlets found too shocking to carry.

The American Civil Liberties Union had obtained the photographs from the U.S. government under a Freedom of Information request, but its members said they were not aware how the SBS came to air its new footage and the photographs.

There could be yet more photographs to come. "I believe major newspapers in the U.S. like the Washington Post have scores more photos which are evidence of torture at Abu Ghraib, but they won't publish them due to pressure from the U.S. government," an attorney at the Centre for Constitutional Rights in New York City told IPS.

In Washington, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters, "The abuses at Abu Ghraib have been fully investigated." He added, "When there have been abuses, this department has acted upon them promptly, investigated them thoroughly and where appropriate prosecuted individuals."

He said the Pentagon believes that releasing of the new images would trigger greater violence, and endanger U.S. forces in Iraq.



Comment on this Article


CNN Blames the Photos,Not the Torture

by Jeremy Scahill AntiWar.com 16 Feb 06

CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr should be given some kind of award for the most outrageously off-target reporting on the newly released photos and videos of U.S. torture and abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. In her numerous appearances during the morning news cycle on CNN after the images were first broadcast on Australia's SBS television, Starr described what she saw as the "root of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal" as such:

"Let's start by reminding everybody that under U.S. military law and practice, the only photographs that can be taken are official photographs for documentation purposes about the status of prisoners when they are in military detention. That's it. Anything else is not acceptable. And of course, that is what the Abu Ghraib prison scandal is all about."

What? Here I thought the "scandal" was that the U.S. military was systematically abusing prisoners. These new photos, with their documentation of violently inflicted, open wounds, obliterate any notion that what occurred at Abu Ghraib was anything short of torture by all accepted definitions of the term. They reveal some horrifying scenes of naked, humiliated, bloodied prisoners, some with apparent gunshot wounds. In a video broadcast on Australia's SBS, naked, hooded prisoners were seen being forced to masturbate in front of the camera. But, according to CNN's Starr, the real transgression was that some soldiers documented the torture in violation of "U.S. military law and practice."
In a report later in the morning, Starr returned to her outrageous characterization of the "scandal," beginning her report:

"As we look at a couple of the photographs, let's remind people that why these are so inappropriate. Under U.S. military law and practice and procedure, you simply cannot take photographs – as we're going to show you some of them right now. You cannot take photographs of people in detention, in humiliating positions, positions that are abusive in any way, shape or form. The only pictures that are ever allowed of people in U.S. military detention would be pictures for documentation purposes. And, clearly, these pictures are not that. That is the whole issue that has been at the root of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, that it was abusive, the practices in which soldiers engaged in."

"You cannot take photographs of people in detention, in humiliating positions, positions that are abusive in any way, shape or form," according to Starr. But apparently it's OK to place them in those humiliating, abusive positions – or at least not worth commenting on in these reports on CNN. Starr continued her report, describing Pentagon reaction to the newly released photos:

"But the Pentagon certainly is not happy that these pictures, these additional pictures, which had not been distributed publicly in the past, Pentagon not happy that they are out. And the reason is, the Pentagon had filed a lawsuit trying to prevent their publication in the United States out of concern, they say, that it would spark violence in the Arab world to see these photographs and it would put U.S. military forces at risk."

The release of the photographs will spark the violence? No – U.S. torture of prisoners sparks massive outrage, and justifiably so. Moreover, this outrage should not just be confined to the "Arab world" but should be felt everywhere, particularly in the U.S. Besides, Pentagon lawyers have already tried this defense in federal court, and a judge ruled that fear of facing the consequences of your actions is not a legitimate defense.

Starr concluded another report saying the Pentagon is concerned that if the images "appear in the Islamic world … they will incite unrest in the Islamic world, and therefore put U.S. military troops at risk."

CNN anchor Zain Vergee then shot back, "And they were swiftly put on Arab TV. As you say, they're out there."

They were swiftly put on Arab TV. Is there something devious about that? Is "Arab TV" somehow committing some transgression against freedom and democracy by broadcasting these images that were first put out by Australian TV in a country Bush claims as his ally?

All of the images of the torture at Abu Ghraib should be made public, as the Center for Constitutional Rights and ACLU have been fighting for, because they are an accurate representation of what has happened and continues to happen in U.S.-run and -supported gulags around the world.

When and if they are released, Barbara Starr should be reminded that she is supposed to be a CNN reporter at the Pentagon, not a Pentagon spokesperson on CNN.



Comment on this Article


Flashback: Exhibitionistic Revenge at Abu Ghraib

By PETER WOLSON, Ph. D.

What is, perhaps, most horrific and incomprehensible about the Abu Ghraib photos are the photos themselves. Why would American prison guards take pictures of themselves smiling triumphantly and making fun of Iraqi prisoners as they humiliated, tortured, and in some instances, raped them? Was this a result of following orders in the dangerous, overcrowded, undisciplined prison milieu of Abu Ghraib, haphazardly trickling down from a chain of command that extended up to Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, as Seymour Hersch's New Yorker article suggests? Or was it due to some insidious psychological dynamic that not only affected these lower echelon prison guards, but also the Bush administration's approach to Iraq?
The answer might ultimately lie in the dynamics of exhibitionism: the basic human need to show one's self and be seen. Many psychoanalysts have concluded that the development and preservation of one's fundamental sense of self depends on the need to receive accurate, empathic mirroring. In other words, "I am seen, therefore I am." Humiliating blows to the self-image not only shatters self-esteem and self-confidence, but on the deepest level, can threaten psychic survival. Such narcissistic wounding often unleashes overwhelming rage and the need for revenge, to restore one's pride and self-integrity. Throughout history, this defensive revenge has taken the form of displaying sadistic triumph over a humiliated enemy.

For example, it was commonplace for the ancient Romans to display their defeated scourged, enemies nailed to crosses, for European conquerors during the middle ages to parade the heads of their enemies on pikes, and for American Indians and United States cavalry to wear the scalps of their adversaries as cosmetic ornaments. In addition, there have been innumerable wars in which soldiers have murdered their male adversaries and raped their women so that the children born of these unconscionable unions would serve as living exhibits of the conqueror's triumphal image for future generations to come.

Saddam Hussein intimidated his enemies, not only by torturing, raping and murdering them, but by plastering enormous self-aggrandizing pictures of himself on buildings throughout Iraq, as did Mao Tze Tung in China, Joseph Stalin in Russia and Adolph Hitler in Nazi Germany. An awesome publicly exhibited photograph psychologically broadcasts the despot's power, and is intended to intimidate his adversaries and ensure his political survival.

It was therefore not surprising when American soldiers entering Iraqi cities immediately removed Saddam's posters from buildings and encouraged the populace to topple his statutes, to destroy the influence of these exhibitionistic symbols. The ultimate revenge for Saddam's defiance of America was showing photographs of his humiliating capture and videos of him as a defeated, confused, disheveled old man with bad teeth. The videos demonstrated that he had lost his bite.

The same dynamics were evident when Saddam sympathizers in Fallouja mockingly displayed the burned, severed, hanging corpses of American soldiers and construction workers, while dancing triumphantly in the streets. This horrific act of revenge, in addition to instilling terror, was intended to humiliate and destroy America's invincible image and to salvage the shattered pride of Saddam's supporters.

Similarly, the American Abu Ghraib guards were in a frightening, overcrowded prison in which they could have been killed at any moment, within or outside its walls. Although it now appears that some of them may have been operating under orders, their obvious pleasure in photographing themselves triumphantly humiliating these Iraqi prisoners, as if they had nothing to fear, was clearly, compensatory for their endangered self-esteem and threatened lives. Emasculating and humiliating Iraqi men by posing them hooded and electrically wired, or engaged in homosexual acts, or having them lie on one another nude, or raping them with broom handles and chemical lights, or treating them like animals, wearing dog collars, while laughing and mocking them, gave the impression that these Americans were in total control of a weak, impotent enemy and had nothing to fear. Even if ordered to do this, the psychological drive to take photographs of this sadistic domination must have been so strong that it overrode the obvious judgment that these practices resembled Saddam's and undermined the humanity of America's mission in Iraq.

Subsequently, Al Qaeda's exhibitionistic retaliation was through an internationally accessible video of the beheading of American contractor, Nicholas Berg. The executioner declared that the beheading was an act of revenge for the humiliation of Arabs at Abu Ghraib, and intended to redeem Arab dignity. The conspicuous absence of condemnation from most Arab leaders suggested a widespread empathy for this viewpoint. Following Abu Ghraib, a poll indicated that eighty-two percent of Iraqis wanted the United States to end its occupation immediately.

Now we have learned, from Seymour Hersch's investigation reported on Meet the Press on May 16th, that the photography spree at Abu Ghraib might have been inspired by representatives of a secret undercover contingent of elite operatives, sanctioned by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, which had used humiliating photographs of Al Qaeda suspects in Afghanistan and other hot spots to extract vital intelligence data from the suspects' families.

With this possible link to the Bush administration, one wonders to what extent the vengeful exhibitionism at Abu Ghraib might represent, in microcosm, a symptom of America's underlying dynamic after 9/11. After having been profoundly humiliated as the world's greatest superpower by 19 Arab terrorists, the Bush administration has attempted to restore America's wounded pride by humiliating and destroying the Arab world's most powerful despot, Saddam Hussein, and by aggressively and unilaterally imposing democracy on a reluctant, defeated Iraq. How can America establish democracy in the Arab world if its underlying motivation is revenge?

Peter Wolson, Ph. D., is a Training and Supervising Psychoanalyst and former President and Rector of Training at The Los Angeles Institute and Society for Psychoanalytic Studies. He has a private practice in Beverly Hills. He can be reached at: peterwolson@earthlink.net



Comment on this Article


More Photos; More War Crimes

By Mike Whitney ICH 16 Feb 06

The photographs illustrate in excruciating detail the commitment to physical coercion that the Bush administration has vigorously defended in its legal memoranda and justified in terms of its war on terrorism. The battered faces and hooded victims of American brutality attest to the shocking inhumanity of the present campaign.

This is the real face of the Bush’s global democratic crusade. The rest is just gibberish.
SBS Dateline has broadcast 60 previously unpublished photographs of the victims of American abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. Many of the disturbing pictures have already appeared on the internet; exposing the underlying principle of American foreign policy, domination through force.

The photographs illustrate in excruciating detail the commitment to physical coercion that the Bush administration has vigorously defended in its legal memoranda and justified in terms of its war on terrorism. The battered faces and hooded victims of American brutality attest to the shocking inhumanity of the present campaign.

This is the real face of the Bush’s global democratic crusade. The rest is just gibberish.

How can anyone look at these appalling photographs and fail to grasp the brutality and cynicism that animates the policy?

How can anyone listen to the glib palavering of the torturer-and-chief as he pontificates on a "culture of life" that protects the unborn, but leaves others naked and bound, in a pool of blood?

The hypocrisy is nearly as offensive as the savagery.

The photographs have emerged just as the United Nations is preparing to release a report on Guantanamo Bay. The report assails the Bush administration for its clear violations to human rights and international law. "It says that the US committed acts amounting to torture" and that, "the apparent attempts by the US administration to reinterpret certain interrogation techniques as 'not reaching the threshold of torture’ in the framework of the struggle against terrorism are of utmost concern".

The findings of the UN commission are significant in that they provide the foundation for future "war crimes and crimes against humanity" tribunals.

The report confirms the relevance of the United Nations as a legitimate moral authority in judging the aberrant behavior of the member states. While no one expects that punitive action will be taken against the Bush administration, the next logical step is for the group to press for censure at the UN Security Council, thus drawing international attention to the grave issue of human rights abuse.

We can only hope that the atrocious photographs of victims at Abu Ghraib will embolden the UN group to take whatever action is needed to deter the supporters of torture and abuse from continuing their monstrous behavior.



Comment on this Article


Salon exclusive: The Abu Ghraib files - Never-published photos, and an internal Army report, show more Iraqi prisoner abuse -- evidence the government is fighting to hide.

By Mark Benjamin

The DVD containing the material includes a June 6, 2004, CID investigation report written by Special Agent James E. Seigmund. That report includes the following summary of the material included: "A review of all the computer media submitted to this office revealed a total of 1,325 images of suspected detainee abuse, 93 video files of suspected detainee abuse, 660 images of adult pornography, 546 images of suspected dead Iraqi detainees, 29 images of soldiers in simulated sexual acts, 20 images of a soldier with a Swastika drawn between his eyes, 37 images of Military Working dogs being used in abuse of detainees and 125 images of questionable acts."
Salon has obtained files and other electronic documents from an internal Army investigation into the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal. The material, which includes more than 1,000 photographs, videos and supporting documents from the Army's probe, may represent all of the photographic and video evidence that pertains to that investigation.

The files, from the Army's Criminal Investigation Command (CID), include hundreds of images that have never been publicly released. Along with the unpublished material, the material obtained by Salon also appears to include all of the famous photographs published after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in April 2004, as well as the photographs and videos published Wednesday by the Australian television news show "Dateline."

The source who gave the CID material to Salon is someone who spent time at Abu Ghraib as a uniformed member of the military and is familiar with the CID investigation.

The DVD containing the material includes a June 6, 2004, CID investigation report written by Special Agent James E. Seigmund. That report includes the following summary of the material included: "A review of all the computer media submitted to this office revealed a total of 1,325 images of suspected detainee abuse, 93 video files of suspected detainee abuse, 660 images of adult pornography, 546 images of suspected dead Iraqi detainees, 29 images of soldiers in simulated sexual acts, 20 images of a soldier with a Swastika drawn between his eyes, 37 images of Military Working dogs being used in abuse of detainees and 125 images of questionable acts."

The photographs we are showing in the accompanying gallery represent a small fraction of these visual materials. None, as far as we know, have been published elsewhere. They include: a naked, handcuffed prisoner in a contorted position; a dead prisoner who had been severely beaten; a prisoner apparently sodomizing himself with an object; and a naked, hooded prisoner standing next to an American officer who is blandly writing a report against a wall. Other photographs depict a bloody cell.

The DVD also includes photographs of guards threatening Iraqi prisoners with dogs, homemade videotapes depicting hooded prisoners being forced to masturbate, and a video showing a mentally disturbed prisoner smashing his head against a door. Oddly, the material also includes numerous photographs of slaughtered animals and mundane images of soldiers traveling around Iraq.

Accompanying texts from the CID investigation provide fairly detailed explanations for many of the photographs, including dates and times and the identities of both Iraqis and Americans. Based on time signatures of the digital cameras used, all the photographs and videos were taken between Oct. 18, 2003, and Dec. 30, 2003.

It is noteworthy that some of the CID documents refer to CIA personnel as interrogators of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. But no CIA officers have been prosecuted for any crimes that occurred within the prison, despite the death of at least one Iraqi during a CIA interrogation there.

Human-rights and civil-liberties groups have been locked in a legal battle with the Department of Defense since mid-2004, demanding that it release the remaining visual documents from Abu Ghraib in its possession. It is not clear whether the material obtained by Salon is identical to that sought by these groups, although it seems highly likely that it is.

Barbara Olshansky, deputy legal director at the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, "We brought the lawsuit because we wanted to make sure the public knew what the government was doing, particularly at these detention facilities," and, "It is the public's right to know."

Based on a verbal description of the files and images, Olshansky said she believes that the material obtained by Salon represents all of the Abu Ghraib images and video the Pentagon has been fighting to keep confidential. "I'm guessing that what you have is a pretty rare and complete set," she said.

The Pentagon initially argued in federal court that release of more Abu Ghraib images would violate the privacy rights of the Iraqi prisoners. Later, government lawyers argued that public release of the records might "endanger" soldiers in Iraq because publication of the pictures could incite further violence.

The government's argument was rejected by a federal district court last September. Judge Alvin Hellerstein said in his ruling, "Terrorists do not need pretexts for their barbarism." Release of the photographs in the suit has been delayed as the government appeals Hellerstein's decision.

Meanwhile, military trials of the soldiers who served at Abu Ghraib continue. Next month, two more enlisted men, both dog handlers, will face a military court at Fort Meade in Maryland. No high-ranking officer or official has yet been charged in the abuse scandal that blackened America's reputation across the world.

Additional reporting by Mark Follman, Page Rockwell and Michael Scherer.



Comment on this Article


Iraq 'death squad caught in act'

BBC 16 Feb 06

Iraq has launched an investigation into claims by the US military that an Iraqi interior ministry "death squad" has been targeting Sunni Arab Iraqis.

The probe comes after a US general revealed the arrest of 22 policemen allegedly on a mission to kill a Sunni.

"We have found one of the death squads. They are part of the police force," US Maj Gen Joseph Peterson said.

Sunnis have long accused Iraqi forces of operating death squads - but the claims have never been substantiated.

Iraqi deputy interior minister Maj Gen Hussein Kamal said his ministry had set up an inquiry.
"The interior minister has formed an investigation committee to learn more about the Sunni person and those 22 men, particularly whether they work for the interior ministry or claim to belong to the ministry," he told the Associated Press news agency.

Hundreds of Sunni Arab Iraqis have been found dead since the 2003 war in what appear to have been extra-judicial killings.

On Wednesday, the bodies of four unidentified men were found in Baghdad's Shia district of Shula. They had been handcuffed, blindfolded and shot in the head.

Iraqi insurgents have also often used a similar tactic against Iraqis working with international forces or the Iraqi government.

Detained

Gen Peterson, who is in charge of training the Iraqi police, told the Chicago Tribune on Wednesday that US forces had stumbled across the first evidence of death squads within the interior ministry.

The 22 interior ministry traffic policemen, dressed in police commando uniforms, were arrested in late January at an Iraqi army checkpoint in northern Baghdad and asked what they were doing.

They told soldiers they were taking a Sunni man away to be shot dead.

"The amazing thing is... they tell you exactly what they're going to do," Gen Peterson said.

Militias

Gen Peterson said US forces were holding four of the men at the Abu Ghraib prison and that the 18 other men were being detained at an Iraqi jail.

The Sunni man, who was accused of murder, is also being detained.

Subsequent investigations found the four men in US custody are linked to the Badr Organisation, the armed militia of one of Iraq's main Shia parties, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

But Gen Peterson said he was convinced Iraqi Interior Minster Bayan Jabr, a member of Sciri, had no knowledge of or involvement in the death squads.

"Who are these guys? That's what the minister is trying to find out," he said.

"They are discrediting him and his organisation. He wants to find these guys. He does not support them."

But Gen Peterson said he believed other death squads were operating within the Iraqi security forces.

"It's an issue of loyalties, of allegiance," he said. "If you're still wearing your Badr T-shirt under your uniform, that's a problem."

'Official help'

Iraqi Human Rights Minister Narmin Uthman said she believed lower-level officials were helping the death squads.

"These officials are helping the criminals by informing them on where targeted people are going or where people are living," she told AP.

A spokesman for the country's main Sunni Arab party, the Iraqi Islamic Party, backed the launch of the investigation.

"For a very long time we have been talking about such violations and we have been telling the interior ministry officials that there are squads that raid houses and arrest people who are found later executed in different parts of the capital," Nasser al-Ani said.



Comment on this Article


Iraq calls on US to hand over Iraqi detainees

Khaleej Times 16 February 2006

BAGHDAD - Iraq’s human rights minister called on US-led forces on Thursday to hand over all Iraqi inmates at US-run prisons to the Iraqi government, following more footage of prisoners being abused.

“We are very worried about the Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib. The multinational forces and the British forces should hand them over to the (Iraqi) government,” Zuhair al-Chalabi told Reuters.

“This is a very dangerous issue that the Iraqi government should review,” he said. “The Iraqi government should move immediately to have the prisons and the prisoners delivered to the ministry of justice.”

In an interview, Chalabi condemned the previously unpublished images as “major human rights violations” and compared them to abuses committed under dictatorships. The footage was broadcast on Wednesday by an Australian television station.

“These are major (human rights) violations that turned to crimes. When you torture and hit in this brutal way it doesn’t make any difference from the dictators’ systems.”

US forces are holding about 14,000 detainees in Iraq.




Comment on this Article


The Basra video should lay to rest a scurrilous lie

By Jasem al-Aqrab The Guardian 16 Feb 06

Although I and numerous members of my family suffered personally, physically and otherwise at the hands of the Saddam Hussein regime, and dreamed for many years of the day he would be gone, I always opposed the invasion and occupation of our country. Subsequent events have made me even more convinced of the fallacy and immorality of the military campaign that Britain and the US have pursued in Iraq. The biggest indictment of the war and occupation is surely that more and more Iraqis are speaking publicly of how life was far better when Saddam was in power - an achievement most Iraqis never imagined possible.
Since April 2003, the people of Basra have consistently been bemused by reports that they and their city enjoy a state of calm and stability under the command of the British forces, in contrast to the north of Iraq and the so-called Sunni triangle. As someone born and bred in Basra, I hope that the recent images of British troops beating young Basra boys to within an inch of their lives will allow such claims to be laid to rest and show a fraction of the reality that has made life throughout Iraq a living hell.

When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke a couple of years ago, I recall a commentator on the BBC World Service smugly saying that the Americans were heavy-handed and undisciplined when it came to dealing with civilians, while the British were far more restrained, touring Basra in their berets as peacekeepers rather than occupiers. My estimation of the BBC World Service dipped when the other side of the picture was not presented.

The truth is that ever since the fall of Saddam Hussein's tyrannical regime, abuses and atrocities committed against Iraqi civilians have been a regular, at times daily, occurrence throughout the country, including in Basra. These have been committed by American, British and Iraqi official forces. Hearing the British prime minister describe this latest incident as an isolated case fills me and fellow Iraqis with anger.

It adds insult to very serious injury when we are told that this humiliation, torture and violence is the work of a few "bad apples". From previous experience, the most we can look forward to is a whitewash inquiry and possibly a young, low-ranking soldier being made a scapegoat.

As a strong believer in the need for Iraqis to use the political process to bring about change, it is not difficult to see how innocent youngsters are radicalised and why they turn to widely available arms. Those who were beaten mercilessly while being mocked by the film-maker for their pain and humiliation will never listen to me or my colleagues when we try to win them over to peaceful ways of venting their anger and frustration. Their families, loved ones, friends and even those who see the horrific images on TV will be ever more convinced that such degradation can only be met with fire and force.

The allegation that insurgents have flooded into Iraq from neighbouring Syria and Iran may hold some truth, but the flooding I fear is the daily recruitment of insurgents by the brutal, inhumane and tyrannical treatment that young Iraqis experience every day at the hands of occupation forces, as well as the Iraqi government forces they support.

Although I and numerous members of my family suffered personally, physically and otherwise at the hands of the Saddam Hussein regime, and dreamed for many years of the day he would be gone, I always opposed the invasion and occupation of our country. Subsequent events have made me even more convinced of the fallacy and immorality of the military campaign that Britain and the US have pursued in Iraq. The biggest indictment of the war and occupation is surely that more and more Iraqis are speaking publicly of how life was far better when Saddam was in power - an achievement most Iraqis never imagined possible.

Tony Blair's suggestion that British forces are in Iraq to educate Iraqis in democracy has only added salt to our bleeding wounds. This rhetoric harks back to imperial times when Britain was a colonial power and treated my forefathers, as well as many other peoples in the world, as backward savages. It hurts me that despite Mr Blair's first-class education, he seems to have learned so little. Until recently, Britain was admired and respected by Iraqis. The few who had the chance to visit or study in the UK were looked upon with envy. The past three years have seen to it that that respect has been obliterated.

Iraqis have suffered immensely over recent years, first from the west's support for a despotic dictatorship, then from 13 years of sanctions that ravaged the country, and finally from a war and occupation that reduced a once-affluent country and its highly-educated people to rubble and dust.

It saddens me that Britain has had a significant hand in every episode that has heaped misery on Iraqis. At a time when a brief apology and admission of fault by the prime minister would have gone a long way towards reconciliation between our peoples, he has chosen to widen the gap still further. I suggest that next time Britain hears of a fallen British soldier in Iraq, Mr Blair should be asked about his role in that tragedy.

I share with the majority of Iraqis the belief that the only way forward is the immediate departure of American and British troops from our country. The suggestion that this would make matters worse is at best laughable and at worst a scurrilous lie. Matters cannot get any worse, and they only became this bad because of the decision by American and British leaders to wage war against a people who were already suffering.

I have no doubt that I will see my country truly free and liberated from tyranny and occupation. I pray that this happens without the further spilling of blood - Iraqi, American or British.

· Dr Jasem al-Aqrab is head of organisation for the Iraqi Islamic party in Basra - jasemaqrab@imapmail.org



Comment on this Article


The Forgotten Terrorist Attack

By Malcom Lagauche ICH 16 Feb 06

Those inside the bomb shelter died horrific deaths. First, a 2,000-pound bomb crashed through the shelter creating a massive tunnel in which the second 2,000-pound bomb then came. Both blew up leaving a huge hole and killing more than 400 people. Only seven humans survived the attack. Those who died actually saw the first bomb and had a few seconds of life left before the second burrowed its way into the shelter. Such an attack transcends the barbarity of a bombing in which the people die immediately.
On the morning of February 14, 1991, when I turned the TV on to see the latest lies being told to the public about the U.S. bombing of Iraq, I saw a chaotic situation in Baghdad. The Amiryah bomb shelter had just been struck by two 2,000-pound superbombs. Information was sketchy, but it was evident that many people lost their lives.

The first statement from the U.S. administration was that the U.S. hit an Iraqi command and control post and the dead were military. Then, the cameras showed charred bodies of women and children, to the U.S. story had to be revised. The administration then said that the building was a military target in which Saddam Hussein placed civilians to protect the military personnel.

Remember that the current vice-president of the U.S., Dick Cheney, was the U.S. Secretary of War in 1991. He said, "We blame the Iraqi leadership for putting civilians in harm’s way." That statement was not only a lie, but one of the most absurd allegations one could make because it denigrated the hundreds of humans who lost their lives. Current occurrences show that Cheney can’t tell the difference between a small bird and a person, so nothing is new about his lack of brainpower or eyesight.

For a couple of hours, the world was told that the Iraqis led civilians to their deaths by putting them into a military target. Then, the truth began to emerge.

The Amiryah bomb shelter was built as a civilian bomb shelter during the Iran-Iraq War. Even the engineer who designed it came on television and told the world that there was no way it could be a military asset.

After the lies were put to rest, it became evident that the U.S. had mistaken the target as a military venue, or it had deliberately bombed it knowing it was a bomb shelter. To this day, not one U.S. government spokesperson has ever mentioned the truth. In fact, after February 14, 1991, the subject has been left unspoken: even the lies.

Those inside the bomb shelter died horrific deaths. First, a 2,000-pound bomb crashed through the shelter creating a massive tunnel in which the second 2,000-pound bomb then came. Both blew up leaving a huge hole and killing more than 400 people. Only seven humans survived the attack. Those who died actually saw the first bomb and had a few seconds of life left before the second burrowed its way into the shelter. Such an attack transcends the barbarity of a bombing in which the people die immediately.

The lines of burnt dead bodies lining the street presented a horrific scene reminiscent of Hiroshima after it was nuked by the U.S.

This is the 15th anniversary of the bombing of the shelter, yet few words have been written as a reminder of the horrific act. Before March 2003, at least Iraq commemorated the event and remembered the dead. The stooges in power today don’t want to remind the world of the lack of caring for human life the U.S. displayed in 1991 in the bombing of Iraq. Most weren’t even in the country then. No matter how much they stick their heads in the sand, nothing will never ease the pain of one of the most barbaric terrorist attacks in history. The silence from the U.S. and the Iraqi quislings is deafening.

Copyright Malcom Lagauche - Visit his website http://www.malcomlagauche.com/



Comment on this Article


Sunni Insurgents Seen as Increasingly Unified

By Jim Lobe IPS 16 Feb 06

"Today, the prospect of an outright victory and a swift withdrawal of foreign forces has crystallised, bolstered by the U.S.' perceived loss of legitimacy and apparent vacillation, its periodic announcement of troops redeployments, the precipitous decline in domestic support for the war and heightened calls by prominent politicians for a rapid withdrawal," the report states.
WASHINGTON, Feb 15 (IPS) - Despite reports of growing tensions and even occasional clashes between Islamists and nationalists, the predominantly Sunni insurgency in Iraq appears increasingly united and confident of victory, according to a new report released here Wednesday by the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG).

The 30-page report, based primarily on an analysis of the public communications of insurgent groups, as well as interviews and past studies about the insurgency, also concludes that rebel groups have adapted quickly and effectively to changing U.S. tactics -- in both the military and political spheres.

"Over time, the insurgency appears to have become more coordinated, confident, sensitive to its constituents' demands and adept at learning from the enemy's successes and its own failures," according to the report, "In Their Own Words: Reading the Iraqi Insurgency".

"The U.S. must take these factors into account if it is to understand the insurgency's resilience and learn how to counter it," it added, stressing that the most effective responses include reining in and disbanding sectarian militias responsible for human rights abuses and repeatedly making clear that Washington has no designs on Iraq's oil resources or on its territory for military bases.

The report, which comes amid intense -- but so far unavailing -- efforts by the U.S. Embassy to negotiate the creation of a new government in Baghdad that will place prominent Sunnis in key cabinet posts, is based mainly on what insurgents have themselves said on their Internet websites and chat rooms, videos, tapes and leaflets since the invasion and how those messages have evolved.

While much of the rhetoric is propagandistic, according to the ICG, it also provides a "window into the insurgency" capable of informing the analyst about its internal debates, levels of coordination, its perceptions of both the enemy and its constituency, and changes in tactics and strategy.

Such a textual analysis, according to the ICG, yields conclusions that are substantially at odds with many of Washington's current, as well as past, assumptions about the insurgency. Indeed, "(I)n Iraq, the U.S. fights an enemy it hardly knows," the report asserts.

The notion, for example, that the insurgency is divided between Iraqi nationalists and foreign jihadis, most prominently al Qaeda's Organisation in Mesopotamia (QOM) allegedly led by Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, appears increasingly questionable, according to the report, which notes that there has been a "gradual convergence" in the groups' tactics and rhetoric.

"A year ago, groups appeared divided over practices and ideology, but most debates have been settled through convergence around Sunni Islamic jurisprudence and Sunni Arab grievances," according to the report.

"Practically speaking, it has become virtually impossible to categorise a particular group's discourse as jihadi as opposed to nationalist or patriotic, with the exception of the Baath party, whose presence on the ground has been singularly ineffective."

During the first half of 2005, when reports of armed clashes between the two kinds of groups first surfaced, that was less true, but, since then and despite intense U.S. efforts to drive a wedge between them, the groups have largely harmonised their rhetoric.

In that connection, "recent reports of negotiations between 'nationalist' groups and the U.S. over forming an alliance against foreign jihadis appear at the very least exaggeratedà", according to the report. It noted that any such "duplicity" would almost certainly have been exposed and denounced by others.

Moreover, "no armed group so far has even hinted" that it may be willing to negotiate with the U.S. and Iraqi authorities. "While covert talks cannot be excluded, the publicly accessible discourse remains uniformly and relentlessly hostile to the occupation and its 'collaborators'."

That does not mean that differences between the two kinds of groups do not exist and that there could be a day of reckoning -- but only after Washington's withdrawal. "To this day, the armed opposition's avowed objectives have ...been reduced to a primary goal: ridding Iraq of the foreign occupier. Beyond that, all is vague."

Meanwhile, the groups have become increasingly mindful of their image and the necessity of cultivating public opinion among Sunnis, other Iraqis, and the West, according to the report.

Thus, they promptly and systematically respond to charges that they are corrupt or target innocent civilians and even reject accusations, despite the evidence from suicide attacks, against Shiite mosques, that they are waging a sectarian campaign.

Similarly, they have abandoned some tactics that proved especially revolting to their various audiences, such as the beheading of hostages and attacking voters going to the polls. And "(w)hile (they) deny any intent of depriving the population of water and electricity, restraint does not apply to oil installations, which are seen as part and parcel of American designs to exploit Iraq."

According to the report, four main groups now dominate the communications channels of the insurgency and publish regularly through a variety of media: QOM; Partisans of the Sunna Army (Jaysh Ansar al-Sunna); the Islamic Army in Iraq (Al-Jaysh al-Islami fil-'Iraq); and the Islamic Front of the Iraqi Resistance (al-Jabha al-Islamiya lil-Muqawama al-'Iraqiya, or Jami).

QOM, whose operational importance has, according to the ICG, been exaggerated by U.S. officials, sought during the past year to "Iraqify" its image, in part by reportedly replacing Zarqawi, a Jordanian, with an Iraqi leader. Jami, according to some ICG sources, may be a "public relations organ" shared by different armed groups and tends to be somewhat more sophisticated and nationalistic in its rhetoric and communications strategy than the others.

Another five groups that take credit for military actions generally use far less elaborate and stable channels of communication, while four more groups appear to lack regular means of communication to produce occasional claims of responsibility for armed actions through statements or videos.

All groups appear to have become more confident over the past year, according to the report, which noted that their optimism is not only noticeable in their official communiqués but in more spontaneous expressions by militants and sympathisers on internet chat sites and elsewhere.

Initially, according to the report, they perceived the U.S. presence as extremely difficult to remove, "(b)ut that no longer is the case".

"Today, the prospect of an outright victory and a swift withdrawal of foreign forces has crystallised, bolstered by the U.S.' perceived loss of legitimacy and apparent vacillation, its periodic announcement of troops redeployments, the precipitous decline in domestic support for the war and heightened calls by prominent politicians for a rapid withdrawal," the report states.

Moreover, "(w)hen the U.S. leaves, the insurgents do not doubt that Iraq's security forces and institutions would quickly collapse".

Copyright © 2006 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved.



Comment on this Article


Iraq: the forgotten victims - Military under fire for 'abandoning' more than 1,000 veterans with mental problems

By Kim Sengupta and Terri Judd 16 February 2006

Dramatic figures have been released revealing that at least 1,333 servicemen and women - almost 1.5 per cent of those who served in the Iraq war - have returned from the Middle East with serious psychiatric problems.

The official statistics, which have been passed to The Independent, identify those who were diagnosed with mental health problems while on duty. Many Iraq veterans are now receiving little or no treatment for a variety of mental health problems.

Questions have also been raised about the level of care being given to regular soldiers, reservists and members of the TA, some of whose symptoms emerged after ending active service. Many are not included in the figure of 1,333. Many claim they have been abandoned by the military establishment.
The government figures, compiled between January 2003 and September 2005, emerged in an answer by Don Touhig, minister for veterans' affairs, in response to a question by Mark Harper MP.

Out of the 1,333 diagnosed as suffering from mental health problems, 182 have been found to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder while 601 are judged to have adjustment disorder or, in laymen's terms, " combat stress".

A further 237 are classified as suffering from depression and 167 suffer other forms of mental illness or substance misuse.

The Independent has found many soldiers suffering from mental disorders after returning from Iraq are not being given the care they feel they need.

Anthony Bradshaw is one of those who came home still haunted by his experience of Iraq. The 22-year-old former private in the Pioneer Regiment, Royal Logistics Corps, suffers from recurrent panic attacks and nightmares.

But despite his records containing a note stating he may be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, he was seen only once by a psychiatrist before being discharged. He said: "We have been abandoned by the powers that be."

Charles Plumridge of the Gulf War Veterans and Families' Association said: " This situation is appalling. The MoD should not be allowed to get away with it. I would not be at all surprised if the figures increase greatly."

After leaving the Army, Mr Bradshaw enrolled at an agriculture college in his home city, Hull. But yesterday, he had to leave his class and go home after suffering another panic attack. "I had never, ever had any such problems in the past, I had a healthy and stable life," he said.

"But I have forgotten what it is like to have a normal life now. There are physical symptoms, but what has happened to me mentally is much worse. I feel frightened if I go out on my own, I wake up in the night feeling frightened. I would not wish this experience on anyone."

As a member of the Royal Army Medical Corps, L/Cpl David McGough treated civilians, women and children, as well as the British and US military at the height of the conflict.

He is now on medication prescribed by his GP for anxiety and stress. But the Army has refused to accept that he suffers from mental problems.

"I was a serviceman for four-and-a-half years and intended to be in for the full 20," said L/Cpl McGough, 24, who lives in Preston. "I am originally from Northern Ireland and I have dealt with serious medical cases both in the Army and helping civilian powers in emergencies. But there is no acknowledgement from the MoD that Iraq was the place where a lot of people had very serious and awful experiences.

"My problems started two weeks after I returned to the UK and I am not seen to be suffering officially from mental problems."

Stress caused by the Iraq conflict has also been used in legal defence. The former SAS trooper Andrew Wragg, who killed his 10-year-old terminally ill son, was cleared of murder last month and convicted instead of manslaughter.

One of the military's most senior psychiatrists, Group Captain Frank McManus, has acknowledged reservists in particular are suffering from lack of psychiatric care from the MoD.

He said: "They have a particularly rough deal. Once they are demobilised and return to civilian life they are not entitled to health care. They are more vulnerable because in their normal working day and life they have no contact with the military, they are surrounded by people who cannot begin to understand what they went through in Iraq."

He added: "The MoD at the highest level is aware of the problem with reservists and solutions are being sought."

The MoD said last night that the problems faced by reservists were not being neglected but no solution had been found. However, it said that the National Health Service was being made aware of the possible problems those returning to civilian life may face.

The ministry also insisted that those who had been diagnosed with mental health problems on duty were receiving the best possible attention.

Mr Harper said: "It is crucial that servicemen and women receive all necessary support. Our troops are performing a vital role in helping to rebuild the country. But this does place them in danger - and the Ministry of Defence is failing in its duty of care if it does not make the necessary arrangements."

Private Anthony Bradshaw: 'I think a lot more could have been done for us'

Anthony Bradshaw saw combat in the Iraq conflict. He now has difficulties at times even leaving the house by himself.

"It is difficult to describe how bad panic attacks can be unless one experiences them himself. I was a soldier, but now I sometimes feel frightened just going shopping," he said.

Mr Bradshaw, 22, who was a private in the Pioneer Regiment, was stationed in a town south of Basra where he and his comrades were tasked to build camps.

"But the camps had already been built and instead we came under pretty regular attacks," he said. "As a soldier this is something you learn to expect and I did not know at the time what effect this was having on me."

Mr Bradshaw, from Hull, was medically evacuated after being bitten by a poisonous insect which led to his arm swelling. "I was taken first to a field hospital and then to Cyprus. When I returned to England I began to have psychological problems.

"An army doctor who saw me wrote on my records that I may be suffering from PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) but the only time I ever saw a psychiatrist he seemed to be just concerned with whether I wanted to leave the Army. I did not receive any counselling then and I have not received any since.

"After leaving the Army I joined a college to do a fishery management course. But frankly it is very hard. I get panic attacks, feelings of wanting to vomit, and have to leave to come home.

"I have got mates who have not suffered any mental problems. But there are others who have and I think a lot more could have been done for them."

Kim Sengupta

Private Peter Mahoney: 'I have plans for the future'

Pte Peter Mahoney served in Iraq from March to July 2003. From the Gulf he wrote to his wife, Donna: "We have plans when we get old and dotty together, so put out of your mind any thoughts of me dying."

In August 2004, he dressed in his uniform, got in his car in the garage, attached a hosepipe to the exhaust and started the engine. Beside him were pictures of his family and a MoD leaflet on psychological trauma, ripped to pieces.

Pte Mahoney's death at the age of 45 will never be recorded on army mental health figures as post-traumatic stress disorder due to service in Iraq. He refused his wife's pleas to seek help.

But she is adamant there is no other way to explain his death, and says other reservists and TA members need recognition.

"When they fight alongside regular soldiers they are treated like regular soldiers but when they are back at home in civvy street, they are less of a priority".

"I know of 15 or 16 other suicides. It is not highlighted."

Terri Judd

L/Cpl David McGough: 'The children haunt me'

It was seeing the terrible injuries suffered by children which was the most shattering experience for David McGough in Iraq. Their pain and tears, the distress of the families, are memories which still haunt him after returning home. L/Cpl McGough, 24, of the Royal Army Medical Corps, served in Iraq for three months after the invasion during some of the fiercest fighting. He treated Iraqi civilians as well as US and British military.

"Some of the children suffered from burns, others had shrapnel and bullet wounds. It was very distressing," he said. "When I was there I just carried on with what I was doing. We were working 14, 16 hours a day. It was two weeks after we got back that I began to feel really bad. I started having blackouts and vomiting. The RSM (Regimental Sergeant Major) was actually quite sympathetic, and tried to help me the best he could. But the Army does not accept that I am suffering from mental problems. I am on Prozac, but that is from my GP."



Comment on this Article


The Iraq war's defining weapon

By Sudha Ramachandran Asia Times 16 Feb 06

BANGALORE - The threat posed by Iraq's reported possession of weapons of mass destruction was the excuse US President George W Bush gave for his invasion of Iraq in 2003, but it is the simplest of technologies - the roadside bomb - that has emerged as the biggest nightmare for US occupation forces in Iraq.

The improvised explosive device (IED), which is the insurgents' weapon of choice in Iraq, has accounted for more than half of all US injuries and deaths in combat since March 2003 - by far the single greatest cause of death for US service members.
According to Pentagon figures through January 21, IEDs have accounted for at least 894 of the 1,735 US military deaths (51%) by hostile fire and over 9,200 of the more than 16,500 wounded (56%).

It is being described as the defining weapon of the war in Iraq, lethal though low in technological sophistication. The IED is a simple weapon, easy and cheap to build, and easier to hide. This makes it an attractive weapon for insurgents.

An IED is often just some old artillery shells detonated by remote control or by an electric charge through an attached wire. In Iraq, IEDs have been remotely detonated using readily available doorbells, cellular phones, pagers, car alarms, garage-door openers, toy-car remotes and so on. They are hidden alongside roads in potholes, rubbish heaps, discarded cartons, drink cans and animal carcasses.

As with other aspects of the war in Iraq, it is the Iraqis who are bearing the brunt. Iraqi soldiers are far more vulnerable to IEDs than the Americans as the vehicles they drive are not armored.

While suicide bombings grab media attention for their spectacular impact, it is roadside bombings that are far more numerous in Iraq, and their frequency has grown dramatically over the past two years. There were about 10,600 roadside bombings in 2005, nearly twice the number that occurred in 2004. This means that on an average, 30 roadside bombings are carried out per day across Iraq.

Not surprisingly, deterring IED attacks is an important component of the US military effort in Iraq. The Joint IED Defeat Task Force that was set up in October 2003 was recently expanded and put under the charge of a four-star general, signaling the priority that the Pentagon is according the fight against the roadside bombs. The task force's budget has grown from US$600 million in 2004 to $1.2 billion in 2005 and is expected to triple this year to about $3.5 billion.

Media reports citing US government sources say that while the number of IED attacks has grown over the past two years, US countermeasures seem to be working in reducing the number of fatalities.

Statistics give a different story, however. The number of fatalities from IEDs rose steadily all of last year, according to the Iraq index compiled by the Washington-based Brookings Institution. While the number of IED fatalities per month was in single digits in 2003, it surged in 2004 and grew significantly throughout 2005, averaging more than 30 deaths a month last year.

US government efforts to detect and neutralize IEDs have no doubt increased, but so has the ingenuity of the insurgents. Insurgents have refined their techniques with regard to construction, concealment and detonation of devices. The lethality and sophistication of IEDs have also improved.

In 2003, IEDs were little more than artillery shells that, when exploded, caused an extensive blast and scattered shrapnel indiscriminately. But these were less effective in piercing armored targets. Then the insurgents started packing the IEDs with more explosives, even nails, ball bearings, glass and gravel - eventually using anti-tank missiles instead of artillery shells.

Since early 2005, insurgents have been using a "shaped charge", an IED adapted to concentrate the force of the blast, giving it a better chance of piercing armored vehicles. Describing the capacity of the shaped-charge IED, John Pike, director of US defense policy group GlobalSecurity.org, told the BBC News website that it could "go through the heaviest armor like a hot knife through butter". Insurgents have also advanced with regard to the detonators they use. With the US forces using electronic jammers to block radio-wave detonators, they have moved on to using infra-red lasers.

For US troops in Iraq, the most unsafe place seems to be inside their vehicles. Instead of using vehicles that could set off a pressure-detonated IED, the US forces are opting for foot patrols. The insurgents have responded to that by laying IEDs near likely foot paths.

The battle of the roadside bombs in Iraq is not just about detonating or defusing IEDs. It is about innovation and counter-innovation, ingenuity and guile. And the insurgents seem always a step ahead.

Sudha Ramachandran is an independent journalist/researcher based in Bangalore.

Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd



Comment on this Article


Radical cleric's influence grows in Iraq

By Robert F. Worth and Sabrina Tavernise The New York Times FEBRUARY 16, 2006

BAGHDAD Late Saturday night, on the eve of a crucial vote to choose Iraq's next prime minister, a senior Iraqi politician's cellphone rang. A supporter of the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr was on the line with a threat.

"He said that there's going to be a civil war among the Shia" if Sadr's preferred candidate was not confirmed, the politician said.

Less than 12 hours later, and after many similar calls to top Shiite leaders, Sadr got his wish. The widely favored candidate lost by one vote, and Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the interim prime minister, was anointed as Iraq's next leader. "Everyone was stunned; it was a coup d'état," said the politician, a senior member of the main Shiite political coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance.
It was a crowning moment for Sadr, whose sudden rise to political power poses a stark new set of challenges for Iraq's fledgling democracy. The man who led the Mahdi Army militia's two deadly uprisings against American troops in 2004 now controls 32 seats in Iraq's Parliament, enough to be a kingmaker. He has an Islamist vision of Iraq's future, and is implacably hostile to the Iraqis closest to the United States — the mostly secular Kurds, and Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister.

Sadr's militia fighters have been quieter since the uprisings, but they are suspected in a range of continuing assassinations and other abuses that American officials have pledged to stop. Sadr himself was accused by the American of arranging a killing in 2004, though the arrest warrant was quietly dropped.

"It will be harder to take on the Mahdi Army with Jaafari as prime minister," said a Western official in Baghdad who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to be seen as interfering in Iraqi politics. "Jaafari could not have been elected without Sadr's support."

In one sense, his participation represents the realization of a central American goal: to bring populist, violent figures — whether Sunni or Shiite — off the battlefield and into democratic politics.

Sadr's new influence and his populist roots may even help achieve the American goal of a broad-based government that includes all of Iraq's sects and ethnic groups.

American officials have worked especially hard to include the Sunni Arabs, who dominate the insurgency, in the government. And the Sunnis are much closer to Sadr on some key matters of policy than they are to his Shiite rivals.

Like the Sunnis, Sadr has said he opposes the creation of semiautonomous regions in Iraq, at least for the moment. He shares the Sunnis' hostility to the American presence, and even sent some of his followers to fight alongside Sunni Arab insurgents in Falluja in 2004.

"We have good relations with Sadr," said Alaa Makki, a leader of the Iraqi Accordance Front, the Sunni group with 44 seats in Parliament. "We are close to him on some points."

That sense of shared purpose may be more important than the hatred many Sunni leaders may feel toward Jaafari, whose government is widely accused of running death squads in Sunni areas.

It is true that some Sunni Arab leaders favored Jaafari's rival, Adel Abdul Mahdi, a more secular and pragmatist figure, for prime minister. But others said Jaafari was no worse than Mahdi, whose party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or Sciri, has strong backing in Iran and is also suspected of killing Sunnis.

Even on the issue of Iranian influence, Sadr's position is no worse from an American point of view — and may even be better — than that of his Shiite rivals who have been running the government for the last year. Although Sadr recently traveled to Tehran and cast himself as a defender of Iran, part of his popular appeal comes from his stance as a homegrown nationalist.

"Sadrists often define themselves as anti-Iranian and accuse Sciri of being Iranian stooges," said Rory Stewart, a former Coalition Provisional Authority official in Amara, a poor southern city where the Mahdi Army holds immense sway. "It's the main reason why people like them."

Sadr's new political power burst into view last weekend, as the United Iraqi Alliance coalition, which won the largest share of votes in the December election, was trying to decide whom it would name as the next prime minister. In the past, the coalition has mostly worked in a top-down fashion, and this time most party leaders agreed that Mahdi, who was not tarnished by the mistakes of Jaafari's government, would be the winner.

But Sadr made clear to his 32 followers in Parliament that he favored Jaafari. He told them to put out the word that they would pull out of the alliance, throwing Iraqi politics into chaos, if they did not get what they wanted. The tactic worked, pushing some independent Shiites to vote for Jaafari out of fear that the alternative would be chaos.

Sadr had decided to back Jaafari after his followers met with the prime minister and presented him with a 14-point political program, said Bahaa al-Aaraji, a member of Parliament and spokesman for Sadr's movement. "We saw that Jaafari was closer to implementing this program," Aaraji said, than Mahdi was.

The 14 demands, he said, include a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq; a postponement of any decision about creating autonomous federal regions; more action on releasing innocent detainees from Iraqi and American prisons; and a tough stand against Kurdish demands to repatriate Kurds to Kirkuk, an oil-producing city in the north.

Some of those demands have broad support among Iraqi leaders. But the Sadrists' hostility to Kurdish claims in Kirkuk could lead to a damaging political showdown.

Gaining control of Kirkuk is for a primary goal for the Kurds, and last year they repeatedly accused Jaafari of stonewalling on the issue. With Sadr's followers urging him to resist Kurdish pressure, Jaafari could face a Kurdish rebellion.

There have already been signs of tension with the Kurds and with Allawi's secular coalition. On Sunday, Iraq's president, Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, warned that the Kurdish alliance, with 53 seats, would not bow to demands that Allawi's group be barred from the new government. Talabani did not say it, but he was referring to demands made by Sadr, who has never forgotten Allawi's role in putting down the Mahdi Army rebellions in 2004.

"There is not enough room in Iraq for Sadrists and Allawi," Aaraji said. "He killed many Sadr followers and has a personal position against Moktada. We cannot sit with him."

By far the most troubling aspect of Sadr's political power is the persistence of his militia. It is difficult to know how much control Sadr has over the Mahdi Army. Membership is loose and informal, and there appear to be rogue elements working outside of anyone's control; street criminals sometimes operate under a Mahdi Army disguise.

But there is no doubt that the Mahdi Army carries out widespread abuses, including killings. They rigidly apply Islamic rules in areas they control, including Sadr City, the Shiite slum in northeastern Baghdad. They have hunted down and killed hundreds of Iraqis with ties to Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.

"They operate Shariah courts in Sadr City," the Western official said. "It's almost a state within a state, and it's a serious problem."

The Mahdi Army has also worked clandestinely with police commandos in Iraq's Interior Ministry, supplying them with names of people they want arrested or even executed, said an Interior Ministry official who spoke on condition of anonymity out of concern for his safety.

The Mahdi Army, together with Sciri's militia, also control much of southern Iraq, picking fights with the British Army over arrests of their members and even merging with the official police.

"No one can challenge them," said Abd Kareem al-Muhamadawi, a tribal sheik from Amara. "They can do anything, and no one asks why."

Secular Iraqis express alarm at their growing power. At the Baab al Muatham campus of Baghdad University, groups of men patrol common areas and ask to see identification when they spot behavior they deem improper, like couples' sitting alone, said Anmar Khalaf, a student. In one incident, Sadr supporters beat up a professor of the media department for his ties to the Baath Party, students said.

"When they see a boy sitting with a girl, they feel something inside of themselves," Khalaf said last month, after guards warned him against speaking with a foreign reporter. "The university is unbearable because of them."


BAGHDAD Late Saturday night, on the eve of a crucial vote to choose Iraq's next prime minister, a senior Iraqi politician's cellphone rang. A supporter of the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr was on the line with a threat.

"He said that there's going to be a civil war among the Shia" if Sadr's preferred candidate was not confirmed, the politician said.

Less than 12 hours later, and after many similar calls to top Shiite leaders, Sadr got his wish. The widely favored candidate lost by one vote, and Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the interim prime minister, was anointed as Iraq's next leader. "Everyone was stunned; it was a coup d'état," said the politician, a senior member of the main Shiite political coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance.

It was a crowning moment for Sadr, whose sudden rise to political power poses a stark new set of challenges for Iraq's fledgling democracy. The man who led the Mahdi Army militia's two deadly uprisings against American troops in 2004 now controls 32 seats in Iraq's Parliament, enough to be a kingmaker. He has an Islamist vision of Iraq's future, and is implacably hostile to the Iraqis closest to the United States — the mostly secular Kurds, and Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister.

Sadr's militia fighters have been quieter since the uprisings, but they are suspected in a range of continuing assassinations and other abuses that American officials have pledged to stop. Sadr himself was accused by the American of arranging a killing in 2004, though the arrest warrant was quietly dropped.

"It will be harder to take on the Mahdi Army with Jaafari as prime minister," said a Western official in Baghdad who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to be seen as interfering in Iraqi politics. "Jaafari could not have been elected without Sadr's support."

In one sense, his participation represents the realization of a central American goal: to bring populist, violent figures — whether Sunni or Shiite — off the battlefield and into democratic politics.

Sadr's new influence and his populist roots may even help achieve the American goal of a broad-based government that includes all of Iraq's sects and ethnic groups.

American officials have worked especially hard to include the Sunni Arabs, who dominate the insurgency, in the government. And the Sunnis are much closer to Sadr on some key matters of policy than they are to his Shiite rivals.

Like the Sunnis, Sadr has said he opposes the creation of semiautonomous regions in Iraq, at least for the moment. He shares the Sunnis' hostility to the American presence, and even sent some of his followers to fight alongside Sunni Arab insurgents in Falluja in 2004.

"We have good relations with Sadr," said Alaa Makki, a leader of the Iraqi Accordance Front, the Sunni group with 44 seats in Parliament. "We are close to him on some points."

That sense of shared purpose may be more important than the hatred many Sunni leaders may feel toward Jaafari, whose government is widely accused of running death squads in Sunni areas.

It is true that some Sunni Arab leaders favored Jaafari's rival, Adel Abdul Mahdi, a more secular and pragmatist figure, for prime minister. But others said Jaafari was no worse than Mahdi, whose party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or Sciri, has strong backing in Iran and is also suspected of killing Sunnis.

Even on the issue of Iranian influence, Sadr's position is no worse from an American point of view — and may even be better — than that of his Shiite rivals who have been running the government for the last year. Although Sadr recently traveled to Tehran and cast himself as a defender of Iran, part of his popular appeal comes from his stance as a homegrown nationalist.

"Sadrists often define themselves as anti-Iranian and accuse Sciri of being Iranian stooges," said Rory Stewart, a former Coalition Provisional Authority official in Amara, a poor southern city where the Mahdi Army holds immense sway. "It's the main reason why people like them."

Sadr's new political power burst into view last weekend, as the United Iraqi Alliance coalition, which won the largest share of votes in the December election, was trying to decide whom it would name as the next prime minister. In the past, the coalition has mostly worked in a top-down fashion, and this time most party leaders agreed that Mahdi, who was not tarnished by the mistakes of Jaafari's government, would be the winner.

But Sadr made clear to his 32 followers in Parliament that he favored Jaafari. He told them to put out the word that they would pull out of the alliance, throwing Iraqi politics into chaos, if they did not get what they wanted. The tactic worked, pushing some independent Shiites to vote for Jaafari out of fear that the alternative would be chaos.

Sadr had decided to back Jaafari after his followers met with the prime minister and presented him with a 14-point political program, said Bahaa al-Aaraji, a member of Parliament and spokesman for Sadr's movement. "We saw that Jaafari was closer to implementing this program," Aaraji said, than Mahdi was.

The 14 demands, he said, include a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq; a postponement of any decision about creating autonomous federal regions; more action on releasing innocent detainees from Iraqi and American prisons; and a tough stand against Kurdish demands to repatriate Kurds to Kirkuk, an oil-producing city in the north.

Some of those demands have broad support among Iraqi leaders. But the Sadrists' hostility to Kurdish claims in Kirkuk could lead to a damaging political showdown.

Gaining control of Kirkuk is for a primary goal for the Kurds, and last year they repeatedly accused Jaafari of stonewalling on the issue. With Sadr's followers urging him to resist Kurdish pressure, Jaafari could face a Kurdish rebellion.

There have already been signs of tension with the Kurds and with Allawi's secular coalition. On Sunday, Iraq's president, Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, warned that the Kurdish alliance, with 53 seats, would not bow to demands that Allawi's group be barred from the new government. Talabani did not say it, but he was referring to demands made by Sadr, who has never forgotten Allawi's role in putting down the Mahdi Army rebellions in 2004.

"There is not enough room in Iraq for Sadrists and Allawi," Aaraji said. "He killed many Sadr followers and has a personal position against Moktada. We cannot sit with him."

By far the most troubling aspect of Sadr's political power is the persistence of his militia. It is difficult to know how much control Sadr has over the Mahdi Army. Membership is loose and informal, and there appear to be rogue elements working outside of anyone's control; street criminals sometimes operate under a Mahdi Army disguise.

But there is no doubt that the Mahdi Army carries out widespread abuses, including killings. They rigidly apply Islamic rules in areas they control, including Sadr City, the Shiite slum in northeastern Baghdad. They have hunted down and killed hundreds of Iraqis with ties to Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.

"They operate Shariah courts in Sadr City," the Western official said. "It's almost a state within a state, and it's a serious problem."

The Mahdi Army has also worked clandestinely with police commandos in Iraq's Interior Ministry, supplying them with names of people they want arrested or even executed, said an Interior Ministry official who spoke on condition of anonymity out of concern for his safety.

The Mahdi Army, together with Sciri's militia, also control much of southern Iraq, picking fights with the British Army over arrests of their members and even merging with the official police.

"No one can challenge them," said Abd Kareem al-Muhamadawi, a tribal sheik from Amara. "They can do anything, and no one asks why."

Secular Iraqis express alarm at their growing power. At the Baab al Muatham campus of Baghdad University, groups of men patrol common areas and ask to see identification when they spot behavior they deem improper, like couples' sitting alone, said Anmar Khalaf, a student. In one incident, Sadr supporters beat up a professor of the media department for his ties to the Baath Party, students said.

"When they see a boy sitting with a girl, they feel something inside of themselves," Khalaf said last month, after guards warned him against speaking with a foreign reporter. "The university is unbearable because of them."


BAGHDAD Late Saturday night, on the eve of a crucial vote to choose Iraq's next prime minister, a senior Iraqi politician's cellphone rang. A supporter of the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr was on the line with a threat.

"He said that there's going to be a civil war among the Shia" if Sadr's preferred candidate was not confirmed, the politician said.

Less than 12 hours later, and after many similar calls to top Shiite leaders, Sadr got his wish. The widely favored candidate lost by one vote, and Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the interim prime minister, was anointed as Iraq's next leader. "Everyone was stunned; it was a coup d'état," said the politician, a senior member of the main Shiite political coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance.

It was a crowning moment for Sadr, whose sudden rise to political power poses a stark new set of challenges for Iraq's fledgling democracy. The man who led the Mahdi Army militia's two deadly uprisings against American troops in 2004 now controls 32 seats in Iraq's Parliament, enough to be a kingmaker. He has an Islamist vision of Iraq's future, and is implacably hostile to the Iraqis closest to the United States — the mostly secular Kurds, and Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister.

Sadr's militia fighters have been quieter since the uprisings, but they are suspected in a range of continuing assassinations and other abuses that American officials have pledged to stop. Sadr himself was accused by the American of arranging a killing in 2004, though the arrest warrant was quietly dropped.

"It will be harder to take on the Mahdi Army with Jaafari as prime minister," said a Western official in Baghdad who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to be seen as interfering in Iraqi politics. "Jaafari could not have been elected without Sadr's support."

In one sense, his participation represents the realization of a central American goal: to bring populist, violent figures — whether Sunni or Shiite — off the battlefield and into democratic politics.

Sadr's new influence and his populist roots may even help achieve the American goal of a broad-based government that includes all of Iraq's sects and ethnic groups.

American officials have worked especially hard to include the Sunni Arabs, who dominate the insurgency, in the government. And the Sunnis are much closer to Sadr on some key matters of policy than they are to his Shiite rivals.

Like the Sunnis, Sadr has said he opposes the creation of semiautonomous regions in Iraq, at least for the moment. He shares the Sunnis' hostility to the American presence, and even sent some of his followers to fight alongside Sunni Arab insurgents in Falluja in 2004.

"We have good relations with Sadr," said Alaa Makki, a leader of the Iraqi Accordance Front, the Sunni group with 44 seats in Parliament. "We are close to him on some points."

That sense of shared purpose may be more important than the hatred many Sunni leaders may feel toward Jaafari, whose government is widely accused of running death squads in Sunni areas.

It is true that some Sunni Arab leaders favored Jaafari's rival, Adel Abdul Mahdi, a more secular and pragmatist figure, for prime minister. But others said Jaafari was no worse than Mahdi, whose party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or Sciri, has strong backing in Iran and is also suspected of killing Sunnis.

Even on the issue of Iranian influence, Sadr's position is no worse from an American point of view — and may even be better — than that of his Shiite rivals who have been running the government for the last year. Although Sadr recently traveled to Tehran and cast himself as a defender of Iran, part of his popular appeal comes from his stance as a homegrown nationalist.

"Sadrists often define themselves as anti-Iranian and accuse Sciri of being Iranian stooges," said Rory Stewart, a former Coalition Provisional Authority official in Amara, a poor southern city where the Mahdi Army holds immense sway. "It's the main reason why people like them."

Sadr's new political power burst into view last weekend, as the United Iraqi Alliance coalition, which won the largest share of votes in the December election, was trying to decide whom it would name as the next prime minister. In the past, the coalition has mostly worked in a top-down fashion, and this time most party leaders agreed that Mahdi, who was not tarnished by the mistakes of Jaafari's government, would be the winner.

But Sadr made clear to his 32 followers in Parliament that he favored Jaafari. He told them to put out the word that they would pull out of the alliance, throwing Iraqi politics into chaos, if they did not get what they wanted. The tactic worked, pushing some independent Shiites to vote for Jaafari out of fear that the alternative would be chaos.

Sadr had decided to back Jaafari after his followers met with the prime minister and presented him with a 14-point political program, said Bahaa al-Aaraji, a member of Parliament and spokesman for Sadr's movement. "We saw that Jaafari was closer to implementing this program," Aaraji said, than Mahdi was.

The 14 demands, he said, include a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq; a postponement of any decision about creating autonomous federal regions; more action on releasing innocent detainees from Iraqi and American prisons; and a tough stand against Kurdish demands to repatriate Kurds to Kirkuk, an oil-producing city in the north.

Some of those demands have broad support among Iraqi leaders. But the Sadrists' hostility to Kurdish claims in Kirkuk could lead to a damaging political showdown.

Gaining control of Kirkuk is for a primary goal for the Kurds, and last year they repeatedly accused Jaafari of stonewalling on the issue. With Sadr's followers urging him to resist Kurdish pressure, Jaafari could face a Kurdish rebellion.

There have already been signs of tension with the Kurds and with Allawi's secular coalition. On Sunday, Iraq's president, Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, warned that the Kurdish alliance, with 53 seats, would not bow to demands that Allawi's group be barred from the new government. Talabani did not say it, but he was referring to demands made by Sadr, who has never forgotten Allawi's role in putting down the Mahdi Army rebellions in 2004.

"There is not enough room in Iraq for Sadrists and Allawi," Aaraji said. "He killed many Sadr followers and has a personal position against Moktada. We cannot sit with him."

By far the most troubling aspect of Sadr's political power is the persistence of his militia. It is difficult to know how much control Sadr has over the Mahdi Army. Membership is loose and informal, and there appear to be rogue elements working outside of anyone's control; street criminals sometimes operate under a Mahdi Army disguise.

But there is no doubt that the Mahdi Army carries out widespread abuses, including killings. They rigidly apply Islamic rules in areas they control, including Sadr City, the Shiite slum in northeastern Baghdad. They have hunted down and killed hundreds of Iraqis with ties to Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.

"They operate Shariah courts in Sadr City," the Western official said. "It's almost a state within a state, and it's a serious problem."

The Mahdi Army has also worked clandestinely with police commandos in Iraq's Interior Ministry, supplying them with names of people they want arrested or even executed, said an Interior Ministry official who spoke on condition of anonymity out of concern for his safety.

The Mahdi Army, together with Sciri's militia, also control much of southern Iraq, picking fights with the British Army over arrests of their members and even merging with the official police.

"No one can challenge them," said Abd Kareem al-Muhamadawi, a tribal sheik from Amara. "They can do anything, and no one asks why."

Secular Iraqis express alarm at their growing power. At the Baab al Muatham campus of Baghdad University, groups of men patrol common areas and ask to see identification when they spot behavior they deem improper, like couples' sitting alone, said Anmar Khalaf, a student. In one incident, Sadr supporters beat up a professor of the media department for his ties to the Baath Party, students said.

"When they see a boy sitting with a girl, they feel something inside of themselves," Khalaf said last month, after guards warned him against speaking with a foreign reporter. "The university is unbearable because of them."


BAGHDAD Late Saturday night, on the eve of a crucial vote to choose Iraq's next prime minister, a senior Iraqi politician's cellphone rang. A supporter of the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr was on the line with a threat.

"He said that there's going to be a civil war among the Shia" if Sadr's preferred candidate was not confirmed, the politician said.

Less than 12 hours later, and after many similar calls to top Shiite leaders, Sadr got his wish. The widely favored candidate lost by one vote, and Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the interim prime minister, was anointed as Iraq's next leader. "Everyone was stunned; it was a coup d'état," said the politician, a senior member of the main Shiite political coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance.

It was a crowning moment for Sadr, whose sudden rise to political power poses a stark new set of challenges for Iraq's fledgling democracy. The man who led the Mahdi Army militia's two deadly uprisings against American troops in 2004 now controls 32 seats in Iraq's Parliament, enough to be a kingmaker. He has an Islamist vision of Iraq's future, and is implacably hostile to the Iraqis closest to the United States — the mostly secular Kurds, and Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister.

Sadr's militia fighters have been quieter since the uprisings, but they are suspected in a range of continuing assassinations and other abuses that American officials have pledged to stop. Sadr himself was accused by the American of arranging a killing in 2004, though the arrest warrant was quietly dropped.

"It will be harder to take on the Mahdi Army with Jaafari as prime minister," said a Western official in Baghdad who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to be seen as interfering in Iraqi politics. "Jaafari could not have been elected without Sadr's support."

In one sense, his participation represents the realization of a central American goal: to bring populist, violent figures — whether Sunni or Shiite — off the battlefield and into democratic politics.

Sadr's new influence and his populist roots may even help achieve the American goal of a broad-based government that includes all of Iraq's sects and ethnic groups.

American officials have worked especially hard to include the Sunni Arabs, who dominate the insurgency, in the government. And the Sunnis are much closer to Sadr on some key matters of policy than they are to his Shiite rivals.

Like the Sunnis, Sadr has said he opposes the creation of semiautonomous regions in Iraq, at least for the moment. He shares the Sunnis' hostility to the American presence, and even sent some of his followers to fight alongside Sunni Arab insurgents in Falluja in 2004.

"We have good relations with Sadr," said Alaa Makki, a leader of the Iraqi Accordance Front, the Sunni group with 44 seats in Parliament. "We are close to him on some points."

That sense of shared purpose may be more important than the hatred many Sunni leaders may feel toward Jaafari, whose government is widely accused of running death squads in Sunni areas.

It is true that some Sunni Arab leaders favored Jaafari's rival, Adel Abdul Mahdi, a more secular and pragmatist figure, for prime minister. But others said Jaafari was no worse than Mahdi, whose party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or Sciri, has strong backing in Iran and is also suspected of killing Sunnis.

Even on the issue of Iranian influence, Sadr's position is no worse from an American point of view — and may even be better — than that of his Shiite rivals who have been running the government for the last year. Although Sadr recently traveled to Tehran and cast himself as a defender of Iran, part of his popular appeal comes from his stance as a homegrown nationalist.

"Sadrists often define themselves as anti-Iranian and accuse Sciri of being Iranian stooges," said Rory Stewart, a former Coalition Provisional Authority official in Amara, a poor southern city where the Mahdi Army holds immense sway. "It's the main reason why people like them."

Sadr's new political power burst into view last weekend, as the United Iraqi Alliance coalition, which won the largest share of votes in the December election, was trying to decide whom it would name as the next prime minister. In the past, the coalition has mostly worked in a top-down fashion, and this time most party leaders agreed that Mahdi, who was not tarnished by the mistakes of Jaafari's government, would be the winner.

But Sadr made clear to his 32 followers in Parliament that he favored Jaafari. He told them to put out the word that they would pull out of the alliance, throwing Iraqi politics into chaos, if they did not get what they wanted. The tactic worked, pushing some independent Shiites to vote for Jaafari out of fear that the alternative would be chaos.

Sadr had decided to back Jaafari after his followers met with the prime minister and presented him with a 14-point political program, said Bahaa al-Aaraji, a member of Parliament and spokesman for Sadr's movement. "We saw that Jaafari was closer to implementing this program," Aaraji said, than Mahdi was.

The 14 demands, he said, include a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq; a postponement of any decision about creating autonomous federal regions; more action on releasing innocent detainees from Iraqi and American prisons; and a tough stand against Kurdish demands to repatriate Kurds to Kirkuk, an oil-producing city in the north.

Some of those demands have broad support among Iraqi leaders. But the Sadrists' hostility to Kurdish claims in Kirkuk could lead to a damaging political showdown.

Gaining control of Kirkuk is for a primary goal for the Kurds, and last year they repeatedly accused Jaafari of stonewalling on the issue. With Sadr's followers urging him to resist Kurdish pressure, Jaafari could face a Kurdish rebellion.

There have already been signs of tension with the Kurds and with Allawi's secular coalition. On Sunday, Iraq's president, Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, warned that the Kurdish alliance, with 53 seats, would not bow to demands that Allawi's group be barred from the new government. Talabani did not say it, but he was referring to demands made by Sadr, who has never forgotten Allawi's role in putting down the Mahdi Army rebellions in 2004.

"There is not enough room in Iraq for Sadrists and Allawi," Aaraji said. "He killed many Sadr followers and has a personal position against Moktada. We cannot sit with him."

By far the most troubling aspect of Sadr's political power is the persistence of his militia. It is difficult to know how much control Sadr has over the Mahdi Army. Membership is loose and informal, and there appear to be rogue elements working outside of anyone's control; street criminals sometimes operate under a Mahdi Army disguise.

But there is no doubt that the Mahdi Army carries out widespread abuses, including killings. They rigidly apply Islamic rules in areas they control, including Sadr City, the Shiite slum in northeastern Baghdad. They have hunted down and killed hundreds of Iraqis with ties to Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.

"They operate Shariah courts in Sadr City," the Western official said. "It's almost a state within a state, and it's a serious problem."

The Mahdi Army has also worked clandestinely with police commandos in Iraq's Interior Ministry, supplying them with names of people they want arrested or even executed, said an Interior Ministry official who spoke on condition of anonymity out of concern for his safety.

The Mahdi Army, together with Sciri's militia, also control much of southern Iraq, picking fights with the British Army over arrests of their members and even merging with the official police.

"No one can challenge them," said Abd Kareem al-Muhamadawi, a tribal sheik from Amara. "They can do anything, and no one asks why."

Secular Iraqis express alarm at their growing power. At the Baab al Muatham campus of Baghdad University, groups of men patrol common areas and ask to see identification when they spot behavior they deem improper, like couples' sitting alone, said Anmar Khalaf, a student. In one incident, Sadr supporters beat up a professor of the media department for his ties to the Baath Party, students said.

"When they see a boy sitting with a girl, they feel something inside of themselves," Khalaf said last month, after guards warned him against speaking with a foreign reporter. "The university is unbearable because of them."


BAGHDAD Late Saturday night, on the eve of a crucial vote to choose Iraq's next prime minister, a senior Iraqi politician's cellphone rang. A supporter of the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr was on the line with a threat.

"He said that there's going to be a civil war among the Shia" if Sadr's preferred candidate was not confirmed, the politician said.

Less than 12 hours later, and after many similar calls to top Shiite leaders, Sadr got his wish. The widely favored candidate lost by one vote, and Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the interim prime minister, was anointed as Iraq's next leader. "Everyone was stunned; it was a coup d'état," said the politician, a senior member of the main Shiite political coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance.

It was a crowning moment for Sadr, whose sudden rise to political power poses a stark new set of challenges for Iraq's fledgling democracy. The man who led the Mahdi Army militia's two deadly uprisings against American troops in 2004 now controls 32 seats in Iraq's Parliament, enough to be a kingmaker. He has an Islamist vision of Iraq's future, and is implacably hostile to the Iraqis closest to the United States — the mostly secular Kurds, and Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister.

Sadr's militia fighters have been quieter since the uprisings, but they are suspected in a range of continuing assassinations and other abuses that American officials have pledged to stop. Sadr himself was accused by the American of arranging a killing in 2004, though the arrest warrant was quietly dropped.

"It will be harder to take on the Mahdi Army with Jaafari as prime minister," said a Western official in Baghdad who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to be seen as interfering in Iraqi politics. "Jaafari could not have been elected without Sadr's support."

In one sense, his participation represents the realization of a central American goal: to bring populist, violent figures — whether Sunni or Shiite — off the battlefield and into democratic politics.

Sadr's new influence and his populist roots may even help achieve the American goal of a broad-based government that includes all of Iraq's sects and ethnic groups.

American officials have worked especially hard to include the Sunni Arabs, who dominate the insurgency, in the government. And the Sunnis are much closer to Sadr on some key matters of policy than they are to his Shiite rivals.

Like the Sunnis, Sadr has said he opposes the creation of semiautonomous regions in Iraq, at least for the moment. He shares the Sunnis' hostility to the American presence, and even sent some of his followers to fight alongside Sunni Arab insurgents in Falluja in 2004.

"We have good relations with Sadr," said Alaa Makki, a leader of the Iraqi Accordance Front, the Sunni group with 44 seats in Parliament. "We are close to him on some points."

That sense of shared purpose may be more important than the hatred many Sunni leaders may feel toward Jaafari, whose government is widely accused of running death squads in Sunni areas.

It is true that some Sunni Arab leaders favored Jaafari's rival, Adel Abdul Mahdi, a more secular and pragmatist figure, for prime minister. But others said Jaafari was no worse than Mahdi, whose party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or Sciri, has strong backing in Iran and is also suspected of killing Sunnis.

Even on the issue of Iranian influence, Sadr's position is no worse from an American point of view — and may even be better — than that of his Shiite rivals who have been running the government for the last year. Although Sadr recently traveled to Tehran and cast himself as a defender of Iran, part of his popular appeal comes from his stance as a homegrown nationalist.

"Sadrists often define themselves as anti-Iranian and accuse Sciri of being Iranian stooges," said Rory Stewart, a former Coalition Provisional Authority official in Amara, a poor southern city where the Mahdi Army holds immense sway. "It's the main reason why people like them."

Sadr's new political power burst into view last weekend, as the United Iraqi Alliance coalition, which won the largest share of votes in the December election, was trying to decide whom it would name as the next prime minister. In the past, the coalition has mostly worked in a top-down fashion, and this time most party leaders agreed that Mahdi, who was not tarnished by the mistakes of Jaafari's government, would be the winner.

But Sadr made clear to his 32 followers in Parliament that he favored Jaafari. He told them to put out the word that they would pull out of the alliance, throwing Iraqi politics into chaos, if they did not get what they wanted. The tactic worked, pushing some independent Shiites to vote for Jaafari out of fear that the alternative would be chaos.

Sadr had decided to back Jaafari after his followers met with the prime minister and presented him with a 14-point political program, said Bahaa al-Aaraji, a member of Parliament and spokesman for Sadr's movement. "We saw that Jaafari was closer to implementing this program," Aaraji said, than Mahdi was.

The 14 demands, he said, include a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq; a postponement of any decision about creating autonomous federal regions; more action on releasing innocent detainees from Iraqi and American prisons; and a tough stand against Kurdish demands to repatriate Kurds to Kirkuk, an oil-producing city in the north.

Some of those demands have broad support among Iraqi leaders. But the Sadrists' hostility to Kurdish claims in Kirkuk could lead to a damaging political showdown.

Gaining control of Kirkuk is for a primary goal for the Kurds, and last year they repeatedly accused Jaafari of stonewalling on the issue. With Sadr's followers urging him to resist Kurdish pressure, Jaafari could face a Kurdish rebellion.

There have already been signs of tension with the Kurds and with Allawi's secular coalition. On Sunday, Iraq's president, Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, warned that the Kurdish alliance, with 53 seats, would not bow to demands that Allawi's group be barred from the new government. Talabani did not say it, but he was referring to demands made by Sadr, who has never forgotten Allawi's role in putting down the Mahdi Army rebellions in 2004.

"There is not enough room in Iraq for Sadrists and Allawi," Aaraji said. "He killed many Sadr followers and has a personal position against Moktada. We cannot sit with him."

By far the most troubling aspect of Sadr's political power is the persistence of his militia. It is difficult to know how much control Sadr has over the Mahdi Army. Membership is loose and informal, and there appear to be rogue elements working outside of anyone's control; street criminals sometimes operate under a Mahdi Army disguise.

But there is no doubt that the Mahdi Army carries out widespread abuses, including killings. They rigidly apply Islamic rules in areas they control, including Sadr City, the Shiite slum in northeastern Baghdad. They have hunted down and killed hundreds of Iraqis with ties to Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.

"They operate Shariah courts in Sadr City," the Western official said. "It's almost a state within a state, and it's a serious problem."

The Mahdi Army has also worked clandestinely with police commandos in Iraq's Interior Ministry, supplying them with names of people they want arrested or even executed, said an Interior Ministry official who spoke on condition of anonymity out of concern for his safety.

The Mahdi Army, together with Sciri's militia, also control much of southern Iraq, picking fights with the British Army over arrests of their members and even merging with the official police.

"No one can challenge them," said Abd Kareem al-Muhamadawi, a tribal sheik from Amara. "They can do anything, and no one asks why."

Secular Iraqis express alarm at their growing power. At the Baab al Muatham campus of Baghdad University, groups of men patrol common areas and ask to see identification when they spot behavior they deem improper, like couples' sitting alone, said Anmar Khalaf, a student. In one incident, Sadr supporters beat up a professor of the media department for his ties to the Baath Party, students said.

"When they see a boy sitting with a girl, they feel something inside of themselves," Khalaf said last month, after guards warned him against speaking with a foreign reporter. "The university is unbearable because of them."


BAGHDAD Late Saturday night, on the eve of a crucial vote to choose Iraq's next prime minister, a senior Iraqi politician's cellphone rang. A supporter of the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr was on the line with a threat.

"He said that there's going to be a civil war among the Shia" if Sadr's preferred candidate was not confirmed, the politician said.

Less than 12 hours later, and after many similar calls to top Shiite leaders, Sadr got his wish. The widely favored candidate lost by one vote, and Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the interim prime minister, was anointed as Iraq's next leader. "Everyone was stunned; it was a coup d'état," said the politician, a senior member of the main Shiite political coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance.

It was a crowning moment for Sadr, whose sudden rise to political power poses a stark new set of challenges for Iraq's fledgling democracy. The man who led the Mahdi Army militia's two deadly uprisings against American troops in 2004 now controls 32 seats in Iraq's Parliament, enough to be a kingmaker. He has an Islamist vision of Iraq's future, and is implacably hostile to the Iraqis closest to the United States — the mostly secular Kurds, and Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister.

Sadr's militia fighters have been quieter since the uprisings, but they are suspected in a range of continuing assassinations and other abuses that American officials have pledged to stop. Sadr himself was accused by the American of arranging a killing in 2004, though the arrest warrant was quietly dropped.

"It will be harder to take on the Mahdi Army with Jaafari as prime minister," said a Western official in Baghdad who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to be seen as interfering in Iraqi politics. "Jaafari could not have been elected without Sadr's support."

In one sense, his participation represents the realization of a central American goal: to bring populist, violent figures — whether Sunni or Shiite — off the battlefield and into democratic politics.

Sadr's new influence and his populist roots may even help achieve the American goal of a broad-based government that includes all of Iraq's sects and ethnic groups.

American officials have worked especially hard to include the Sunni Arabs, who dominate the insurgency, in the government. And the Sunnis are much closer to Sadr on some key matters of policy than they are to his Shiite rivals.

Like the Sunnis, Sadr has said he opposes the creation of semiautonomous regions in Iraq, at least for the moment. He shares the Sunnis' hostility to the American presence, and even sent some of his followers to fight alongside Sunni Arab insurgents in Falluja in 2004.

"We have good relations with Sadr," said Alaa Makki, a leader of the Iraqi Accordance Front, the Sunni group with 44 seats in Parliament. "We are close to him on some points."

That sense of shared purpose may be more important than the hatred many Sunni leaders may feel toward Jaafari, whose government is widely accused of running death squads in Sunni areas.

It is true that some Sunni Arab leaders favored Jaafari's rival, Adel Abdul Mahdi, a more secular and pragmatist figure, for prime minister. But others said Jaafari was no worse than Mahdi, whose party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or Sciri, has strong backing in Iran and is also suspected of killing Sunnis.

Even on the issue of Iranian influence, Sadr's position is no worse from an American point of view — and may even be better — than that of his Shiite rivals who have been running the government for the last year. Although Sadr recently traveled to Tehran and cast himself as a defender of Iran, part of his popular appeal comes from his stance as a homegrown nationalist.

"Sadrists often define themselves as anti-Iranian and accuse Sciri of being Iranian stooges," said Rory Stewart, a former Coalition Provisional Authority official in Amara, a poor southern city where the Mahdi Army holds immense sway. "It's the main reason why people like them."

Sadr's new political power burst into view last weekend, as the United Iraqi Alliance coalition, which won the largest share of votes in the December election, was trying to decide whom it would name as the next prime minister. In the past, the coalition has mostly worked in a top-down fashion, and this time most party leaders agreed that Mahdi, who was not tarnished by the mistakes of Jaafari's government, would be the winner.

But Sadr made clear to his 32 followers in Parliament that he favored Jaafari. He told them to put out the word that they would pull out of the alliance, throwing Iraqi politics into chaos, if they did not get what they wanted. The tactic worked, pushing some independent Shiites to vote for Jaafari out of fear that the alternative would be chaos.

Sadr had decided to back Jaafari after his followers met with the prime minister and presented him with a 14-point political program, said Bahaa al-Aaraji, a member of Parliament and spokesman for Sadr's movement. "We saw that Jaafari was closer to implementing this program," Aaraji said, than Mahdi was.

The 14 demands, he said, include a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq; a postponement of any decision about creating autonomous federal regions; more action on releasing innocent detainees from Iraqi and American prisons; and a tough stand against Kurdish demands to repatriate Kurds to Kirkuk, an oil-producing city in the north.

Some of those demands have broad support among Iraqi leaders. But the Sadrists' hostility to Kurdish claims in Kirkuk could lead to a damaging political showdown.

Gaining control of Kirkuk is for a primary goal for the Kurds, and last year they repeatedly accused Jaafari of stonewalling on the issue. With Sadr's followers urging him to resist Kurdish pressure, Jaafari could face a Kurdish rebellion.

There have already been signs of tension with the Kurds and with Allawi's secular coalition. On Sunday, Iraq's president, Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, warned that the Kurdish alliance, with 53 seats, would not bow to demands that Allawi's group be barred from the new government. Talabani did not say it, but he was referring to demands made by Sadr, who has never forgotten Allawi's role in putting down the Mahdi Army rebellions in 2004.

"There is not enough room in Iraq for Sadrists and Allawi," Aaraji said. "He killed many Sadr followers and has a personal position against Moktada. We cannot sit with him."

By far the most troubling aspect of Sadr's political power is the persistence of his militia. It is difficult to know how much control Sadr has over the Mahdi Army. Membership is loose and informal, and there appear to be rogue elements working outside of anyone's control; street criminals sometimes operate under a Mahdi Army disguise.

But there is no doubt that the Mahdi Army carries out widespread abuses, including killings. They rigidly apply Islamic rules in areas they control, including Sadr City, the Shiite slum in northeastern Baghdad. They have hunted down and killed hundreds of Iraqis with ties to Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.

"They operate Shariah courts in Sadr City," the Western official said. "It's almost a state within a state, and it's a serious problem."

The Mahdi Army has also worked clandestinely with police commandos in Iraq's Interior Ministry, supplying them with names of people they want arrested or even executed, said an Interior Ministry official who spoke on condition of anonymity out of concern for his safety.

The Mahdi Army, together with Sciri's militia, also control much of southern Iraq, picking fights with the British Army over arrests of their members and even merging with the official police.

"No one can challenge them," said Abd Kareem al-Muhamadawi, a tribal sheik from Amara. "They can do anything, and no one asks why."

Secular Iraqis express alarm at their growing power. At the Baab al Muatham campus of Baghdad University, groups of men patrol common areas and ask to see identification when they spot behavior they deem improper, like couples' sitting alone, said Anmar Khalaf, a student. In one incident, Sadr supporters beat up a professor of the media department for his ties to the Baath Party, students said.

"When they see a boy sitting with a girl, they feel something inside of themselves," Khalaf said last month, after guards warned him against speaking with a foreign reporter. "The university is unbearable because of them."


BAGHDAD Late Saturday night, on the eve of a crucial vote to choose Iraq's next prime minister, a senior Iraqi politician's cellphone rang. A supporter of the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr was on the line with a threat.

"He said that there's going to be a civil war among the Shia" if Sadr's preferred candidate was not confirmed, the politician said.

Less than 12 hours later, and after many similar calls to top Shiite leaders, Sadr got his wish. The widely favored candidate lost by one vote, and Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the interim prime minister, was anointed as Iraq's next leader. "Everyone was stunned; it was a coup d'état," said the politician, a senior member of the main Shiite political coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance.

It was a crowning moment for Sadr, whose sudden rise to political power poses a stark new set of challenges for Iraq's fledgling democracy. The man who led the Mahdi Army militia's two deadly uprisings against American troops in 2004 now controls 32 seats in Iraq's Parliament, enough to be a kingmaker. He has an Islamist vision of Iraq's future, and is implacably hostile to the Iraqis closest to the United States — the mostly secular Kurds, and Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister.

Sadr's militia fighters have been quieter since the uprisings, but they are suspected in a range of continuing assassinations and other abuses that American officials have pledged to stop. Sadr himself was accused by the American of arranging a killing in 2004, though the arrest warrant was quietly dropped.

"It will be harder to take on the Mahdi Army with Jaafari as prime minister," said a Western official in Baghdad who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to be seen as interfering in Iraqi politics. "Jaafari could not have been elected without Sadr's support."

In one sense, his participation represents the realization of a central American goal: to bring populist, violent figures — whether Sunni or Shiite — off the battlefield and into democratic politics.

Sadr's new influence and his populist roots may even help achieve the American goal of a broad-based government that includes all of Iraq's sects and ethnic groups.

American officials have worked especially hard to include the Sunni Arabs, who dominate the insurgency, in the government. And the Sunnis are much closer to Sadr on some key matters of policy than they are to his Shiite rivals.

Like the Sunnis, Sadr has said he opposes the creation of semiautonomous regions in Iraq, at least for the moment. He shares the Sunnis' hostility to the American presence, and even sent some of his followers to fight alongside Sunni Arab insurgents in Falluja in 2004.

"We have good relations with Sadr," said Alaa Makki, a leader of the Iraqi Accordance Front, the Sunni group with 44 seats in Parliament. "We are close to him on some points."

That sense of shared purpose may be more important than the hatred many Sunni leaders may feel toward Jaafari, whose government is widely accused of running death squads in Sunni areas.

It is true that some Sunni Arab leaders favored Jaafari's rival, Adel Abdul Mahdi, a more secular and pragmatist figure, for prime minister. But others said Jaafari was no worse than Mahdi, whose party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or Sciri, has strong backing in Iran and is also suspected of killing Sunnis.

Even on the issue of Iranian influence, Sadr's position is no worse from an American point of view — and may even be better — than that of his Shiite rivals who have been running the government for the last year. Although Sadr recently traveled to Tehran and cast himself as a defender of Iran, part of his popular appeal comes from his stance as a homegrown nationalist.

"Sadrists often define themselves as anti-Iranian and accuse Sciri of being Iranian stooges," said Rory Stewart, a former Coalition Provisional Authority official in Amara, a poor southern city where the Mahdi Army holds immense sway. "It's the main reason why people like them."

Sadr's new political power burst into view last weekend, as the United Iraqi Alliance coalition, which won the largest share of votes in the December election, was trying to decide whom it would name as the next prime minister. In the past, the coalition has mostly worked in a top-down fashion, and this time most party leaders agreed that Mahdi, who was not tarnished by the mistakes of Jaafari's government, would be the winner.

But Sadr made clear to his 32 followers in Parliament that he favored Jaafari. He told them to put out the word that they would pull out of the alliance, throwing Iraqi politics into chaos, if they did not get what they wanted. The tactic worked, pushing some independent Shiites to vote for Jaafari out of fear that the alternative would be chaos.

Sadr had decided to back Jaafari after his followers met with the prime minister and presented him with a 14-point political program, said Bahaa al-Aaraji, a member of Parliament and spokesman for Sadr's movement. "We saw that Jaafari was closer to implementing this program," Aaraji said, than Mahdi was.

The 14 demands, he said, include a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq; a postponement of any decision about creating autonomous federal regions; more action on releasing innocent detainees from Iraqi and American prisons; and a tough stand against Kurdish demands to repatriate Kurds to Kirkuk, an oil-producing city in the north.

Some of those demands have broad support among Iraqi leaders. But the Sadrists' hostility to Kurdish claims in Kirkuk could lead to a damaging political showdown.

Gaining control of Kirkuk is for a primary goal for the Kurds, and last year they repeatedly accused Jaafari of stonewalling on the issue. With Sadr's followers urging him to resist Kurdish pressure, Jaafari could face a Kurdish rebellion.

There have already been signs of tension with the Kurds and with Allawi's secular coalition. On Sunday, Iraq's president, Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, warned that the Kurdish alliance, with 53 seats, would not bow to demands that Allawi's group be barred from the new government. Talabani did not say it, but he was referring to demands made by Sadr, who has never forgotten Allawi's role in putting down the Mahdi Army rebellions in 2004.

"There is not enough room in Iraq for Sadrists and Allawi," Aaraji said. "He killed many Sadr followers and has a personal position against Moktada. We cannot sit with him."

By far the most troubling aspect of Sadr's political power is the persistence of his militia. It is difficult to know how much control Sadr has over the Mahdi Army. Membership is loose and informal, and there appear to be rogue elements working outside of anyone's control; street criminals sometimes operate under a Mahdi Army disguise.

But there is no doubt that the Mahdi Army carries out widespread abuses, including killings. They rigidly apply Islamic rules in areas they control, including Sadr City, the Shiite slum in northeastern Baghdad. They have hunted down and killed hundreds of Iraqis with ties to Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.

"They operate Shariah courts in Sadr City," the Western official said. "It's almost a state within a state, and it's a serious problem."

The Mahdi Army has also worked clandestinely with police commandos in Iraq's Interior Ministry, supplying them with names of people they want arrested or even executed, said an Interior Ministry official who spoke on condition of anonymity out of concern for his safety.

The Mahdi Army, together with Sciri's militia, also control much of southern Iraq, picking fights with the British Army over arrests of their members and even merging with the official police.

"No one can challenge them," said Abd Kareem al-Muhamadawi, a tribal sheik from Amara. "They can do anything, and no one asks why."

Secular Iraqis express alarm at their growing power. At the Baab al Muatham campus of Baghdad University, groups of men patrol common areas and ask to see identification when they spot behavior they deem improper, like couples' sitting alone, said Anmar Khalaf, a student. In one incident, Sadr supporters beat up a professor of the media department for his ties to the Baath Party, students said.

"When they see a boy sitting with a girl, they feel something inside of themselves," Khalaf said last month, after guards warned him against speaking with a foreign reporter. "The university is unbearable because of them."


BAGHDAD Late Saturday night, on the eve of a crucial vote to choose Iraq's next prime minister, a senior Iraqi politician's cellphone rang. A supporter of the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr was on the line with a threat.

"He said that there's going to be a civil war among the Shia" if Sadr's preferred candidate was not confirmed, the politician said.

Less than 12 hours later, and after many similar calls to top Shiite leaders, Sadr got his wish. The widely favored candidate lost by one vote, and Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the interim prime minister, was anointed as Iraq's next leader. "Everyone was stunned; it was a coup d'état," said the politician, a senior member of the main Shiite political coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance.

It was a crowning moment for Sadr, whose sudden rise to political power poses a stark new set of challenges for Iraq's fledgling democracy. The man who led the Mahdi Army militia's two deadly uprisings against American troops in 2004 now controls 32 seats in Iraq's Parliament, enough to be a kingmaker. He has an Islamist vision of Iraq's future, and is implacably hostile to the Iraqis closest to the United States — the mostly secular Kurds, and Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister.

Sadr's militia fighters have been quieter since the uprisings, but they are suspected in a range of continuing assassinations and other abuses that American officials have pledged to stop. Sadr himself was accused by the American of arranging a killing in 2004, though the arrest warrant was quietly dropped.

"It will be harder to take on the Mahdi Army with Jaafari as prime minister," said a Western official in Baghdad who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to be seen as interfering in Iraqi politics. "Jaafari could not have been elected without Sadr's support."

In one sense, his participation represents the realization of a central American goal: to bring populist, violent figures — whether Sunni or Shiite — off the battlefield and into democratic politics.

Sadr's new influence and his populist roots may even help achieve the American goal of a broad-based government that includes all of Iraq's sects and ethnic groups.

American officials have worked especially hard to include the Sunni Arabs, who dominate the insurgency, in the government. And the Sunnis are much closer to Sadr on some key matters of policy than they are to his Shiite rivals.

Like the Sunnis, Sadr has said he opposes the creation of semiautonomous regions in Iraq, at least for the moment. He shares the Sunnis' hostility to the American presence, and even sent some of his followers to fight alongside Sunni Arab insurgents in Falluja in 2004.

"We have good relations with Sadr," said Alaa Makki, a leader of the Iraqi Accordance Front, the Sunni group with 44 seats in Parliament. "We are close to him on some points."

That sense of shared purpose may be more important than the hatred many Sunni leaders may feel toward Jaafari, whose government is widely accused of running death squads in Sunni areas.

It is true that some Sunni Arab leaders favored Jaafari's rival, Adel Abdul Mahdi, a more secular and pragmatist figure, for prime minister. But others said Jaafari was no worse than Mahdi, whose party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or Sciri, has strong backing in Iran and is also suspected of killing Sunnis.

Even on the issue of Iranian influence, Sadr's position is no worse from an American point of view — and may even be better — than that of his Shiite rivals who have been running the government for the last year. Although Sadr recently traveled to Tehran and cast himself as a defender of Iran, part of his popular appeal comes from his stance as a homegrown nationalist.

"Sadrists often define themselves as anti-Iranian and accuse Sciri of being Iranian stooges," said Rory Stewart, a former Coalition Provisional Authority official in Amara, a poor southern city where the Mahdi Army holds immense sway. "It's the main reason why people like them."

Sadr's new political power burst into view last weekend, as the United Iraqi Alliance coalition, which won the largest share of votes in the December election, was trying to decide whom it would name as the next prime minister. In the past, the coalition has mostly worked in a top-down fashion, and this time most party leaders agreed that Mahdi, who was not tarnished by the mistakes of Jaafari's government, would be the winner.

But Sadr made clear to his 32 followers in Parliament that he favored Jaafari. He told them to put out the word that they would pul



Comment on this Article


Israel to bar Gaza goods, workers

AlJazeera 16 Feb 06

Israel will bar Gazan workers and goods from entering Israeli territory and impose other harsh economic sanctions after a Hamas-dominated parliament is sworn in this weekend, security officials have said.
In the face of growing international and Israeli pressure to shun Hamas, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas will insist the group accept his goal of reaching a peace agreement with Israel if it wants to take power, Palestinian officials said.

Abbas' demands set the stage for a possible showdown between Hamas and Abbas, whose Fatah Party was routed in last month's legislative election. A Hamas leader expressed confidence a compromise would be reached.

The Israeli campaign against Hamas is focused on bringing the perpetually cash-strapped Palestinian Authority to its knees by drying up desperately needed income.

Barring access to Israel would be devastating to the already battered Gaza economy, which depends heavily on exports to Israel.

The Israeli market is the largest for the impoverished coastal strip, and most of Gaza's exports to the rest of the world go through Israeli ports.

Economic warfare

Additionally, Israel would bar Gaza labourers from reaching jobs in the country, stripping thousands of families of their main sources of income. About 4000 Gazans are allowed into Israel each day, according to the army, and several thousand others are believed to be in the country illegally.

"The swearing-in of the Palestinian parliament on Saturday rings a gong for us," Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz told a meeting of high-level security and government officials on Thursday.

"A Hamas government will mean an authority of terror and murder," he said, according to meeting participants.

The measures, which are expected to be approved by acting Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, on Friday, would go into effect beginning on Sunday, officials said.

They are part of a broader effort by Israel to isolate Hamas internationally and put heavy economic pressure on the group.

Israel has ruled out any dealings with Hamas, which has killed hundreds of Israelis in suicide bombings, until it abandons its violent campaign to destroy Israel.

On Wednesday, government officials said Israel was likely to halt crucial monthly tax transfers to the Palestinians, though it would not immediately block millions of dollars in humanitarian aid that moves through Israeli banks.

Customs duties

Israel annually transfers about $600 million in taxes and customs duties it collects for the Palestinians.

The transfers are crucial for the Palestinian Authority to pay salaries to 140,000 government workers - 40% of whom work for the security forces and are armed.

"Israel will not transfer money to a terrorist authority," Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister, told Israel Radio on Thursday.

"(But) we have to look at things logically and decide how to differentiate between a terrorist authority and causing a humanitarian crisis."

Mushir al-Masri, an incoming Hamas lawmaker, condemned the Israeli economic threats. "This is collective punishment on our people who have practised their democratic right to choose their representatives," he said.

"The world should realise that more pressure on the Palestinian people will create more tension and everyone is going to be a loser, including Israel," al-Masri said.

Hamas' unexpected routing of the long-ruling Fatah Party in 25 January's Palestinian parliamentary balloting, and its subsequent refusal to abandon its violent ways, has provoked Western threats to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in desperately needed aid.

Overwhelming pressure

Responding to the overwhelming pressure, Abbas plans to call on Hamas to allow him to proceed with peace efforts and to accept existing agreements between Israel and the Palestinians, senior Palestinian officials said on Thursday.

"We are sure that the new government will be in harmony with the PLO charter, and the signed agreements with Israel," Nabil Abu Rudeineh, Palestinian presidential aide, said.

Abbas is expected to deliver his demands during a speech on Saturday marking the first session of the newly elected, Hamas-dominated Parliament.

Abbas' speech is likely to be the beginning of a drawn-out negotiating process with Hamas. Once Abbas taps them to form a new cabinet, the group will have five weeks to put together its government.

Abbas could then decide whether to accept or reject the cabinet's composition. "We are really going to have a showdown and a major crisis," said Saeb Erekat, a Fatah lawmaker and outgoing chief negotiator with Israel. "If he wants to activate his presidential powers, he will have to sack them."

If Hamas refuses to change, Abbas could ask another group to form a government. That, in turn, would almost surely precipitate a parliamentary crisis, with the Hamas-led legislature likely rejecting the new choice.

Compromise

Al-Masri, the incoming Hamas lawmaker, said his group is confident a compromise will be reached. "I think that always we can find common understandings," he said. "All of us are shouldering joint responsibility to serve the interests of our people."

Hamas officials have signalled they would support a long-term truce with Israel and accept existing agreements with Israel that serve Palestinian interests.

Israel has dismissed Hamas' conditional acceptance as disingenuous. Hamas has so far refused to renounce violent resistance or recognise Israel.



Comment on this Article


U.S. backs Israel on aid for humanitarian groups, not Hamas

By Aluf Benn Haaretz 16 Feb 06

Israel will try to delegitimize the new Palestinian Hamas government by insisting that international aid be given to humanitarian organizations and not the PA authorities.
This was decided during a debate by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and senior officials on international policy toward the new Palestinian government.

The international community presented three prerequisites for negotiating and aiding the new Palestinian government: renouncing violence, recognizing Israel and accepting the existing agreements.

However, it does not want to cause an economic crisis and "see hungry children," a Jerusalem source said.

"It's like a meeting with a dietician. We have to make them much thinner, but not enough to die," said the prime minister's adviser Dov Weissglas.

Some officials suggested separating the Palestinian population, which would continue receiving the aid, and its government. This was also the American administration's position, it was said at the meeting.

Israeli National Security Council head Giora Eiland questioned whether separating the aid from the PA would be effective at all, since the overwhelming majority of Palestinian workers in the humanitarian organizations are Hamas people.

Minster Livni said Israel would suspend transferring the tax funds it collects for the PA, a step to which, Jerusalem assumes, the American administration would not object.

Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is to decide tomorrow on Israel's reaction to Hamas' rise to power in the PA.

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz will meet heads of the defense establishment to prepare a summary of its proposals to reduce the ties with the PA, to present to Olmert.

His ministry has a plan for swift closure of the Erez and Karni checkpoints in the Gaza Strip and turning them into international border crossings.

An interministerial team headed by Weissglas and another headed by Eiland will also present proposals to Olmert.

Olmert will decide whether to start punitive measures toward the PA immediately or first present an ultimatum to PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to keep his promise to dismantle the terror organizations.

Next week White House envoys Elliot Abrams and David Welch are due to visit the region for talks of how to deal with Hamas' rise to power.

Putin, Quartet envoy discuss Mideast

Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday met the envoy of the Quartet of Middle East peace mediators to discuss the tense situation in the region after last month's surprise election victory of militant Palestinian group Hamas.

Envoy James Wolfensohn, the former president of the World Bank, said he had come to Moscow to seek advice as well as to inform the Russian leadership of his work.

"I am here both to report to you and get your guidance," he said. Russia holds the current chairmanship of the Group of Eight industrialized nations.

Putin told Wolfensohn he was "very glad to have an opportunity to talk about the situation currently developing in the region."

The Hamas victory has prompted threats from the U.S. and EU to cut off massive aid to the Palestinians unless the group recognizes Israel and renounces violence.

'Moscow invite encourages Hamas'

Putin's invitation to Hamas leaders for talks in Moscow could encourage the Palestinian militant group's hardline approach to Israel, President Moshe Katsav said yesterday.

"There should not be any erosion in the approach of the international community [regarding Hamas]," Katsav told journalists in Athens.

"This invitation will maybe encourage Hamas not to change their policy," Katsav said.

Katsav, who started a three-day official visit to Greece on Tuesday, denied Israel was applying pressure for the international isolation of the Palestinian authority.

"We have no intention of boycotting Hamas," he said. "If Hamas continues the policies of the previous administration ... we are ready to negotiate with the Hamas administration.

"If they will not change their policy, reality will not permit us really to negotiate seriously ... It is not a question of isolation."



Comment on this Article


US Congress to vote on withholding Palestinian aid

AFX 15 Feb 06

WASHINGTON (AFX) - The House of Representatives is to consider a resolution today on withholding US assistance from the Palestinian Authority unless Hamas revokes its call for the destruction of Israel.

The measure states that "no United States assistance should be provided directly to the Palestinian Authority if any representative political party holding a majority of parliamentary seats within the Palestinian Authority maintains a position calling for the destruction of Israel."

House Majority Leader John Boehner said the vote late Wednesday would send a message to Hamas that the US means business as it presses the Islamist group to break with its past views on Israel's right to exist.

"The US is encouraged by the open, free, and fair elections held by the Palestinian people, and we will continue to support their democratic reform efforts," Boehner said in a statement today.

"At the same time, the new government must be aware of both its domestic responsibilities and international obligations," he said.

"The responsibility of self-government has real consequences for both Hamas and the future of the Palestinian people. Until Hamas changes course -- dismantles its terrorist organization, and agrees to work towards a peaceful settlement with Israel -- no taxpayer money should be provided to support the Palestinian government.

"Our message is clear," the Republican leader added. "The US does not and will not support terrorist organizations."

Copyright AFX News Limited 2005. All rights reserved.



Comment on this Article


Finkelstein's Boycott: A Meta-Narrative on the Ills of 'Liberal-Zionism'

Mohammed Abed The Palestine Solidarity Movement February 12th 2006

In her book Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism, Mary Daly discusses an insidious intellectual phenomenon she calls ‘semantic sleight of hand.’ Depicted in the abstract, sleight of hand involves presenting a contentious claim in such a way as to make it seem a matter of accepted fact, a fact established either empirically or by force of argument, when in reality, neither is the case. With some careful engineering, sleight of hand can be transmuted into a wide variety of different forms, each one as damaging to the prospect of open and informed debate as the next.

It begins with something as simple as inventing a euphemism to linguistically sanitize and obscure the horror and brutality of things as they actually are in real world (the classic example here is ‘collateral damage,’ a term used to describe the tortuous evisceration of innocent people using ‘smart bombs’ and other tools of the ‘legitimate’ state).
When even the most subtle forms of euphemism fail to disabuse us of the notion that wanton cruelty is a ubiquitous feature of the world, practitioners of semantic sleight of hand will often attempt to de-couple a term from its standard referent and link it instead to some closely related phenomena. This relatedness, in so far as it yields a degree of ‘scholarly’ credibility, obscures the causes of oppression and the institutions that sustain it. Omission of relevant details can take on other forms. Daly cites the example of ‘academic’ or ‘scholarly’ discourse about ‘witch’ burnings in medieval Europe. The incineration of thousands of women is effortlessly re-described as the ritual burning of ‘people.’ Absence of the term ‘women’ obscures the obvious fact that ‘witch’ burning was a misogynist practice and that being labeled a ‘witch’ was determined by whether or not a woman was sufficiently deferential and subservient – not by the ‘neuroses’ or ‘madness’ cited in the ‘objective’ [read: misogynist] literature.

There are other ways in which the ‘scholarly’ apparatus can be used to surreptitiously smuggle in contentious claims that would otherwise require an argument. A controversial claim can be sandwiched between two truisms, the effect being to lull the reader into a false sense of epistemic security. There’s the false dichotomy, and when a halfway decent argument to substantiate non-rational or ideological preferences is out of reach, the obvious choice is to shield alternative solutions from view and present personal preferences as if they were established facts that require no further argument. The toolbox of academic ‘inquiry’ is a den of iniquity filled with many other devices that prevent us from seeing the world for what it is. As Daly says, “there is legitimation of the ritual [the atrocity, the injustice] by the rituals of ‘objective’ scholarship – despite appearances of disapproval.”

Norman Finkelstein’s recent article on the ‘economic’ boycott of Israel (‘Why an Economic Boycott of Israel is Justified,’ Aftenposten | 01.14.2006) appears to take a principled moral stand against injustice in Palestine. Finkelstein’s views are couched in the language and methodology of ‘objective’ scholarship, even if ‘editorial’ is a more appropriate description of the article’s surface form. Consistent with the basic principles of ‘semantic sleight of hand,’ the article contains more than its fair share of true statements, most of them established by constant references to independent reports produced by International and Israeli human rights organizations, United Nations Resolutions, and various international treaties and conventions to which the state of Israel is a signatory. This ‘scholarly’ edifice creates and sustains a semantic fugue that deflects the reader’s attention away from the highly controversial – if not downright false – claims that Finkelstein smuggles into the article. The author offers no arguments for these claims, and yet they contain the seed of what is, in essence, the ‘liberal-Zionist’ narrative about resolution of the conflict in historical Palestine. Of course the reality about ‘liberal-Zionism’ is that it’s a contradiction in terms; Zionism is an exclusionary national movement that prevents the return of the Palestinian Refugees and exiles to their homeland on the basis that their presence would ‘upset’ Israel’s Judeo-centric ‘demographic’ balance, whereas there’s nothing in liberal political theory that would justify the state placing limitations on where an individual can live on the basis of nothing more than their ethnic origin. Just as the apparatus of ‘scholarly’ discourse can be used to legitimize claims that are morally indefensible, ‘moderate’ Zionists can use the language of liberal-democracy and human rights to conceal a deep ideological affinity with oppressive institutions and an unwillingness to recognize that it’s in everybody’s long-term interests that those institutions be dismantled.

Finkelstein tells us that ‘the basic terms for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict are embodied in U.N. resolution 242 and subsequent U.N. resolutions, which call for a full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza and the establishment of a Palestinian state in these areas in exchange for recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security with its neighbors.’ The first thing to notice about this claim is its placement in the text. Rather than supporting it with an argument that takes account of all the relevant facts and applies principles the author professes to endorse in an impartial manner, the claim is strategically placed at the conclusion of four long paragraphs that express, in stock scholarly terms, Finkelstein’s disapproving attitude towards Israel’s policies of wanton killing of Palestinian civilians, torture, house demolition, and the ‘apartheid nature’ of its regime in the West Bank and Gaza. Since the fourth paragraph contains perhaps the best example of semantic sleight of hand in the entire article, I consider it in more detail below, but for the moment, we can note that nothing in the paragraphs preceding the sentence quoted above provides any support for the idea that ‘embodied’ in U.N. Resolution 242 are ‘the basic terms for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict,’ and yet the placement of this claim makes it seem as if the two-state program is the logical outcome of accepting a body of facts about judiciously selected aspects of Israel’s human rights record, even though in reality, there is no more than a tenuous connection between the two. The two-state program does not naturally follow from the facts Finkelstein has chosen to highlight, appearances to the contrary, so we might wonder about the set of criteria he’s using to determine what counts as an appropriate selection. If we knew this, we would have a basis for explaining why violations that seem to be relevant from a ‘human rights’ perspective are omitted.

The first point to note in this regard is that on reading Finkelstein’s essay, one could be forgiven for thinking that Palestinians residing outside the West Bank and Gaza are not intimately invested in and directly affected by the outcome of the conflict in their homeland. Nothing is said about these invisible persons, even though it’s an uncontroversial fact that displacement and exile are insufferable harms that can only be remedied by facilitating their return to Palestine. Unlike ‘liberal’ and ‘Zionist,’ there’s no contradiction in supporting the right of return and also thinking that the principles of reparative justice should provide the normative basis for an international political culture, unless we believe the bizarre claim that ‘right of return’ is synonymous with ‘throwing the Jews into the sea,’ which presumably no reasonable person does. There are also no demographic, territorial, or economic impediments to materializing the return of the refugees, as scholars like Salman Abu-Sitta, Nasser Abufarha and others keep pointing out again and again. Given all this, what justification does Finkelstein have for ignoring the suffering and needs of the majority of Palestinians in the world? Their systematic expulsion from their homeland in 1948 is the root cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so facts about the refugees and their plight seem doubly relevant to a discussion of what program of resolution is best, on the principle that in order to resolve a conflict – as opposed to ‘managing’ or ‘containing’ it (doublespeak for ‘accepting the status quo’) – you must address its causes rather than blunting some of its effects.

Finkelstein does have a justification for ignoring these facts, although it’s not a very good one, and it’s certainly at odds with his statements in support of a just resolution in Palestine. Liberal coat of paint or not, it’s a basic plank of Zionist politics to ignore aspects of the Palestinian cause that problematize the idea that Israel, conceived of as a state that privileges Jews, is an accomplished fact that cannot be challenged, even if morality requires it. It would make a mockery of the right of self-determination if the Palestinian refugees returned to live under a state that by definition excludes them. A morally adequate program of reparations would therefore include the idea that Israel should be replaced by a political system that impartially guarantees both the individual rights of its citizens and the national equality of Israeli-Jews and Palestinian Arabs in the entire territory of historical Palestine. But an arrangement of this sort is anathema to the Zionist project, and this fact explains why Finkelstein wants to rely so heavily on resolution 242 as the framework for resolving the conflict. 242 and the ‘land for peace’ formula leaves Israel’s ethno-centric character untouched and legitimizes what in other circumstances would be forcefully condemned. One wonders how people concerned with human rights would have reacted if the United Nations called for the territorial partition of South Africa along ethnic lines so that the apartheid regime could live in ‘peace and security’ with its neighbors. It’s difficult to think of a good reason to accept a discourse that relies so heavily on the arbitrary whims of the institution that in 1947 gave ‘official’ sanction to the idea that ‘peace’ is synonymous with ethnic separation. After all, this idea initiated the processes that eventually led Israeli forces to cleanse 800,000 Palestinians from the areas that became the state of Israel. But even if we suppose, for the sake of argument, that the United Nations is a legitimate trans-national institution and that majority opinion has anything to do with truth, we could still be forgiven for wondering why Finkelstein would be so adamant about defining the basic parameters of resolution solely in terms of 242 rather than 194 (refugee return) or any of the other resolutions on the books. It’s clear from his article that he has faith in multi-lateral institutions, so what could explain this omission?

One possibility is that like his mentor Noam Chomsky, Finkelstein thinks that being ‘realistic’ or ‘practical’ about the conflict entails paying nothing more than mere lip service to the rights of the refugees. For Chomsky, ‘prudence’ also issues in a steadfast refusal to be involved in building a movement that transcends the shortcomings of the two-state framework, even in the face of stark evidence that – morality aside – the policies Israel is currently pursuing ‘will abort any possibility of a viable Palestinian state,’ to use Finkelstein’s words. Chomsky’s version of the ‘argument from prudence’ takes note of the ‘international support’ that exists for the two-state program but fails to mention consistent international support for the return of the refugees, at least if annual re-affirmations of 194 in the U.N. General Assembly is any indicator of the ‘majority opinion’ that Finkelstein and Chomsky put so much stock in. The best explanation of this selective deference is the exceptionalism that, as Noah Cohen and others have explained so clearly, propels Chomsky to resist the implementation of basic human rights in Palestine on the grounds that Israel’s ‘historical vulnerability’ makes it unique amongst colonial nations that commit massive atrocities against the indigenous peoples they conquer. As a result, the logic goes, Israel ought to be held to a different set of standards. Perhaps the translation of ‘international support’ is ‘deference to the opinions emanating from the corrupt centers of power [U.S. administration, Israeli government, Palestinian Authority, the amorphous ‘Europeans’]. After all, the governments and institutions that Chomsky derides with such vehemence in his discussions of other issues don’t support the implementation of the right of return, so there’s no danger that their policies will challenge Israel’s status as an apartheid state.

Again, a pertinent question to ask is whether Chomsky’s ‘pragmatist’ bent would have led him to get firmly behind the ‘general will’ if the international community had decided to ‘come to terms’ with the apartheid regime in South Africa, perhaps by accepting that ‘water and oil don’t mix,’ hence the Blacks must be shoved into an ethnic ghetto that would nevertheless remain under the military domination of the apartheid regime. And what would he have said under the condition that the ‘general will’ was interpreted as being nothing more than the attitude of resistance the United States and other powerful nations displayed towards the prospect of comprehensive decolonization in South Africa? The ‘record’ shows that whereas Chomsky supported a boycott of the regime in South Africa, he refuses to back a similar boycott of Israel, even though both are apartheid states distinguished only by Israel’s relative lack of dependence on indigenous labor, a historical means to creating lebensraum completely untainted by the original inhabitants of the land. In an attempt to make sense out of this inconsistency, Chomsky will often retreat to the even more dubious claim that, since Israeli society will never accept to have even more Arabs live amongst them, the international community should stick to the ‘water and oil don’t mix’ formula that has repeatedly failed to yield peace, despite its ad nauseam application since the partition plan of 1947. Similarly, at one time white South African society would have rejected a life of equality with Blacks, but perhaps one can surmise that in this case, Chomsky would not have so forcefully objected to the idea that the preferences of a racist community are irrelevant to determining what kind of political arrangement international civil society should work towards, or what methods it should use to achieve this end. It seems that in all cases of injustice and resulting conflict, what matters are broad principles and the facts relevant to the application of those principles, of which facts about the whims of an oppressor society are not.

If Chomsky had not quite scraped the bottom of the barrel with this defense of his exceptionalism, then he reaches deep into the dark bowels of the void for his frequently quoted final salvo: since Israel is sitting on top of some 200 nuclear warheads, it’s suicidal for the Palestinians and their supporters to make the right of return the central demand of an international boycott movement. Before it accedes to giving the Palestinians what they deserve, Israel will ‘do a Masada’ with the entire region. One unacceptable consequence of this argument is that it would reduce us to a state moral paralysis. The contours of what you can and what you cannot advocate for in political life would be dictated by military power, and this is nothing more than a non-moral version of the ‘might makes right’ argument. In fact, the logic of this ‘argument’ would undermine Chomsky’s own resistance to U.S. Imperialism. Since the empire can pound us all into submission, we should be careful about what we ask for. One should also keep in mind that the South African apartheid regime collaborated with Israel to develop it’s own nuclear weapons, and yet it never used them, presumably because even racists would prefer to live than die, and so they live on to experience the public shaming and exclusion that is the principal coercive mechanism of a comprehensive boycott.

Finkelstein, Chomsky, and others will often attempt to legitimate their Israel exceptionalism by citing the ‘overwhelming’ support enjoyed by the two-state solution amongst Palestinians. The sleight of hand in this case consists in the straightforward omission of relevant details; what they have in mind is not the Palestinian people in their totality but the subset of Palestinians whose opinions its convenient for them to cite (Palestinians under occupation). To understand the significance of the latter group’s opinions, some social and political context is needed, although the relevant details are often left to languish in the dark – for the sake of maintaining a convenient illusion. An underlying assumption of the Oslo ‘peace process’ (and one that can partly explain its failure) was that Palestinians in the areas conquered by Israel in the 67 war and the exiled population had given up their claims to lands inside Israel and that their exclusion from their homeland had become an accepted fact. Although polls have shown that the majority of Palestinians in the occupied areas support the establishment of a Palestinian state, it’s at best contentious to think this implies that they have reconciled themselves to the losses of 1948. The political climate has dictated that no well-articulated alternatives to the two-state program have had any - let alone sufficient - public exposure. ‘Favoring’ one program over another is only socially significant if the choice is made from amongst a range of alternatives, but the reality has been quite the opposite: the two-state program has been the only available alternative, and it exemplifies a political approach that enjoys widespread favor in the centers of power. There are also psychological considerations that together with the factors already mentioned can further demystify the results of these polls. For a poll to accurately reflect the attitudes of a population, it would have to be conducted in relatively non-coercive social and political conditions. If you ask someone what long-term options they prefer when the stress and degradation of military occupation engulfs them on a daily basis, the answer will more likely be a reflection of present needs and frustrations than attitudes about the trajectory of a nation’s political future. To make the point in other terms, if violence and fear are a constant feature of your life, you may – through no fault of your own – be unable to think clearly about what kinds of changes would effectively remedy less visible but equally harmful ills your society is faced with. What you know in the moment is that the violence must stop and you must live apart from its purveyors.

One clue that other alternatives may be met with approval is the overwhelming popular support that exists amongst occupied Palestinians for the right of return. As I have already mentioned, the right of return is impracticable within a two-state framework that normalizes the current ethno-centric construction of Israel. From all this, the very least we can infer is that opinion polls about the two-state solution should be treated with some caution. The support of Palestinians in the occupied areas for this solution may be instrumental in nature, and it’s certainly true that when Palestinians are considered as a whole – as most other peoples are – the ‘general will’ would seem to issue in a refusal to concede the historical and cultural connections to the homeland they were expelled from in 1948.

In Finkelstein’s article, the claim that 242 delineates the ‘basic terms of resolution’ is followed by a statement ostensibly meant to provide it with a further justification. This statement is yet another version of the Chomskyian ‘virtual consensus’ argument and an excellent example of semantic sleight of hand. If you’re engaged in the project of defending what is, given your prior principles, indefensible, a good idea is to present the view you wish to ‘establish’ using language that makes it seem innocuous and then make sure a few true but entirely irrelevant statements follow quickly on its heels. For example, Finkelstein is absolutely correct to point out that ‘in March 2002 all twenty-two member States of the Arab League proposed this two-state settlement as well as "normal relations with Israel." He’s also correct in thinking that consistent with its perpetually rejectionist stance, Israel refused this offer. However, what he would be hard pressed to substantiate is the idea that the opinions of the Arab world’s corrupt leaders has anything to do with arriving at an adequate solution to the conflict in Palestine, at least on the assumption that the notion of ‘adequacy’ (or the ‘basic terms of resolution’) has moral connotations. Although 242 and the Arab league offer issue in very similar terms, those terms have nothing to do with what’s morally required, so, given that Finkelstein’s article purports to adopt a moralized perspective on the conflict, why suggest that either does? It would be one thing to have begun the article with an explicit disclaimer that ‘justice’ or ‘morality’ will play no role in the discussion, but this was not Finkelstein’s starting assumption; perhaps a reminder that there is only ‘legitimation of the ritual [the atrocity, the injustice] by the rituals of ‘objective’ scholarship – despite appearances of disapproval.’

The idea that the Arab league can legitimately offer terms that negate the rights of the exiled Palestinian population is a convenient fiction for a number of reasons. It further entrenches the illusion that at it’s core, the conflict in Palestine is an interstate struggle over territory that no one has a cast-iron legitimate claim to rather than a clash between a colonial state and the indigenous people it colonized and continues to expel from their own lands. The interstate conception of the conflict prioritizes the brute imposition of political control over a territory the boundaries of which were arbitrarily determined by military force (West Bank and Gaza) over pushing for a creative political arrangement that would recognize both the Israeli and Palestinian need for institutionally guaranteed cultural expression over their traditional spaces, normalize their respective identities, and safeguard individual freedoms without regard to ethnic origin. In another article(1), I tried to show how, on the one hand, this order of priorities obscures important features of the conflict, and on the other, it exacerbates political and social processes that have deepened the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and given it an air of legitimacy it otherwise would not have had. The immediate danger is that there is now a virtual synonymy between ‘ending the occupation of “the territories” and the creation of a Palestinian ‘nation-state,’ and this identification exists in political conditions that make it possible for Israel – provided it has active U.S. support and European acquiescence - to change the international communities consciousness of what terms such as ‘the territories’ denote. Positions that were once relatively difficult to justify in the court of world opinion have now become the norm. Bringing the occupation of the territories to an end no longer means unconditional termination of the Israeli presence in and control over the areas beyond the armistice line of 1949. After all, no ‘reasonable’ person would expect Israel to disrupt the lives of the colonists living in the largest settlement blocks established after 1967. Build a wall to ensure these settlements (and the largest aquifers in the West Bank) remain under your direct control, and then what land is left over can realize a new kind of sovereignty for the Palestinians, a sovereignty without territorial contiguity or control over borders and airspace, sovereignty the only prerequisites for which are the capability to police and smoothly run the municipal affairs of the people who live under your control. For those who still persist in the belief that the ‘society of nations’ will not stand by and allow this to happen, it would be sobering to remember that far worse events have overwhelmed the Palestinians while these guardians of the ‘right’ and the ‘good’ sat idly by. The only remaining hope lies in an international grassroots campaign to exclude Israel from any kind of social or cultural exchange with the rest of the world. In the absence of such a campaign, the Palestinians really will ‘turn into Finns’ as Dov Weisglass so eloquently put it. But if the Palestinians are just a particularly unruly bunch of accidental bystanders, Arabs who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, then why even consult them about anything? Surely the machinations of the Arab ‘leaders’ counts as a legitimate substitute expression of their collective will?

Sure enough, a movement to boycott and divest from Israel is beginning to take shape, and it is, literally, the last vestige of hope for decent and compassionate people who refuse to reconcile themselves to a world of brutality and oppression, not in Palestine and not anywhere else. Many of these people have recognized the urgency of the situation in Palestine. They see that given the unconditional support Israel enjoys, it can continue to freely implement a series of policies that will eliminate the presence of the Palestinian nation in their homeland, despite the heroic resistance so many Palestinians manifest by attempting to live their daily lives as best they can. Whatever the reasons, it’s now become amply clear that powerful nation-states, consociations, and multi-lateral institutions will continue to do nothing or to actively aid and abet Israel in its long-term genocidal plans. The only remaining option is for individuals and civil-society organizations to force the necessary changes from below, by harnessing whatever institutional and popular means they have at their disposal to isolate Israel in the cultural and social spheres of international exchange.

The correct precedent and model for this boycott is the grassroots movement that ended apartheid in South Africa, and this model suggests, contrary to title of Finkelstein’s article, that the effectiveness of a boycott is not a function of the economic leverage or pressure it exerts on a perpetrator society. It’s well known that the economic impact of the first anti-apartheid movement was negligible and could be ignored whereas the ‘pariah’ status it created for the apartheid regime was not, and the latter can only be achieved if the roots of oppression are bared for all to see. But this is not the only feature that explains the success of the campaign. Social change must be motivated in a variety of different ways, some positive and some negative and coercive. The first anti-apartheid movement achieved the former by offering white South African society a vision of an alternate political future in which they would not be ‘tyrannized’ by the majority whose oppression they had either actively enforced or enabled through their silence and indifference. The availability of an alternative that guaranteed freedom, equality, and a dignified life for all of South Africa’s citizens made giving up their privileged position in the country a viable option for whites, and this in turn eased the passing of the apartheid regime. A useful heuristic is that a boycott should not have a deleterious impact on the possibility of satisfying the basic needs of a perpetrator society, for the obvious moral reasons, but also because even the perception that there might be an economic impact is likely to breed intransigence rather than the grudging receptiveness necessary for positive social change. After all, the specter of an economic boycott brings with it the impression that even your basic well-being matters little and has become a mere means to the social changes envisioned by international civil society. This is why Zionist organizations will often misrepresent the nascent movement to boycott Israel by claiming it aims at ‘weakening the Israeli economy’ or ‘imposing economic hardship on ordinary Israeli citizens, including Arabs.’ A clear statement of the movement’s motivations, it’s aims, and a specification of the mechanisms it intends on employing would help to counter this propaganda. What’s clear is that use of the term ‘economic boycott’ does not help in this regard.

The parallels between Israel and apartheid era South Africa are more fundamental than the ‘modeling’ of one campaign on the other. It’s a foundational claim of this movement that there is something more than a loose family resemblance between the apartheid regime in South Africa and the Jewish State in Palestine, and that this analogy has something to do with the way in which these institutions define themselves rather than merely on the basis of a superficial similarity between their policies. It’s no accident that early Zionist leaders felt such affinity with their Afrikaaner counterparts or that Israel went to such great lengths in its military and economic collaboration with the apartheid regime. Mainstream Zionism and Afrikaaner nationalism are closely related variations on the same ideological theme. Both are defined by a highly idealized conception of ‘the nation,’ one that outdoes even ‘ethnic’ nationalism in the extent of its rejection of a world in which the fundamental condition is one of difference and plurality. This is by no means meant as a denial of the idea that Palestine is now home to a distinct Israeli culture and identity. It is, and a politics of liberation should show us how the Israeli-Jewish and Palestinian identities can be normalized in the same space. However, engagement with a set of cultural norms is not the criterion Israel uses to determine who is to be privileged by the state and who is not. ‘Culture’ is a relatively inclusive concept, whereas membership of the privileged class in Israel is determined by non-voluntary criteria (2). We can make sense out of these criteria, but only at the cost of reifying the world to an extent that creates a series of dangerous illusions, the most pernicious of which is the idea that there are essential differences between human beings in virtue of their membership in ‘nations’ and other social groups. From the very first moments when Zionism emerged from the realm of ideas and began to acquire the means necessary to its political realization, it became apparent that the interests and aspirations of Palestine’s indigenous inhabitants were to be totally ignored, despite their status as the overwhelming majority. In the obtuse historical debates about whether the Palestinian refugee ‘problem’ was the result of a pre-planned, systematic ethnic cleansing policy or ‘borne of war, not by design,’(3) Ilan Pappe is one of the few scholars who has ventured to point out that when a group of people is dehumanized to the extent the Palestinians were and still are in mainstream Zionist discourse, you don’t need a series of official directives to ensure that when the time is ripe, they will be forcibly uprooted from the lands you covet.

Despite it’s best efforts to finish the job it started in 1948, Israel has not yet succeeded in realizing the Zionist dream of a state free from non-Jews. In fact, 2005 was the first time since the 1948 war that Palestinian Arabs once again became the majority between the river and the sea. Although Israel is not economically dependent on indigenous labor to anywhere near the extent the apartheid regime in South Africa was, it has nevertheless adopted an interim policy towards the Palestinians that resembles, across many dimensions, the apartheid regime’s methods for dealing with South Africa’s black population. The guiding principle in both cases is to impose segregation while denying the indigenous people self-determination and individual freedoms. In South Africa, this resulted in the majority Black population being forced into territorially non-contiguous ‘homelands’ that occupied no more than 15% of the country’s land area. In Palestine, the figure is perhaps higher if one counts the impoverished, de-developed ghettos Israel has created for Arabs living inside its de-facto borders, but the implications for the ability to live a decent and dignified life are much the same. Possession of the right to vote is often cited by Israel supporters as a principled distinction between South African apartheid and the Zionist system of rule in Palestine, but in reality this is nothing more than a fig-leaf for oppression; the ability of a minority to cast a ballot does not alter the facts about their purposeful social disenfranchisement. Because it defines itself as a Jewish State, Israel has denied its Arab minority the benefits enjoyed by the majority Jewish population. Systematic oppression of minorities can occur regardless of democratic participation, and this shows that ‘democratic participation’ and ‘equal citizenship’ are not synonyms, the objection notwithstanding.

The similarities between the treatment of Palestinian citizens of Israel and Palestinians living under military rule in the West Bank and Gaza reveals something about the nature of apartheid itself. The ‘homelands’ system is not the only way to realize the aims of an apartheid institution nor is military force the only coercive means it has at its disposal. Apartheid’s crucial feature is, as I have already suggested, the fusion of a state apparatus with an essentialist ideology that denies the humanity in whole categories of people on the basis of features that are morally irrelevant. The State of Israel is an institution that takes this form, and opposing apartheid in historical Palestine means building a movement that, like the South African campaign, targets the prior causes of systematic discrimination against the indigenous population rather than specific policies or the particular ways in which this discrimination is manifested. The formula ‘separation without self-determination’ is a description of a political kind that can be implemented by actual physical segregation (the homelands system), by making indigenous peoples subject to a different system of laws that denies them basic economic, social, and political rights (‘virtual’ separation), through ‘de-facto’ exclusion in a society with a racist social ethos, by imposing physical segregation in the same spaces as the privileged community lives, or, by different combinations of these policies and social forms. At times, the state will employ military force to realize arrangements of this type, while on other occasions, the mere threat of violence will suffice. However, the important point to note is that these policies are symptomatic rather than constitutive of apartheid, and the fundamental injustice would persist if their causes remained untouched.

The analogy with apartheid South Africa finds its way into Finkelstein’s article, although semantic sleight of hand is once again employed to deflect attention away from the major obstacle to resolving the conflict in Palestine. We are told that ‘apart from the sheer magnitude of its human rights violations, the uniqueness of Israeli policies merits notice.’ Although this seems promising, what follows is less so. In the sentence directly after the second of two quotes from the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, Finskelstein makes the following claim: ‘If singling out South Africa for an international economic boycott was defensible, it would seem equally defensible to single out Israel's occupation, which uniquely resembles the apartheid regime.’ But the fact that an international boycott of South Africa was morally justified does not support the conclusion that singling out Israel’s occupation is also defensible, for the reason that a relation of ‘unique resemblance’ exists between the apartheid State in South Africa and the apartheid state of Israel in historical Palestine and not between the apartheid state in South Africa and Israel’s occupation. There may be another justification for boycotting Israel’s occupation, but it’s not the one cited by Finkelstein.

In fact, one implication of his claim is that it would have been sufficient for morality to boycott South Africa’s ‘homelands’ regime but to leave the State whose very nature necessitated the implementation of such a racist policy in place. If the Apartheid State had then found an alternative way of subjecting South Africa’s indigenous population, would we then need another boycott campaign? And what after that? A third? If we follow the Finkelstein/B’Tselem logic to its conclusion, we reach the absurd view that apartheid here is morally unacceptable, but we can live with apartheid over there, inside the ‘Green Line’ for example, where Arabs are identified as Arabs rather than Israelis on their national identity cards, or where the highway planners seem to forget where all the Arab towns are, or where the Negev Bedouin are thrown off their traditional lands and forced into urban concentration camps where they languish in utter despair, or where so many social goods and services are made contingent on serving in the brutal army that enforces apartheid in the West Bank and Gaza, something that Palestinians in Israel are unlikely to do, or where State lands are for the use of Jews only rather than the country’s citizens, or were the state engages in the same policies of land confiscation and house demolition seen so often in the West Bank and Gaza. Apartheid has as much to do with morally unjustified privilege of the kind that accrues to Israeli-Jews in virtue of their identity. When this privilege comes to an end, apartheid in Palestine will have been defeated.

Perhaps this is a mere innocuous omission, but it would be difficult to sustain this view given Finkelstein’s broad knowledge of the conflict and the inconsistency of adopting a moral perspective on a social problem but then failing to apply your principles in an impartial manner, or thinking that some human rights matter while others are less important. What is more, the ‘pragmatism’ in aiming all our efforts at ending the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza has shown itself to be an illusion. The occupation has become more deeply entrenched for the simple reason that by its very nature, an apartheid state will never permit any kind of accommodation with the indigenous people it rules. This fact needs to be recognized if there is to be any hope of national survival for the Palestinian people, and it’s force should be immediately apparent to people concerned with the application of moral standards to political life.

There is light at the end of the tunnel, and its source is the divestment and boycott movement beginning to grow in Europe and the United States. The success of this movement depends on many different factors, and given the stiff organized opposition it faces, it will likely be many years before we see it build enough momentum to pressure Israel into making the necessary concessions. But if the movement aims at a comprehensive and lasting settlement of the conflict in Palestine, it will have to follow the first anti-apartheid movement in its insistence on advocating for an end to the institution of apartheid itself and its replacement with a state that safeguards the individual freedoms of all its citizens and allows for Israeli-Jewish and Palestinian-Arab autonomy in the cultural and social spheres. What stands in the way of this is ‘liberal’ Zionism’s insistence that Israel is an exception to every rule, and that to question - let alone materially challenge - it’s national chauvinism is tantamount to calling for the destruction of the Jewish people. It’s very difficult to explain why Finkelstein would overlook the fact that apartheid is not a concept defined by its territorial reach but by its ideological substance and institutional expression without pointing to the interest that ‘liberal’ Zionism has in placing strict parameters on what the new anti-apartheid movement will and will not target.

The reality that has to be recognized is that Zionism – in so far as it has the concept of a Jewish State as its central component – is incompatible with a commitment to basic principles of justice and human rights, and it is the latter that ought to determine the character of the boycott movement. Chomsky, Finkelstein, and others have done an enormous amount of important work on the conflict. Finskelstein has debunked numerous myths about the 1948 war, explained the history of conflict, showed how mainstream Zionist groups have thoughtlessly used the memory of the holocaust to shield Israel from any kind of political censure as it carries out it’s war against the Palestinian people, and so much more. He is a well-informed and articulate critic, but what good is all this if the history of a people’s suffering and oppression is simply dismissed when the time comes to discuss what they deserve in the present? The logic of restitution is the only logic relevant to resolving the conflict in Palestine. Restitution does not require that present realities be ignored, but it does require that we make room for backward looking considerations as a means to transcending the status quo of injustice and moving forward towards a better future for all concerned.

END.

Mohammed Abed is a final year graduate student in the Department of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin-Madison. As an activist, he has worked for the rights of the Palestinian refugees with Al-Awda, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition. He has also worked with the University of Wisconsin Divest from Israel Campaign.

FOOTNOTES

(1). See: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=8530

(2). It is true that Israel will grant citizenship to converts, but this would seem to be out of desperation rather than choice, and it accounts for a tiny proportion of annual migration to the country. Institutional efforts are aimed at the ‘ingathering’ of people with the relevant primordial essence. Accordingly, the ‘mass conversions’ that have taken place are actually cases where ‘converts’ are promised incentives and then cajoled into ‘discovering’ their ‘real’ identity. Moreover, making immigration contingent on conversion is by its very nature a coercive and exclusionary practice; it conditions the distribution of social goods on who you are rather than what you do, and this requires an unjustified level of interference in and control over the affairs of an individual.

(3). Morris has since revised his view, having spent many an hour in the Israeli archives unearthing more evidence of massacres, rape, and other atrocities committed by Zionist forces in the war of 1948. In an interview with Haaretz (‘Survival of the Fittest’ 09/01/2004), Morris revealed his considered opinion that all this was necessary and justified; after all, ‘if you want to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs.’



Comment on this Article


'Collective Punishment', Cries Hamas

Arutz Sheva 16 Feb 06

(IsraelNN.com) Incoming Hamas legislator Mushir Al-Masri said Thursday that Israel’s tough response to its new role as majority party in the Palestinian Authority is tantamount to "collective punishment".

Israel plans to carry out sanctions against the new Palestinian Authority after the terrorist organization is sworn into the new PA government on Feb. 18th . The tough new stance comes in response to Hamas’ ongoing refusal to lay down its arms and recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Al-Masri added that Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, current Chairman of the PA, will not be able to force Hamas to reverse its stand.




Comment on this Article


Hamas to rely on Muslim funds

AlJazeera 16 Feb 06

Ismail Haniya, set to be named Palestinian prime minister, has said that a Hamas government would rely on help from the Muslim world if the West acts on threats to axe funds once it takes office.

In an interview with AFP at his home in Gaza City's Shaati refugee camp, Haniya also said Hamas, set to form their first government after a landslide election win last month, would work constructively with Mahmud Abbas, the Palestinian president, and address the pervading financial and security chaos.

The victory by Hamas, the resistance movement behind dozens of attacks against Israel in a five-year intifada (uprising), has led both the European Union and United States to warn of a cut in funding unless it renounces violence and recognises the Jewish state.
Transparency promised

Haniya, a softly-spoken former university administrator who headed Hamas's list of parliamentary candidates, said the Islamist movement was well placed to do a better job of government than its predecessors from Fatah.

"Firstly, by establishing a sound and transparent financial base, we will be able to make many economies," said Haniya, seated underneath a giant portrait of Hamas founder Shaikh Ahmad Yassin, assassinated by Israel two years ago.

"Secondly, we think that the Arab and Muslim countries, at both an official level and among the members of the public, do not want to abandon us," he added in response to questions about the threats to cut funds.

Haniya said that "international institutions, such as the World Bank, have assured us that they will maintain the finances of projects which they are supervising in the Palestinian territories".

Iran visit

The possibility of a funding cut has raised speculation that Hamas could turn to Iran, one of its main diplomatic allies, to plug the finance gap.

Haniya said that a Hamas delegation would travel to Iran shortly as part of a tour of Arab and Islamic countries.

This delegation, which has already visited Egypt, Qatar and Turkey "would also visit Iran, Malaysia and South Africa".

Although Haniya stopped short of confirming he would be named premier, Hamas sources said the 43-year-old was "the strongest candidate".

Haniya himself said the head of the government "will be from the Gaza Strip" and Hamas would hold "discussions with other parliamentary groups" about joining a coalition after the inaugural session of the parliament on Saturday.

"We want a national coalition government, including independents," he said.

Relations-building

Haniya played down any prospect of clashing with the moderate Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen) whose Fatah movement was trounced by Hamas on 25 January.

"We are determined to build relations with Abu Mazen based on dialogue and cooperation and he has assured us that our government will enjoy the same prerogatives of the outgoing cabinet," said Haniya.

"We will resolve any differences through dialogue and according to the law," he added.

Under the terms of the basic law, Abbas retains control of issues such as relations with Israel. The moderate leader has already insisted he will continue working towards a negotiated settlement with Israel.

Hamas, although it has held off attacks for over a year, remains committed to Israel's destruction and refuses to renounce the use of violence.

"As long as the occupation continues, our people will have the right to defend themselves," Haniya said.

Security chaos

Questioned about the security chaos in the Palestinian territories which played a large part in Fatah's defeat, Haniya said the crisis was "at the top of the agenda" of a Hamas government.

"We are going to resolve this through dialogue and inter-Palestinian understandings," he said.

Ehud Olmert, the acting Israeli prime minister, campaigning for his own election on 28 March, has said he will stop paying customs duties to the Palestinian Authority once Hamas takes the helm of government and ruled out any contacts.

Haniya, however, refused to be drawn on his view of Olmert or the prospects for the Israeli general election.

"What matters to us, are the interests and the rights of our people. They (the Israelis) should recognise the rights of the Palestinian people."



Comment on this Article


Russia to get Israeli consent on arms shipment to Palestinians

www.chinaview.cn 2006-02-17 19:08:41

MOSCOW, Feb. 17 (Xinhuanet) -- Russian military equipment will only be supplied to the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) with Israeli agreement, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said on Friday.

"All equipment supplies to Palestine might be carried out only with Israeli consent and through its territory," Ivanov was quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying.

"This issue is under preliminary consideration," he said.
Ivanov's remarks came a day after Chief of the General Staff Gen. Yury Baluyevsky said Russia may supply arms to the PNA after talks in Moscow with leaders of Hamas, which swept the Jan. 25 Palestinian parliamentary elections.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said on Thursday a Hamas delegation will visit Moscow in early March.

Reports have said Russia would supply two MI-17 helicopters and 50 armored personnel carriers to the Palestinians.

Baluyevsky said the two helicopters will be delivered without arms. "They are intended to transport the Palestinian leadership."



Comment on this Article


Israelis shoot unarmed Palestinian

By Laila El-Haddad in Gaza 16 Feb 06

Israeli occupation forces have shot an unarmed, mentally impaired Palestinian man at close range near the Gaza border fence, Palestinian and Israeli sources say.

Also on Wednesday, in the West Bank, Israeli soldiers shot and killed Mujahid Samadi, a mentally disabled 15-year-old Palestinian boy, who was carrying a toy gun in the village of Qabatiya, south of Jenin.

On 27 January, an eight-year-old girl, Aya al-Astal, was killed after being shot four times - twice in the neck - by Israeli soldiers stationed just outside the border.

Israeli forces told Aljazeera.net that distinguishing unarmed Palestinian woman and children from attackers was difficult.
Israeli occupation forces have shot an unarmed, mentally impaired Palestinian man at close range near the Gaza border fence, Palestinian and Israeli sources say.

Mofeed Abu Imghaseet, 25, from Khan Yunis, was seriously injured late on Wednesday night after being shot by Israeli troops near the border fence in the northern Gaza "no-go" zone.

Palestinian medical sources said Abu Imghaseet had wandered off towards the border, unaware of his location, when he was shot.

"He's currently in the hospital, in serious but stable condition. He was injured in the left thigh, after being found near the fence, where he had wandered off to," said Ziad Abu Shareea of the Kamel Udwan Hospital in Jabalia.

A spokesperson for the Israeli army said Israeli troops shot at Abu Imghaseet after noticing "a figure which was acting suspiciously" approaching the northern Gaza Strip border fence.

Unarmed target

"The figure was identified after having crossed the first barbwire fence and was at the time only several metres from the fence which protects the civilian residents of the nearby Israeli communities. The force fired at the figure's lower body and identified hitting him," army spokesman Eido Minkovsky told Aljazeera.net.

Minkovsky said the man was unarmed.

Asked why the mentally disabled man was shot at close range even after he was identified as unarmed, Minkovsky said "following army protocol, if the character wont' stop after two warning shots, we are obligated to shoot at a lower body part".

Also on Wednesday, in the West Bank, Israeli soldiers shot and killed Mujahid Samadi, a mentally disabled 15-year-old Palestinian boy, who was carrying a toy gun in the village of Qabatiya, south of Jenin.

Israeli claim

A spokesman for the army said that initial reports indicated that soldiers had identified a "suspect armed with a weapon who was threatening them and fired in his direction".

On 14 February, Israeli forced shot dead Nayfa Abu Imsaaid, 25, while she was tending to her goats near her home, not far from the Israeli border fence on the eastern end of the Gaza Strip.

Israeli forces told Aljazeera.net that distinguishing unarmed Palestinian woman and children from attackers was difficult.

Avichai Adroaee, an army spokesman, said: "There are dozens of attempts to infiltrate into Israel and plant bombs near the fence, night and day, and we have a problem trying to figure out who is trying to do this and who is not, and naturally this is why soldiers are quick to shoot and why the shots are sometimes lethal."

Lethal shots


Asked why soldiers do not use night-vision goggles or binoculars, the spokesman said: "There are always warning shots first. Sometimes these warning shots hurt people. This matter is under investigation."

Abu Imsaid's death was the second civilian killing near Gaza's border fence in less than two weeks. On 27 January, an eight-year-old girl, Aya al-Astal, was killed after being shot four times - twice in the neck - by Israeli soldiers stationed just outside the border.

A Palestinian ambulance found her bullet-riddled body hours after the incident.

According to UN statistics (the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs), at least 12 unarmed Palestinians, including 3 children, have been killed by Israeli troops for being too close to the Gaza border since mid-October. Israel withdrew all of its illegal settlements and troops from Gaza last summer.

At least 15 Palestinians have been wounded near the fence since that time.



Comment on this Article


US Justice Department launches probe into domestic wiretaps

Agence France Presse 16 Feb 06

In his letter made public Wednesday, Jarrett wrote that the investigation would focus on "the Department of Justice's role in authorizing, approving and auditing" the NSA's surveillance activities "and whether such activities are permissible under existing law."
The US Justice Department has launched an investigation into how its lawyers handled requests for warrantless wiretap authority as part of a controversial domestic surveillance program approved by President George W. Bush.

The probe, announced in a letter by department legal counsel Marshall Jarrett to Democratic US Representative Maurice Hinchey, came amid a growing drumbeat of demands for a formal investigation of the program, under which the National Security Agency was allowed to intercept communications by Americans allegedly suspected of contacts with Al-Qaeda.

Though it falls short of these demands, the probe marks the first time the administration has agreed to re-examine its own rulings on the legal foundation of such surveillance.

In his letter made public Wednesday, Jarrett wrote that the investigation would focus on "the Department of Justice's role in authorizing, approving and auditing" the NSA's surveillance activities "and whether such activities are permissible under existing law."

The controversy erupted last December, after the New York Times reported that Bush had repeatedly authorized the NSA to monitor overseas telephone calls and email traffic to and from people living in the United States without requisite permission from a secret court.

Under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the government can conduct such surveillance only for 72 hours as it seeks a warrant for continued monitoring.

Responding to an avalanche of criticism, the Justice Department put forward a new legal doctrine, under which Bush can authorize warrantless wiretaps on the basis of his inherent constitutional powers as commander-in-chief as well as a resolution passed by Congress in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

The measure, which was adopted three days after the strikes, allows the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force" against those involved in them, but contains no specific language on surveillance.

Congressional critics, including many Republicans, blasted the theory, saying that since wiretapping was specifically addressed in the 1978 law, ordering domestic surveillance without a court order was in all probability illegal.

Hinchey welcomed the probe that will be conducted by the department's Office of Professional Responsibility.

"What we've seen is a stubborn president who has refused to acknowledge that he went above the law, and hopefully this investigation will finally make him realize that he is wrong," the congressman said in a statement.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is conducting hearings in a bid to determine the legality of the wiretaps.

The committee plans to summon former attorney general John Ashcroft as well as his former deputy, James Comey, both of whom are reported to have taken strong issue with the wiretap program.

But in remarks made public Thursday, the current attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, indicated the administration planned to sharply limit what these former officials would be allowed to disclose.

"Clearly, there are privilege issues that have to be considered," Gonzales told The Washington Post in an interview. "As a general matter, we would not be disclosing internal deliberations, internal recommendations."

Anticipating a new battle, Democratic Senator Joe Biden on Wednesday urged the Senate Intelligence Committee to open a formal investigation into the wiretapping program.

He said the panel should ask how decisions are made on who will be targeted by surveillance, how many terrorists or collaborators have been identified through the program, and how many arrests have been made.

"The White House continues to tell Congress and the American people that we are not entitled to those facts," Biden said. "That is unacceptable."

Comment: Read this one carefully and note that it does NOT say that Bush is being investigated. It says "The US Justice Department has launched an investigation into how its lawyers handled requests for warrantless wiretap authority." In other words, instead of dealing with the real issue, they are going to drown us with paperwork nit-picking.

So, don't get your hopes up for any justice. Ain't gonna happen... until more people wake up. And they won't wake up until they are miserable enough to start asking questions. And things have to get a whole lot worse before that happens.


Comment on this Article


Another, More Secret, Wiretapping Program

By Steve O 16 Feb 06

Apparently soooo secret none of us should know about it.

Russell D. Tice told the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations he has concerns about a “special access” electronic surveillance program that he characterized as far more wide-ranging than the warrentless wiretapping recently exposed by the New York Times but he is forbidden from discussing the program with Congress.


I’m done. I’m just gonna go buy two coffee cans and a unlimited supply of string. It’s way to low-tech for them to tap into a network of Maxwell House cans.




Comment on this Article


Whistleblower says NSA violations bigger

UPI 14 Feb 06

WASHINGTON -- A former NSA employee said Tuesday there is another ongoing top-secret surveillance program that might have violated millions of Americans' Constitutional rights.

Russell D. Tice told the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations he has concerns about a "special access" electronic surveillance program that he characterized as far more wide-ranging than the warrentless wiretapping recently exposed by the New York Times but he is forbidden from discussing the program with Congress.

Tice said he believes it violates the Constitution's protection against unlawful search and seizures but has no way of sharing the information without breaking classification laws. He is not even allowed to tell the congressional intelligence committees - members or their staff - because they lack high enough clearance.
Neither could he brief the inspector general of the NSA because that office is not cleared to hear the information, he said.

Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said they believe a few members of the Armed Services Committee are cleared for the information, but they said believe their committee and the intelligence committees have jurisdiction to hear the allegations.

"Congressman Kucinich wants Congressman Shays to hold a hearing (on the program)," said Doug Gordon, Kucinich's spokesman. "Obviously it would have to take place in some kind of a closed hearing. But Congress has a role to play in oversight. The (Bush) administration does not get to decide what Congress can and can not hear."

Tice was testifying because he was a National Security Agency intelligence officer who was stripped of his security clearance after he reported his suspicions that a former colleague at the Defense Intelligence Agency was a spy. The matter was dismissed by the DIA, but Tice pressed it later and was subsequently ordered to take a psychological examination, during which he was declared paranoid. He is now unemployed.

Tice was one of the New York Times sources for its wiretapping story, but he told the committee the information he provided was not secret and could have been provided by an private sector electronic communications professional.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved



Comment on this Article


Feds Mistakenly Turned Over Secret Papers

Associated Press 16 Feb 06

WASHINGTON - Federal prosecutors and investigators in Dallas acknowledged in court documents that they mistakenly gave defense lawyers information about the inner-workings of secretive counterterrorism investigations.

It took federal officials four months to discover that in April they had turned over secret court applications for wiretaps, which often have sensitive information from U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies, according to court papers that were unsealed this week.

The materials were given to lawyers for the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and seven of its senior officers, who have been indicted on charges they illegally funneled millions of dollars to support the Hamas militant group. The U.S. government designated Hamas as a terrorist organization in 1995.
Last month, U.S. District Judge A. Joe Fish sided with prosecutors in ruling that the defense lawyers should not have had access to the materials. The lawyers have been cleared to view documents classified as secret for purposes of preparing their defense, but they may not share the information with the defendants or anyone else.

The case against the now-defunct Muslim charity is built in part on wiretaps, informants and information provided by Israel, according to court documents.

The government intended to turn over intercepted communications in Arabic and summaries of written translations involving three people or organizations that were subject to orders from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The 16 boxes of classified information also contained "FISA applications, orders and other related material that should not have been provided to defense counsel," Assistant U.S. Attorney James Jacks wrote in a filing asking for the return of the documents.

Officials blamed the mistake on an unnamed FBI agent and clerical staff who were called in to help copy files because prosecutors and agents familiar with the case were involved in another trial.

Jacks, in a brief conversation with The Associated Press Thursday, declined to comment on the case, pointing instead to the government's numerous filings.

When prosecutors and FBI agents in August realized what had transpired, Jacks unsuccessfully sought access to the room in the courthouse that serves as an office for the defense lawyers in the case.

A few days later, Jacks went to the room and demanded to know what the defense lawyers were doing, Nancy Hollander, a member of the defense team, wrote Judge Fish in August.

The judge ordered the room sealed.

Both government and defense lawyers are barred from discussing exactly what was turned over, but defense lawyers have indicated they believe the information would help their case.

Comment: What about the groups that funnel support to Israeli terrorist organizations that are set up to promote the destruction of the Dome of the Rock in an effort to precipitate and Holy War? What about the groups that support the terrorist, genocidal policies of Israel against the Palestinians? No need to answer, it's just a rhetorical question.

Comment on this Article


Gonzales Withholding Plame Emails

By Jason Leopold t r u t h o u t 15 February 2006

Sources close to the investigation into the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson have revealed this week that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has not turned over emails to the special prosecutor's office that may incriminate Vice President Dick Cheney, his aides, and other White House officials who allegedly played an active role in unmasking Plame Wilson's identity to reporters.

Moreover, these sources said that, in early 2004, Cheney was interviewed by federal prosecutors investigating the Plame Wilson leak and testified that neither he nor any of his senior aides were involved in unmasking her undercover CIA status to reporters and that no one in the vice president's office had attempted to discredit her husband, a vocal critic of the administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence. Cheney did not testify under oath or under penalty of perjury when he was interviewed by federal prosecutors.
The emails Gonzales is said to be withholding contained references to Valerie Plame Wilson's identity and CIA status and developments related to the inability to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Moreover, according to sources, the emails contained suggestions by the officials on how the White House should respond to what it believed were increasingly destructive comments Joseph Wilson had been making about the administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence.

Gonzales, who at the time of the leak was the White House counsel, spent two weeks with other White House attorneys screening emails turned over to his office by roughly 2,000 staffers following a deadline imposed by the White House in 2003. The sources said Gonzales told Fitzgerald more than a year ago that he did not intend to turn over the emails to his office, because they contained classified intelligence information about Iraq in addition to minor references to Plame Wilson, the sources said.

He is said to have cited "executive privilege" and "national security concerns" as the reason for not turning over some of the correspondence, which allegedly proves Cheney's office played an active role in leaking Plame Wilson's undercover CIA status to reporters, the attorneys said.

Aside from the emails that have not been turned over, there are also emails that Patrick Fitzgerald, the Special Prosecutor investigating the case, believes were either "shredded" or deleted, the attorneys said.

In a court document dated January 23, Fitzgerald says that, during the course of his investigation, he had been told that some emails from the offices of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had not been saved. His letter does not claim that any member of the Bush administration discarded the emails, but sources close to the probe say that is what Fitzgerald has been alleging privately.

"In an abundance of caution," Fitzgerald's January 23 letter to Libby's defense team states, "we advise you that we have learned that not all email of the Office of the Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system."

Spokespeople for Gonzales and the White House would not comment citing the ongoing investigation. Randall Samborn, a spokesman for Fitzgerald, also wouldn't comment. A spokesman for Cheney did not return calls for comment nor did Cheney's criminal attorney, Terrence O'Donnell.

Cheney testified for a little more than an hour about his role in the leak in early 2004. What he told prosecutors appears to be identical to testimony his former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, gave before a grand jury during the same year. Libby was indicted on five-counts of obstruction of justice, perjury, and lying to investigators related to his role in the Plame Wilson leak.

Two weeks ago, additional court documents related to Libby's case were made public. In one document, Fitzgerald responded to Libby's defense team that Libby had testified before a grand jury that his "superiors" authorized him to leak elements of the highly classified National Intelligence Estimate to reporters in the summer of 2003 that showed Iraq to be a grave nuclear threat, to rebut criticism that the administration manipulated pre-war Iraq intelligence.

News reports citing people familiar with Libby's testimony said Cheney had authorized Libby to do so. Additionally, an extensive investigation during the past month has shown that Cheney, Libby and former Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley spearhead an effort beginning in March 2003 to discredit Plame Wilson's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a vocal critic of the administration's intelligence related to Iraq, who had publicly criticized the administration for relying on forged documents to build public support for the war.

Cheney did not disclose this information when he was questioned by investigators.

Cheney responded to questions about how the White House came to rely on Niger documents that purportedly showed that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from the African country. Cheney said he had received an intelligence briefing on the allegations in late December 2003 or early January 2004 and had asked the CIA for more information about the issue.

Cheney said he was unaware that Wilson was chosen to travel to Niger to look into the uranium claims and that he never saw a report Wilson had given a CIA analyst upon his return, which stated that the Niger claims were untrue. He said the CIA never told him about Wilson's trip.

However, these attorneys said that witnesses in the case have testified before a grand jury that Cheney, Libby, Hadley, the Pentagon, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the State Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Justice Department, the FBI, and other senior aides in the Office of the Vice President, the President, and the National Security Council had received and read a March 9, 2002, cable sent to his office by the CIA that debunked the Niger claims.

The cable, which was prepared by a CIA analyst and based on Wilson's fact-finding mission, did not mention Wilson by name, but quoted a CIA source and Niger officials Wilson had questioned during his eight-day mission, who said there was no truth to the claims that Iraq had tried to purchase 500 tons of yellowcake uranium ore from Niger.

Several current and former State Department and CIA officials familiar with the March 9, 2002, cable said they had testified before the grand jury investigating the Plame Wilson leak that they had spoken to Libby and Hadley about the cable, and that they were told Cheney had also read it.

Cheney told investigators that when Wilson began speaking to reporters on background about his secret mission to Niger to investigate Iraq's alleged attempts to purchase uranium, he asked Libby to contact the CIA to "get more information" about the trip and to find out if it was true, the attorneys added.

Furthermore, Cheney told prosecutors that before he learned of Wilson's trip, his office simply sought to rebut statements made by Wilson to reporters and the various newspaper reports that said the Bush administration knowingly relied on flawed intelligence to build a case for war.

Moreover, Cheney said that he and his aide were concerned that reporters had been under the impression that Cheney chose Wilson for the Niger trip, the attorneys said. Cheney testified that he instructed Libby and other aides to coordinate a response to those queries and rebut those allegations with the White House press office.

"In his testimony the vice president said that his staff referred media calls about Wilson to the White House press office," one attorney close to the case said. "He said that was the appropriate venue for responding to statements by Mr. Wilson that he believed were wrong."

Cheney told investigators that he first learned about Valerie Plame Wilson and her employment with the CIA from Libby. Cheney testified that Libby told him that several reporters had contacted him in July to say that Plame Wilson had been responsible for arranging her husband's trip to Niger to investigate the Niger uranium claims.

Cheney also testified that the next time he recalled hearing about Plame Wilson and her connection to Joseph Wilson was when he read about her in a July 14, 2003, column written by syndicated columnist Robert Novak.

Jason Leopold spent two years covering California's electricity crisis as Los Angeles bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswires. Jason has spent the last year cultivating sources close to the CIA leak investigation, and is a regular contributer to t r u t h o u t.



Comment on this Article


Secrecy over security
Libby revelation puts things in perspective


Published 2:15 am PST Thursday, February 16, 2006

When it comes to keeping secrets, the Bush administration has what might be called a two-handed approach.

On one hand, the administration will do and has done all kinds of gymnastics to avoid giving Congress information about intelligence programs. On the other, the administration is willing to reveal classified information selectively when doing so suits its political aims.

Actions here speak louder than words.
Just in case you have forgotten: Last year, a grand jury led by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald indicted Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, on one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of making false statements and two counts of perjury related to the leaking of the identity of an undercover officer working for the CIA. Libby's trial, originally scheduled to begin Feb. 3, has been postponed until January 2007, after the November elections.

Last week, the National Journal reported that court papers in the case reveal that Libby testified before a federal grand jury that he was "authorized to disclose" - that is, to leak - highly classified intelligence information to the press "by his superiors." The evidence is a Jan. 23 letter from the prosecutor responding to Libby's lawyers, who asked what information the government will make available to the defense.

Congress, which has the duty under our system of government to watch and check the government, gets information in dribs and drabs - or not at all - at the whim of the president. The administration sends people up to Congress who wax eloquently about "inherent" presidential authority. In short, Americans are simply expected to have faith that the president is exercising powers constitutionally, legally and appropriately without accountability to Congress and the courts. Just to make sure of that faith, administration officials also try to scare people by saying that oversight would somehow harm efforts to combat terrorism.

You might think the president would want Congress as a partner in the worldwide struggle against terrorism. Yet this president acts as if he and the executive branch are the only ones who care about protecting Americans - that they alone decide what is in the national interest and that Congress somehow is an impediment. The Libby testimony underlines that. It also reveals in stark terms an administration more concerned with gaining and maintaining power than building common cause to protect national security.

Comment: Do the ending paragraphs of this piece, those after the passage hilighted above, strike you as something of a non-sequitor? We have he admission that Libby was told to break the law by his superiors, and his superiors happen to be the president and vice-president of the US, and the focus is on how badly those superiors are treating congress, not their criminal actions.

Coincidence? We think not.


Comment on this Article


Global Eye - Flamethrowers

By Chris Floyd February 17, 2006

The kindling has been piled high, stuffed with tinder and doused with gasoline. The match has been lit. All it will take is the slightest flick of the wrist to set off the conflagration. We are now living in the interval, the few heartbeats left before the great flame ignites.

The heap of kindling has been a long time building, but in recent weeks, the work has intensified to a fever pitch. With relentless urgency, the American people are being habituated to the prospect of several interrelated upheavals -- new war, new terror attacks -- and the predetermined result of these events: the final, open establishment of presidential tyranny, a militarized "commander state" where executive power is beyond the law, and endless war endlessly prolongs the "emergency measures" of the authoritarian regime.
Making a virtue of necessity, the Bush administration has used the exposure of its illegal wiretap scheme to ratchet up the level of terrorist scaremongering, accelerate its drive toward a military attack on Iran and publicly proclaim its long-held covert doctrine of executive dictatorship. Of course, "commander rule" is already the de facto state of the union, as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made clear to the Senate last week, when he refused to deny the notion that the president can contravene any law he chooses under his authority as commander-in-chief. And we have often detailed here the tyrannical powers that President George W. Bush has already bestowed upon himself without objection from the U.S. political establishment, including the power to jail anyone without charges, hold them indefinitely and have them tortured -- or simply murder them in an "extrajudicial killing." The scope of Bush's claimed powers -- arbitrary sway over the life and liberty of every person on earth -- far surpasses that of the most megalomaniacal Roman emperor or totalitarian dictator.

But a militarist state must have war: to justify its draconian rule (and those $550 billion "defense" budgets), to find new fields for dominion and swag, and to seal with blood its illegitimate compact with the people, seeking to make them complicit in its crimes, which are committed in their name, for their "security." Fortunately for the militarists, Bush has promised war in abundance. Just this month, the Pentagon released its new strategy, heralding the newly dubbed "Long War" against terrorism, where U.S. forces will be deployed, openly and covertly, "in dozens of countries simultaneously" for decades to come. The plan is designed to "ensure that no foreign power can dictate the terms of regional or global security" -- except, of course, for the dictatorial foreign power emanating from the Potomac.

This is the constitution of the new commander state: the eternal "emergency," fomenting endless bloodshed, strife, atrocity -- and reprisals, the terrorist blowback that is the essential lubricant for the war machine. And a new terror strike on the "homeland" is inevitable. The ground for this attack has been carefully prepared -- whether wittingly or unwittingly is irrelevant now. For whatever the Bush faction's intentions, their actual policies have demonstrably and indisputably stoked the fires of Islamic extremism to new heights of virulence. Meanwhile, their manifest incompetence and callous disregard for the well-being of ordinary Americans -- vividly displayed in the deadly bungling of the Katrina disaster and its corruption-riddled aftermath -- have left American soil virtually undefended against any genuinely serious terrorist attack, i.e. one not carried out by half-wits telegraphing their punches over tapped phones.

For years, a vast infrastructure of authoritarian rule has been constructed behind the facade of ordinary political life -- such as the series of "special authorities" signed by Bush and Pentagon warlord Donald Rumsfeld giving the military absolute power over the nation "in the event of a declared or perceived emergency," The Washington Post reports. This dovetails with such open measures as the Patriot Act and the creation of Northcom, the first military command aimed at the "homeland," which last fall conducted the massive "Granite Shadow" exercise, practicing "domestic military operations" with "unique rules of engagement regarding the use of lethal force," the Post reports.

This infrastructure is part of the context, the granite shadow looming behind many recent events, such as last month's $385 million open-ended contract awarded to Halliburton to build large-scale "detention and deportation" centers around the country, as Reuters reports. It looms behind the "excitement" expressed by weapons-makers over Bush's plans to build new atomic bombs on a production-line basis, the Oakland Tribune reports, including "low yield" nukes for use in attacks on non-nuclear nations. It looms over Rumsfeld's frenzied push to build a new arsenal of "first-strike" intercontinental and space-based weapons to attack enemies -- or perceived enemies -- with "no warning," as the Pentagon declared this month, UPI reports. You can even see it in the Air Force's decision last week to allow top brass to press their politicized pseudo-Christianity on young cadets without restraint, as Reuters reports -- more of the sinister melding of militarism and religious extremism that characterizes the Bushist philosophy.

And of course, the granite shadow overhangs the entire campaign to foment war fever against Iran, a grim replay of the "Attack Iraq" propaganda, complete with exaggerated threats, manipulated intelligence supplied by dubious exiles, lies about "pursuing diplomacy" while finalizing battle plans, as The Sunday Telegraph reports -- and a complete disregard of the murderous quagmire that will ensue, including the rapid proliferation of nuclear weapons worldwide as countries scramble to protect themselves from the "first-strike" triggermen of the Bush faction.

More war, more terror, more authoritarian rule: The fire next time is almost here.



Comment on this Article


THE POINT OF NO RETURN

WRH

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator"

G.W. Bush 12/18/2000

Dictators do not appear overnight. They must gradually assume more and more power over time so that the population does not realize what is going on, or does not feel it is worthwhile to object.

But to maintain control, dictators "seduce" their population into greater and greater atrocities, over time. There is more than simply acclimating the population involved to the dictator's agenda. By tricking the population into acceptance of greater and greater atrocities, the dictator will eventually reach a position where the people will be too afraid to examine what they themselves have become. Trapped by the fear of examining themselves, such people turn into the most fanatical of the dictator's supporters. They dare not look at the dictator's evil for to do so is to look at their own. Once the dictator can trick his people past that point, they are his slaves. Hitler used this tactic. So did Stalin.

The people of the United States stand at that point right now. That the US Government is using torture on POWs (just as Hitler did) is beyond argument. One can either stand up and denounce that torture and demand the firing of all who took part in it (and the end of the war), or one is by default complicit, an accessory after the fact, seen by all to condone such barbarism.

Anyone who steps across that line is trapped. Unable to look at what they themselves have become they will refuse to look at what the government has become, indeed will create or accept any justification, no matter how thin and transparent, rather than question that government. And indeed this web site gets email from people who have already crossed that point, and are trying to explain why torture is really necessary "this time".

So, you are down to a choice. There is no more being neutral, or sitting on the fence. As Bush himself said, you are either with him or against him, and unless you are actively against him and his war machine, then he wins by default. Unless you stop them now, sooner or later, Bush and the NeoCons will succeed in turning this nation into the 21st century version of Nazi Germany, powered by fanatics so afraid to look in a mirror that they will inflict any pain on any people, rather than do so.

Time to decide.




Comment on this Article


An Arrogance of Power

By David Ignatius The Washington Post February 15, 2006; Page A21

When critics question the legality of the administration's actions, Bush and Cheney assert the commander in chief's power under Article II of the Constitution. When Congress passes a law forbidding torture, the White House appends a signing statement insisting that Article II -- the power of the commander in chief -- trumps everything else. When the administration's Republican friends suggest amending the wiretapping law to make its program legal, the administration refuses. Let's say it plainly: This is the arrogance of power, and it has gone too far in the Bush White House.
There is a temptation that seeps into the souls of even the most righteous politicians and leads them to bend the rules, and eventually the truth, to suit the political needs of the moment. That arrogance of power is on display with the Bush administration.

The most vivid example is the long delay in informing the country that Vice President Cheney had accidentally shot a man last Saturday while hunting in Texas. For a White House that informs us about the smallest bumps and scrapes suffered by the president and vice president, the lag is inexplicable. But let us assume the obvious: It was an attempt to delay and perhaps suppress embarrassing news. We will never know whether the vice president's office would have announced the incident at all if the host of the hunting party, Katharine Armstrong, hadn't made her own decision Sunday morning to inform her local paper.

Nobody died at Armstrong Ranch, but this incident reminds me a bit of Sen. Edward Kennedy's delay in informing Massachusetts authorities about his role in the fatal automobile accident at Chappaquiddick in 1969. That story, and dozens of others about the Kennedy family, illustrates how wealthy, powerful people can behave as if they are above the law. For my generation, the fall of Richard Nixon is the ultimate allegory about how power can corrupt and destroy. It begins not with venality but with a sense of God-given mission.

I would be inclined to leave Cheney to the mercy of Jon Stewart and Jay Leno if it weren't for other signs that this administration has jumped the tracks. What worries me most is the administration's misuse of intelligence information to advance its political agenda. For a country at war, this is truly dangerous.

The most recent example of politicized intelligence was President Bush's statement on Feb. 9 that the United States had "derailed" a 2002 plot to fly a plane into the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles. Bush spoke about four al Qaeda plotters who had planned to use shoe bombs to blow open the cockpit door. But a foreign official with detailed knowledge of the intelligence scoffed at Bush's account, saying that the information obtained from Khalid Sheik Mohammed and an Indonesian operative known as Hambali was not an operational plan so much as an aspiration to destroy the tallest building on the West Coast. When I asked a former high-level U.S. intelligence official about Bush's comment, he agreed that Bush had overstated the intelligence.

Perhaps the most outrageous example of misusing intelligence has been the administration's attempt to undercut Paul Pillar and other former CIA officials who tried to warn about the dangers ahead in Iraq. I'm not talking about the agency's botched job on weapons of mass destruction but about its warnings that postwar Iraq would be chaotic and dangerous. Pillar said so privately before the war, and he helped draft an August 2004 national intelligence estimate warning, correctly, that the situation in Iraq was deteriorating and heading for "tenuous stability" at best.

Bush was unhappy at this naysaying, just as he has grumbled about pessimistic reports from the CIA station in Baghdad. When Pillar made similar warnings about Iraq at a private dinner in September 2004, the White House went ballistic -- seeing Pillar as part of a CIA conspiracy to undermine the president's policies. Soon after, Bush installed a former Republican congressman, Porter Goss, who began a purge at the agency that has driven out a generation of senior managers. Pillar and many, many others have retired, leaving the nation without some of its best intelligence officers when we need them most.

Bush and Cheney are in the bunker. That's the only way I can make sense of their actions. They are steaming in a broth of daily intelligence reports that highlight the grim terrorist threats facing America. They have sworn blood oaths that they will defend the United States from its adversaries -- no matter what . They have blown past the usual rules and restraints into territory where few presidents have ventured -- a region where the president conducts warrantless wiretaps against Americans in violation of a federal statute, where he authorizes harsh interrogation methods that amount to torture.

When critics question the legality of the administration's actions, Bush and Cheney assert the commander in chief's power under Article II of the Constitution. When Congress passes a law forbidding torture, the White House appends a signing statement insisting that Article II -- the power of the commander in chief -- trumps everything else. When the administration's Republican friends suggest amending the wiretapping law to make its program legal, the administration refuses. Let's say it plainly: This is the arrogance of power, and it has gone too far in the Bush White House.

davidignatius@washpost.com



Comment on this Article


Dictatorship in America?

by Rodrigue Tremblay February 8, 2006

Don't look now, but something big is happening in the United States. A major constitutional crisis is brewing, with President George W. Bush's push to concentrate absolute power in his hands, whenever he decides to do so in 'times of war'. Just remember that the United States had, in 2000, its first non-elected president.
There were clear signs that something abnormal was going on when Bush Jr. declared, on December 31, 2002, that it was up to him alone to declare a war of aggression against Iraq, even though the U.S. Constitution divides war powers between the Congress and the President and emphatically states that only Congress can declare war: "The Congress shall have Power: To declare War,..."(Art. 1, sec. 8). On Dec. 18, 2001, George W. Bush perhaps spoke his mind when he said: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." Everybody thought he was joking. —He wasn't.

To place himself above the law, Pres. Bush has used what is called "signing statements" hundreds of times. These are provisos he has added to newly adopted statutes that Congress sends him to be signed. With these statements, Bush expresses his intentions not to follow the said laws, if he chooses not to. By decreeing that he is above the law, as long as there is a war against terror and he is the Commander-in-Chief, Bush is in effect vetoing in advance the new bills he signs into law. He also reserves the right to ignore any other law on the books, if he chooses to. This is a royal prerogative that most legal scholars consider to be contrary to what was envisioned by the Fathers of the U.S. Constitution.

For example, Bush recently asserted that he has the power to ignore the recently adopted McCain amendment forbidding torture, to ignore the law that makes it illegal to conduct electronic surveillance on people within the United States without a warrant, to ignore the prohibition against indefinite detention without charges or trial, to ignore the Geneva Conventions to which the U.S. is signatory, etc. Moreover, Bush has also signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus and ignore the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits deployment of U.S. troops on American streets.

On the precise question of illegal domestic eavesdropping that President Bush has confessed to having authorized since 2001, and which is being contested before the courts, it also appears that he publicly lied about it. On April 20, 2004, for instance, Bush emphatically proclaimed that "There are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way…" This was blatantly untrue, and he knew it, since he had personally authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to wiretap within the USA without a court order.

All this is in sharp contrast to the words of President James Madison (1751-1836), a prominent Father of the Constitution and the 4th U.S. President: “The [U.S.] Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well-checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.”

In a remarkable speech, on January 16, 2006, former Vice President Al Gore, winner of the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election and whose election was stolen from him when many votes cast in his favor were not counted in Florida, echoed President Madison when he said: "We have a duty as Americans to defend our citizens' right not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is therefore vital in our current circumstances that immediate steps be taken to safeguard our Constitution against the present danger posed by the intrusive overreaching on the part of the Executive Branch and the President's apparent belief that he need not live under the rule of law. I endorse the words of [former Congressman]Bob Barr, when he said, 'The President has dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will.' "

Incredibly, the most important newspaper in the United States, The New York Times, did not report Al Gore's speech, even though an important public figure raised fundamental questions about American democracy. This is not a complete surprise, since the leadership at the NYTimes also suppressed, for one full year, the information about the Bush administration violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, by secretly and illegally spying on Americans'telephone calls and e-mail without getting warrants. Without this dereliction of duty on their part, it is possible that George W. Bush would not have been reelected in November 2004. Therefore, the highly concentrated American corporate media carry a large share of responsability regarding the relative degradation of democratic rule in the U.S.

These are quite amazing developments for a country that has prided itself until recently on being a model of democracy and on having a free press. Senators and Representatives had better wake up to these abuses of power before the Constitution-breaking 'imperial cult' of the presidency (under the newly invented and self-serving "unitary executive theory" of presidential power) becomes a reality. If not, they will have only themselves to blame for having failed to do their constitutional duty.

On a more practical level, all this political instability is bound to have serious economic consequences. The coming years risk being more tumultuous than many can possibly envisage.



Comment on this Article


Civil liberties fear as US terror suspect list rises to 325,000

Julian Borger in Washington Thursday February 16, 2006 The Guardian

Civil liberties organisations expressed outrage yesterday after it was reported that the database of terrorist suspects kept by the US authorities now holds 325,000 names, a fourfold increase in two and a half years.

The list, maintained by the National Counterterrorism Centre (NCTC), includes different spellings of the same person's names as well as aliases, but the Washington Post quoted NCTC officials as saying that at least 200,000 individuals are on it. They said that "only a very, very small fraction" of that number were US citizens, but that insistence did little to defuse the reaction.


Timothy Sparapani, an expert on privacy rights at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the ACLU's response was one of incredulity, and alarm that many people are likely to be on the list by mistake, with serious impact on their lives and few, if any, means of getting themselves off it.

"The numbers continue to grow by leaps and bounds," Mr Sparapani said. He had no idea what methods were being used to add names to the database, but added: "I have to say we're probably adding names faster than we can figure out how to deal with them ... We worry greatly about the potential stain to anyone's life who ends up on this list."

It is unclear how many of the names on the list were collected as a result of a domestic wiretapping programme by the National Security Agency, the existence of which only became known through a leak in December.

Administration officials yesterday refused to confirm or deny the reported size of the NCTC list.

Thousands of Americans have only discovered their name, or a similar one, is on the list when they have been prevented from taking a commercial flight. Senator Edward Kennedy found himself in that position in 2004.

Mr Sparapani said he had heard officials from the Transport Security Agency estimate that about 30,000 people a year had been denied the right to board a flight because of the list.

The database was set up in 2003, initially with 75,000 names. The NCTC is the principal agency for analysing terrorist data, under the control of John Negroponte, the director for national intelligence.

Marc Rotenberg, the head of a watchdog group, the Electronic Privacy Information Centre, said: "It's problematic not simply in the big brother way with the loss of privacy, but it's also problematic because it doesn't seem to work."

He said it was virtually impossible for those wrongly listed as terrorist suspects to clear their name. "We passed a very good law in the 1970s ... at least when the US government makes a decision about a US citizen, that process had to be transparent and people had to be able to appeal those decisions, but now those agencies get exemptions to the law."



Comment on this Article


U.S. Money Aids World’s Worst Dictators

Benjamin Powell, Matt Ryan 13 Feb 06

Parade magazine recently ranked the twenty worst dictators currently in power. Many names are familiar—Fidel Castro, Muammar Qaddafi, Kim Jong-Il, Robert Mugabe and others. They are all guilty of human rights violations and in some cases have committed outright genocide. But there’s another trait common to all twenty leaders—every single one has received foreign aid from wealthy Western countries.

Popular Washington, D.C., rhetoric says that development aid should be dispensed to corruption-free countries with laws and policies conducive to supporting sustained economic growth. President Bush created Millennium Challenge Accounts to funnel aid to such countries. However, few countries have qualified for the program and little money has actually been disbursed. Instead, we find that both the U.S. and its partner countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), have contributed a great deal of aid to these oppressive regimes.
Parade ranked the Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir as the world’s worst dictator. During his reign OECD countries gave his regime more than $6 billion in non-military aid. The U.S. accounted for more than $1 billion of that aid. Kim Jong-Il was ranked as the second worst dictator and received a little over $1 billion in aid, with more than half of it coming from the U.S. Than Shwe of Myanmar, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, and Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan round out the top five dictators on the list. The U.S. contributed $32 million to Myanmar, $1.1 billion to Zimbabwe, and $385 million to Uzbekistan.

Overall, OECD countries contributed aid to every one of Parade’s 20 worst dictators. Combined, these leaders received nearly $55 billion in aid. The U.S. contributed to 19 of the 20 worst dictators; King Abdulla of Saudi Arabia was somehow left off of the U.S. gravy train. In total, the U.S. contributed more than $7 billion in aid to these leaders. In North Korea, Belarus, Ethiopia, Swaziland, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan the U.S. contributed more than 20 percent of the total aid these countries received from OECD countries.

Government-sponsored aid has failed to promote economic growth in the third world. From 1970 to 2000, more than $400 billion poured into poor African countries with no development to show for it. Parade’s list of dictators makes our foreign aid record even more disturbing. Not only has it failed to promote development, in many cases our aid has supported oppressive dictatorships.

Following Hamas’s recent victory in Palestine’s elections, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice threatened to cut off aid to Palestine, saying, “The United States is not prepared to fund an organization that advocates the destruction of Israel, that advocates violence and that refuses its obligations.” Perhaps the U.S. should apply that policy to the dictators on Parade’s list as well. By providing aid to these dictators the U.S. has given them a source of funds to use to secure political support and likely prolonged their oppressive reigns.

The first rule of development policy should be to do no harm. Unfortunately OECD and U.S. aid have failed to promote development and actively promoted harm by aiding oppressive dictatorships. This kind of aid also unfortunately tends to undermine economic freedom by politicizing economic life in the recipient country and by preserving inefficient regimes. Over the last 30 years development aid has lowered measures of economic freedom in both dictatorships and democracies. To better promote freedom, and consequently development, we should end economic development aid to dictators and democracies alike.

Benjamin Powell, Ph.D., is the Director of the Center on Entrepreneurial Innovation at the Independent Institute, an Oakland-based policy think tank and a professor of economics at San Jose State University.

Matt Ryan is an adjunct fellow with the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. and holds a Masters degree in Economics from San Jose State University.




Comment on this Article


Documents show Maryland held election, primary on uncertified, illegal Diebold voting machines

Carlos Miller February 16, 2006

The Maryland State Board of Elections allowed Diebold Election Systems to operate its touch-screen voting machines during the state's 2002 gubernatorial election and the 2004 presidential primaries before the state agency actually certified the controversial machines, according to recently disclosed documents.

That is a violation of state law, according to Linda Schade, executive director of TrueVoteMD.org, an election integrity group.

Schade discovered the document among thousands of others she recently acquired through a lawsuit filed against the Maryland State Board of Elections in 2004. After almost two years of public records requests and attorney wrangling, she received four boxes filled with e-mail conversations, faxes and contracts between the elections office and Diebold.
"So far, we've only gone through one box and have just started the second box," she said Wednesday. "We expect to find much more."

Meanwhile, Maryland Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich Jr. delivered a scathing letter to the State Board of Elections Wednesday, lashing out at the agency for intending to use Diebold's systems for the upcoming 2006 election while California and Pennsylvania have either decertified or refused to certify the voting systems, which recent studies show can easily be hacked to manipulate votes.

"I no longer have confidence in the State Board of Elections' ability to conduct fair and accurate elections in 2006," the Republican governor stated in the four-page letter.

At the center of both controversies is Linda Lamone, administrator of the State Board of Elections, who did not immediately return several calls seeking comment over the last two days.

Upsets and unusual outcomes

In November 2002, Lamone, a Democrat, allowed Diebold to operate its machines in four counties for the state gubernatorial election. That was when Ehrlich became the first Republican governor to be elected in 36 years in what had always been known as a solidly Democratic state.

That was also the year when a Republican political newcomer, a self-described "nobody," ousted a veteran Democratic state senator in what The Baltimore Sun described as "one of the most remarkable election upsets in recent Maryland political history."

After serving for several decades, Democratic House Speaker Casper R. Taylor Jr. lost his Allegany County seat to LeRoy E. Myers. Allegany County was one of the four counties where Diebold machines were used that year.

In March 2004, during the presidential primary elections, Maryland became one of only two states in the country to use Diebold voting machines throughout the entire state. A month later, Schade filed her lawsuit in an attempt to prevent Diebold from running the upcoming November 2004 presidential elections, accusing Lamone in the suit of "recklessly certifying" the machines for the primary elections.

But at the time, Schade had no idea that Lamone had not even bothered certifying the machines. In fact, the machines did not get certified until the following month. The machines were finally certified May 20, 2004.

Though now certified, machines still may not meet FEC standards

And the fact that they were eventually certified does not even place them in compliance with the law, said Douglas W. Jones, an associate professor of computer science at the University of Iowa, who has been studying flaws within computer voting machines since the 1990s.

"The question is, should it have even been certified in the first place?" he asked. "My reading of the 1990 and 2002 standards suggests that use of the software from the PCMCIA cards should not have been in use in the first place."

Jones is referring to the standards put forth by the Federal Election Commission in those years, which the states have to legally abide by in order to receive federal funding.

An easily altered paper trail

The Diebold voting machines used in Maryland since 2002 use a common PCMCIA card, which record the numbers of votes cast on that particular machine during an election. When the polls close, election workers are suppose to print out results from each machine before shipping the PCMCIA card to a the main elections office.

Just last month, computer expert Harri Hursti showed Florida election officials in Leon County how easily these cards can be manipulated in a study now known as the "Hursti Hack."

"What Harri discovered was that using a laptop and a PCMCIA card reader, which you can buy on the Internet, he could change the contents of the card," Jones said. "He could reprogram the card to print anything he wanted and it only took seconds."

The contents on the card, which are shipped off to the main elections office, remain unchanged, but the printout, the only paper trail produced by the machines, end up altered, he said.

"And the paper trail is what most people would look at to verify an election," he said.

Skyrocketing costs and financial incentives

Despite the obvious flaws and election law violations, Lamone still managed to run up a multimillion dollar budget to maintain the Diebold machines, according to the governor's letter.

"The cost of Maryland's Diebold voting machines has skyrocketed as our confidence in the system has plummeted," he said.

"At the time, the General Assembly's fiscal note for House Bill 1457 estimated that the total cost would be $36,890,000. The actual cost, which has been financed by the state by the State Treasurer was $65,564,674 – an almost 78 percent increase from the original cost estimate.

"However, this misjudgment pales in comparison to the 1000 percent increase for estimates of the annual maintenance costs for the system," the letter states.

Schade, who ran for state legislator in 2002 under the Green Party and has spent the last two years researching the situation, said that Lamone authorized more than $111 million in contracts to Diebold since 2002. She also believes there is a conflict of interest between Lamone and Diebold because for the past two years, Lamone has been president of the National Association of State Election Directors, which approves all voting machines before they are used.

"You can imagine the financial incentives that are used to cozy up to NASED," she said.

The document, which shows the date of Diebold's certification, can be found here. The report date is the date the machines and software were certified.

Comment: It really doesn't make any difference, you know. The Neocons OWN the U.S. They control Congress via blackmail (illegal surveillance), they own the military, they own the intelligence services, they own the judiciary. And even before that, they owned the people who count the votes. Nothing is going to happen to change anything until more people wake up. They aren't going to wake up until they become a lot more miserable. That will take time.

Comment on this Article


EU tightens control of bird flu spreading

www.chinaview.cn 2006-02-17 20:43:01

BRUSSELS, Feb. 17 (Xinhuanet) -- Slovenia's government on Thursday confirmed its first bird flu case in the north of the country. Germany also confirmed two dead swans had been affected with the fatal H5N1 virus. The European Union approved new measures to tighten control of the spread of the deadly disease.
EU MEASURES

According to the EU regulations, if H5N1 virus is suspected or confirmed in any EU country, the authorities must immediately set up an inner protection zone, surrounded by a surveillance zone andan extra buffer zone.

The sizes of the protection and surveillance zones are the samefor both wild birds and domestic poultry -- 3 km for the inner zone and 10 km for the surveillance zone -- while the buffer zone's size depends on the area's topography.

Within the inner zone, domestic poultry must be slaughtered if the H5N1 strain is suspected or confirmed. In the surveillance zone, poultry must be confined unless traveling to a slaughterhouse, officials said.

The buffer zone is a new measure.

"We are taking the additional precaution of defining high-risk areas to act as a buffer zone between infected areas and unaffected parts of a member state," Philip Tod, European Commission food safety spokesman, told a press briefing in Brussels on Thursday.

"The establishment of these risk areas will help to define a disease-free part of the country, which is obviously good for trade purposes," he said.

On Wednesday, the EU agreed to pay half the costs of national bird flu surveillance programmes, which aim to ensure early detection of any outbreak of the disease in the EU-25, up to a ceiling of 1.96 million euros (2.32 million US dollars).

Countries where the highly pathogenic strain has been detected,or strongly suspected, have in recent weeks set up protection and surveillance zones as a precaution.

In wild birds, all poultry and captive animals must be kept indoors in the event of an outbreak, within both the protection and surveillance zones, with movement within and from the zones restricted. Hunting of wild birds should be banned.

Brussels earlier this week adopted a global ban on imports of untreated feathers, and the new measures passed on Thursday are expected to be put into action in the next few days.

The whole European continent is now in a high state of nervousness, and every country is rushing to make preparations to prevent the spread or outbreak of the disease.

"Everybody is on high alert," one EU expert said on condition of anonymity. "We are working on the assumption that there is a high risk of infection in many areas of Europe."

BIRD FLU SPREADS

In Europe, the presence of H5N1 virus has so far been verified in Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Romania, Slovenia, Ukraine and the European part of Russia. Almost all the cases involve migratory wild swans.

On Thursday, Slovenia reported its first bird flu case near theAustrian border. Germany's leading animal health institute also verified two dead swans found on Tuesday were infected with the deadly virus. Another new case was also confirmed in Romania, bringing the affected number to 31 in the country.

"Of course we are worried and we have to get used to the fact that avian flu is now spreading within the European Union," said Zsuzsanna Jakab, head of the EU's Stockholm-based European Center for Disease Prevention and Control.

Until now, all the cases in Europe were found on migratory birds, which means the deadly virus has not, or has not been found,to affect poultry and people on the European continent, yet the clock is ticking.

EU officials say the real fear now stems from the expected spring migration from Africa, where Nigeria is having its first bird flu outbreak in the African continent.

H5N1 influenza remains mainly a disease of poultry, and has killed or forced the culling of more than 200 million birds acrossAsia, parts of the Middle East, Europe and Africa.

But it has also infected 169 people, killing 91, and is steadily mutating. If it acquires the ability to easily pass from person to person, it could cause a pandemic that would kill millions.  

POULTRY INDUSTRY CRISIS

Europe's poultry industry has been hit badly by the arrival of the virus in the European Union. Poultry farmers in Italy complained that chicken meat demand has fallen 70 percent since Saturday when bird flu first hit Europe. They called on the government to abolish tax to help them survive the crisis.

The Lowy Institute for International Policy, an independent Australian think tank, predicted that a pandemic could wipe 4.4 trillion US dollars off global economic output and kill more than 140 million people.



Comment on this Article


France orders birds indoors as bird flu gets closer

PARIS, Feb 15, 2006 (AFP)

The French government on Wednesday ordered all poultry and tame birds to be kept indoors, as the deadly strain of bird flu continued its spread through Europe.

All farm ducks and geese are also to be vaccinated in three departments on the Atlantic coast to prevent their contamination from wild birds, Agriculture Minister Dominique Bussereau announced after an interministerial meeting.

France is Europe's biggest poultry producer, with free-range birds accounting for 17 percent of its production — as well as western Europe's main crossroads for migratory birds, potential carriers of the deadly virus.
The French food safety agency AFSSA warned on Tuesday of a heightened risk of the deadly H5N1 strain of the virus reaching the country, with one expert warning that it is only a matter of time before it arrives in France.

France's agriculture ministry has already ordered free-range birds in more than half of its 96 mainland departments to be kept in shelters.

Live birds have also been banned from all markets and trade fairs, including at a huge annual agricultural fair in Paris at the end of this month.

European leaders, meanwhile, took urgent new action Wednesday to counter fast-multiplying outbreaks of bird flu, ordering poultry indoors to avoid infection but urging consumers not to panic.

The European Union's executive arm also warned that it expects more cases as warm spring weather brings a seasonal migration of swans and other wild birds carrying the potentially lethal disease.

As Germany became the latest EU country to confirm the lethal H5N1 strain of the disease, EU health experts agreed to ban all imports of untreated feathers to further reduce the "high risk" of the disease spreading.

"Today's decision ... was taken in light of the rapid spread of avian influenza over the past months and the current high risk of the disease spreading further," said the European Commission.

So far, the presence of H5N1 virus — which in its highly pathogenic form can be fatal to humans — has been confirmed in recent days in Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Romania and the European part of Russia.

Preliminary tests have proved positive in Austria, while Croatia, Hungary, Slovenia and Ukraine are investigating suspected cases.

EU health commissioner Marko Kyprianou, attending the two days of talks with health experts from member states, underlined that there is unlikely to be an early end to the cases of bird flu.

"Given that the spring migration will begin soon we will review again the situation to see if there's need for additional methods... We shouldn't be surprised if we have more migratory wild birds with this virus," he said.

"There's no need to panic," he warned. "We have to advise the European public to stay calm... There's no reason not to consume chicken."

The potentially lethal H5N1 strain has killed at least 90 people — almost half those who caught it — mostly in Southeast Asia and China where it first erupted but also in Turkey and northern Iraq.

The big fear in the EU, the world's third biggest exporter of poultry after the United States and Brazil, is that the virus passes from migratory swans to chickens, or other birds in the human food chain.

To head off that risk a number of countries, including Denmark, France, the Netherlands and Sweden, have ordered poultry and tame birds to be kept indoors to avoid contamination.

The avian influenza virus, first reported on Europe's southeastern flanks in early January, re-erupted with a vengeance last week, starting in Italy and Greece. But there are now almost daily reports of cases in a string of European countries.

In Germany, the authorities Wednesday set up the now-standard 10-kilometer surveillance zone around the site where two dead wild swans and one dead hawk were found on the island of Ruegen in the Baltic Sea.

Hours later Hungary confirmed that it had detected the H5-type virus in the bodies of three dead swans in the south of the country.

Further north, a number of dead birds, including swans, were found across Denmark on Tuesday and Wednesday.

As the EU scrambles, some underline that there is basically little it can do to prevent the disease arriving.

"We have absolutely no control over the introduction of the virus by migratory birds that are about to start returning from Africa to Siberia, Scandinavia and Greenland," said French food safety agency panelist Jean Hars.

"It is unavoidable," he told AFP.

Until recently the 25-nation EU has said it is satisfied that the measures taken are sufficient.

But Brussels is closely monitoring the situation and if poultry should become infected, it may call for the culling of all birds and eggs on small holdings or farms.

In addition the European Commission has proposed speeding up the process of clamping down on new outbreaks, by making arrangements automatic rather than on a case-by-case basis.



Comment on this Article


"Even Jobs at McDonald's Aren't Safe"

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS 16 Feb 06

Who can forget the neocons’ claim that under their leadership America creates its own reality? Remember the neocons’ Iraq reality--a “cakewalk” war? After three years of combat, thousands of casualties, and cost estimated at over $1 trillion, real reality must still compete with the White House spin machine.

One might think that the Iraq experience would restore sober judgement to policymakers. Alas, neocon reality has spread everywhere. It has infected the media and the new Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, who just gave Congress an upbeat report on the economy. The robust economy, he declared, could soon lead to inflation and higher interest rates.

Consumers deeper in debt and fresh from their first negative savings rate since the Great Depression show high consumer confidence. It is as if the entire country is on an acid trip or a cocaine trip or whatever it is that lets people create realities for themselves that bear no relation to real reality.
How can the upbeat views be reconciled with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ payroll jobs data, the extraordinary red ink, and exploding trade deficit? Perhaps the answer is that every economic development, no matter how detrimental, is spun as if it were good news. For example, the worsening US trade deficit is spun as evidence of the fast growth of the US economy: the economy is growing so fast it can’t meet its needs and must rely on imports. Declining household income is spun as an inflation fighter that keeps mortgage interest rates low. Federal budget deficits are spun as letting taxpayers keep and spend more of their own money. Massive layoffs are spun as evidence that change is so rapid that the work force must constantly upgrade skills and re-educate itself.

The denial of economic reality has become an art form. Except for Lou Dobbs, no accurate economic reporting is available in the “mainstream media.”

Occasionally, real information escapes the spin machine. The National Association of Manufacturers, one of outsourcing’s greatest boosters, has just released a report, “US Manufacturing Innovation at Risk,” by economists Joel Popkin and Kathryn Kobe. The economists find that US industry’s investment in research and development is not languishing after all. It just appears to be languishing, because it is rapidly being shifted overseas: “Funds provided for foreign- performed R&D have grown by almost 73 percent between 1999 and 2003, with a 36 percent increase in the number of firms funding foreign R&D.”

US industry is still investing in R&D after all; it is just not hiring Americans to do the R&D. US manufacturers still make things, only less and less in America with American labor. US manufacturers still hire engineers, only they are foreign ones, not American ones.

In other words, everything is fine for US manufacturers. It is just their former American work force that is in the doldrums. As these Americans happen to be customers for US manufacturers, US brand names will gradually lose their US market. US household median income has fallen for the past five years. Consumer demand has been kept alive by consumers’ spending their savings and home equity and going deeper into debt. It is not possible for debt to forever rise faster than income.

When manufacturing moves abroad, engineering follows. R&D follows engineering, and innovation follows R&D. The entire economy drains away. This is why the “new economy” has not materialized to take the place of the lost “old economy.”

The latest technologies go into the newest plants, and those plants are abroad. Innovations take place in new plants as new processes are developed to optimize the efficiency of the new technologies. The skills required to operate new processes call forth investment in education and training. As US manufacturing and R&D move abroad, Indian and Chinese engineering enrollments rise, and US enrollments decline.

The process is a unified whole. It is not possible for a country to lose parts of the process and hold on to other parts. That is why the “new economy” was a hoax from the beginning. As Popkin and Kobe note, new technologies, new manufacturing processes, and new designs take place where things are made. The notion that the US can lose everything else but hold on to innovation is absurd.

Someone needs to tell Congress before they waste yet more borrowed money. In an adjoining column to the NAM report on innovation, the February 6 Manufacturing & Technology News reports that “the US Senate is jumping on board the competitiveness issue.” The Bush regime and the doormat Congress have come together in the belief that the US can keep its edge in science and technology if the federal government spends $9 billion a year to “fund innovative, big-payoff ideas that have the potential to transform the US economy.”

The utter stupidity of the “Protecting America’s Competitive Edge Act” (PACE) is obvious. The tremendous labor cost advantage of doing things abroad will equally apply to any new “big-payoff ideas” as it does to the goods and services currently outsourced. Moreover, US research is open-sourced. It is available to anyone. As the Cox Commission Report made clear, there are a large number of Chinese front companies in the US for the sole purpose of collecting technology. PACE will simply be another US taxpayer subsidy to the rising Asian economies.

The assertion that we hear every day that America is falling behind because it doesn’t produce enough science, mathematics and engineering graduates is a bald-faced lie. The problem is always brought back to education failures in K-12, that is, to more education subsidies. When CEOs say they can’t find American engineers, they mean they cannot find Americans who will work for Chinese or Indian wages. That is what the so-called “shortage” is all about.

I receive a constant stream of emails from unemployed and underemployed engineers with many years of experience and advanced degrees. Many have been out of work for years. They describe the movement of their jobs offshore or their replacement by foreigners brought in on work visas. Many no longer even know American engineers who are employed in the profession. Some are now working in sawmills, others in Home Depot, and others are attempting to eke out a living as consultants. Many describe lost homes, broken marriages, even imprisonment for inability to make child support payments.

Many ask me how economists can be so blind to reality. Here is my answer: Many economists are bought and paid for by outsourcers. Most of the studies claiming to prove that Americans benefit from outsourcing are done by economic consulting firms hired by outsourcers. Or they are done by think tanks or university professors dependent on corporate donors. Or they reflect the ideology of “free market economists” who are committed to the belief that “freedom” is good and always produces good results. Since outsourcing is merely the freedom of property to act in its interest, and since this self-interest is always guided by an invisible hand to the greater welfare of everyone, outsourcing, ipso facto, is good for America. Anyone who doesn’t think so is a fascist who wants to take away the rights of property. Seriously, this is what passes for analysis among “free market economists.”
Economists’ commitment to their “reality” is destroying the ladders of upward mobility that made America the land of opportunity. It is just as destructive as the neocons’ commitment to their “reality” that is driving the US deeper into war in the Middle East.

Fact and analysis no longer play a role. The spun reality in which Americans live is insulated against intelligent perception.

American “manufacturers” are becoming merely marketers of foreign made goods. The CEOs and shareholders have too short a time horizon to understand that once foreigners control the manufacture-design- innovation process, they will bypass American brand names. US companies will simply cease to exist.

Norm Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin, says that even McDonald's jobs are no longer safe. Why pay an error-prone order-taker the minimum wage when McDonald's can have the order transmitted via satellite to a central location and from there to the person preparing the order. McDonald’s experiment with this system to date has cut its error rate by 50% and increased its throughput by 20 percent. Technology lets the orders be taken in India or China at costs below the minimum wage and without the liabilities of US employees.

Americans are giving up their civil liberties because they fear terrorist attacks. All of the terrorists in the world cannot do America the damage it has already suffered from offshore outsourcing.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

First published at www.counterpunch.org




Comment on this Article


Brightest Galactic Flash Ever Detected Hits Earth

By Robert Roy Britt Senior Science Writer posted: 18 February, 2005

"We have observed an object only 20 kilometers across [12 miles], on the other side of our galaxy, releasing more energy in a tenth of a second than the Sun emits in 100,000 years."

A huge explosion halfway across the galaxy packed so much power it briefly altered Earth's upper atmosphere in December, astronomers said Friday.

No known eruption beyond our solar system has ever appeared as bright upon arrival.

But you could not have seen it, unless you can top the X-ray vision of Superman: In gamma rays, the event equaled the brightness of the full Moon's reflected visible light.

The blast originated about 50,000 light-years away and was detected Dec. 27. A light-year is the distance light travels in a year, about 6 trillion miles (10 trillion kilometers).
The commotion was caused by a special variety of neutron star known as a magnetar. These fast-spinning, compact stellar corpses -- no larger than a big city -- create intense magnetic fields that trigger explosions. The blast was 100 times more powerful than any other similar eruption witnessed, said David Palmer of Los Alamos National Laboratory, one of several researchers around the world who monitored the event with various telescopes.

"Had this happened within 10 light-years of us, it would have severely damaged our atmosphere and possibly have triggered a mass extinction," said Bryan Gaensler of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA).

There are no magnetars close enough to worry about, however, Gaensler and two other astronomers told SPACE.com. But the strength of the tempest has them marveling over the dying star's capabilities while also wondering if major species die-offs in the past might have been triggered by stellar explosions.

'Once-in-a-lifetime'


The Sun is a middle-aged star about 8 light-minutes from us. Its tantrums, though cosmically pitiful compared to the magnetar explosion, routinely squish Earth's protective magnetic field and alter our atmosphere, lighting up the night sky with colorful lights called aurora.

Solar storms also alter the shape of Earth's ionosphere, a region of the atmosphere 50 miles (80 kilometers) up where gas is so thin that electrons can be stripped from atoms and molecules -- they are ionized -- and roam free for short periods. Fluctuations in solar radiation cause the ionosphere to expand and contract.

"The gamma rays hit the ionosphere and created more ionization, briefly expanding the ionosphere," said Neil Gehrels, lead scientist for NASA's gamma-ray watching Swift observatory.

Gehrels said in an email interview that the effect was similar to a solar-induced disruption but that the effect was "much smaller than a big solar flare."

Still, scientists were surprised that a magnetar so far away could alter the ionosphere.

"That it can reach out and tap us on the shoulder like this, reminds us that we really are linked to the cosmos," said Phil Wilkinson of IPS Australia, that country's space weather service.

"This is a once-in-a-lifetime event," said Rob Fender of Southampton University in the UK. "We have observed an object only 20 kilometers across [12 miles], on the other side of our galaxy, releasing more energy in a tenth of a second than the Sun emits in 100,000 years."

Some researchers have speculated that one or more known mass extinctions hundreds of millions of years ago might have been the result of a similar blast altering Earth's atmosphere. There is no firm data to support the idea, however. But astronomers say the Sun might have been closer to other stars in the past.

A similar blast within 10 light-years of Earth "would destroy the ozone layer," according to a CfA statement, "causing abrupt climate change and mass extinctions due to increased radiation."

The all-clear has been sounded, however.

"None of the known sample [of magnetars] are closer than about 4,000-5,000 light years from us," Gaensler said. "This is a very safe distance."

Cause a mystery

Researchers don't know exactly why the burst was so incredible. The star, named SGR 1806-20, spins once on its axis every 7.5 seconds, and it is surrounded by a magnetic field more powerful than any other object in the universe.

"We may be seeing a massive release of magnetic energy during a 'starquake' on the surface of the object," said Maura McLaughlin of the University of Manchester in the UK.

Another possibility is that the magnetic field more or less snapped in a process scientists call magnetic reconnection.

Gamma rays are the highest form of radiation on the electromagnetic spectrum, which includes X-rays, visible light and radio waves too.

The eruption was also recorded by the National Science Foundation's Very Large Array of radio telescopes, along with other European satellites and telescopes in Australia.

Explosive details

A neutron star is the remnant of a star that was once several times more massive than the Sun. When their nuclear fuel is depleted, they explode as a supernova. The remaining dense core is slightly more massive than the Sun but has a diameter typically no more than 12 miles (20 kilometers).

Millions of neutron stars fill the Milky Way galaxy. A dozen or so are ultra-magnetic neutron stars -- magnetars. The magnetic field around one is about 1,000 trillion gauss, strong enough to strip information from a credit card at a distance halfway to the Moon, scientists say.

Of the known magnetars, four are called soft gamma repeaters, or SGRs, because they flare up randomly and release gamma rays. The flare on SGR 1806-20 unleashed about 10,000 trillion trillion trillion watts of power.

"The next biggest flare ever seen from any soft gamma repeater was peanuts compared to this incredible Dec. 27 event," said Gaensler of the CfA.



Comment on this Article


Powerful lightning storm strikes on Saturn

Last Updated Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:25:38 EST CBC News

A dramatic storm on the planet Saturn is unleashing lightning bolts 1,000 times stronger than those found on Earth.

Scientists first recorded noise from the storm on Jan. 23. Since then they have captured 35 consecutive episodes of stormy activity on Saturn, each lasting about 10 hours.
NASA's Cassini spacecraft wasn't in the correct position to photograph the storm when it was first detected. Scientists asked amateur astronomers around the globe to confirm that the disturbance was raging in the planet's southern hemisphere.

Those early images provided the first visual confirmation of the storm, which is shown in more detail in later photographs taken by Cassini, say mission scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.

Researchers say it is the strongest lightning activity they've seen since the spacecraft arrived at the ringed planet.

They don't know what causes the storms, but think the planet's warm interior may play a role.

Cassini is funded by NASA and the European and Italian space agencies.

It was launched in 1997 and took seven years to reach Saturn, where it is exploring the planet and its moons.



Comment on this Article


Let your unconscious mind make that next big decision: study

Last Updated Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:28:49 EST CBC News

You'll be happier making a big decision like buying a car if you don't think about it too much, a group of psychologists say.

The researchers figured that complex decisions are best left to the unconscious mind because humans can only think about so many things at the same time.

"Contrary to conventional wisdom, it is not always advantageous to engage in thorough conscious deliberation before choosing," the researchers wrote in Friday's issue of the journal Science.
To test the idea, psychologist Ap Dijksterhuis of the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands and his research team recruited 80 people for decision-making experiments.

In one test, half the participants had to make a purchase decision shortly after being presented with options about the product. The other group had to make the same decision, but they were given puzzles to complete before being asked for their choice.

Both groups went through exercise with simple products with a short list of features and more complex choices with up to 12 conflicting characteristics.

When thinking about the complex choice, participants reported they were happier with their verdict when they were distracted by the puzzle, allowing their unconsious mind to determine the outcome.

The experiment showed the same results among shoppers at a department store who were buying simple items such as kitchenware, or at IKEA, where they were buying furniture.

"Purchases of complex products were viewed more favourably when decisions had been made in the absence of attentive deliberation," the researchers said.



Comment on this Article


Apple Hackers Encounter a Poetic Warning

By MAY WONG AP Technology Writer 17 Feb 06

SAN JOSE, Calif. - Apple Computer Inc. has resorted to a poetic broadside in the inevitable cat-and-mouse game between hackers and high-tech companies.

The maker of Macintosh computers had anticipated that hackers would try to crack its new OS X operating system built to work on Intel Corp.'s chips and run pirated versions on non-Apple computers. So, Apple developers embedded a warning deep in the software _ in the form of a poem.
Indeed, a hacker encountered the poem recently, and a copy of it has been circulating on Mac-user Web sites this week.

Apple confirmed Thursday it has included such a warning in its Intel- based computers since it started selling them in January.

The embedded poem reads: "Your karma check for today: There once was a user that whined/his existing OS was so blind/he'd do better to pirate/an OS that ran great/but found his hardware declined./Please don't steal Mac OS!/Really, that's way uncool./(C) Apple Computer, Inc."

Apple also put in a separate hidden message, "Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext," in another spot for would-be hackers.

"We can confirm that this text is built into our products," Apple issued in a statement. "Hopefully it, and many other legal warnings, will remind people that they should not steal Mac OS X."

The hacking endeavors are, for now, relegated to a small, technically savvy set, but it underscores a risk Apple faces if a pirated, functional version eventually becomes as accessible and straightforward as installing other software on a computer.

It's a risk that became apparent after Apple decided to make a historic transition to Intel-based chips, the same type that its rivals use in predominant Windows-based PCs. Apple previously relied on Power PC chips from IBM Corp. and Freescale Semiconductor Inc., but this year began switching its computers to the Intel platform.

Various analysts have since hypothesized a worst-case situation in which Apple would lose control of its proprietary Macintosh environment: how its reputedly easy-to-use and elegant operating system would no longer be locked to its computers, a critical revenue pipeline for Apple.

Such scenarios have raised a debate among Apple observers about whether the company should just license its operating system to run on other machines, similar to Microsoft Corp.

But Apple has repeatedly said it will not do that.

Meanwhile, security experts on Thursday identified a new computer worm that specifically targets Mac computers running OS X _ a rarity since most worms target the broader base of PCs with Microsoft's Windows. Experts, however, consider the threat low.



Comment on this Article


Cheney Says He Has Power to Declassify Info

By Pete Yost Associated Press 16 Feb 06

But in an interview on Fox News Channel, Cheney said there is an executive order that gives the vice president, along with the president, the authority to declassify information.

"I have certainly advocated declassification. I have participated in declassification decisions," Cheney said. Asked for details, he said, "I don't want to get into that. There's an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously it focuses first and foremost on the president, but also includes the vice president."

Cheney added a ringing endorsement of Libby.

"Scooter is entitled to the presumption of innocence," said Cheney.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney disclosed Wednesday that he has the power to declassify sensitive government information, authority that could set up a criminal defense for his former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Cheney's disclosure comes a week after reports that Libby testified under oath he was authorized by superiors in 2003 to disclose highly sensitive prewar information to reporters. The information, about Iraq and alleged weapons of mass destruction, was used by the Bush administration to bolster its case for invading Iraq.

At the time of Libby's contacts with reporters in June and July 2003, the administration including Cheney, who was among the war's most ardent proponents, faced growing criticism. No weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, and Bush supporters were anxious to show that the White House had relied on prewar intelligence projecting a strong threat from such weapons.

When Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald revealed Libby's assertions to a grand jury that he had been authorized by his superiors to spread sensitive information, the prosecutor did not specify which superiors.

But in an interview on Fox News Channel, Cheney said there is an executive order that gives the vice president, along with the president, the authority to declassify information.

"I have certainly advocated declassification. I have participated in declassification decisions," Cheney said. Asked for details, he said, "I don't want to get into that. There's an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously it focuses first and foremost on the president, but also includes the vice president."

Cheney added a ringing endorsement of Libby.

"Scooter is entitled to the presumption of innocence," said Cheney. "He is a great guy. I worked with him for a long time. I have tremendous regard for him. I may well be called as a witness at some point in the case, and it is therefore inappropriate for me to comment on any facet of the case."

Libby is not charged with leaking classified information, and Libby's lawyers said last week there was no truth to a published report that Libby's lawyers had advised the court or prosecutors that he will raise a defense based on authorization by superiors.

A legal expert said Cheney's TV appearance could nonetheless foreshadow a Libby defense.

Former Whitewater independent counsel Robert Ray said Cheney's ex-chief of staff could point to authorization from his superiors as part of his strategy at trial.

"If it turns out that Cheney was actively involved in decisions related to the disclosure of a CIA officer's identity and if the truth of it is that he was orchestrating the disclosure of information to the media, it seems to me that's a fundamentally different case than one centered around the activities of Libby," said Ray.

On Oct. 28 of last year, Libby was indicted on five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI about how he learned of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame and what he told reporters about it.

In July 2003, Plame's CIA identity was published by columnist Robert Novak eight days after Plame's husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the administration of twisting prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. Wilson concluded that it was highly doubtful that a purported sale of uranium yellowcake by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990s had ever taken place.

A defense that Libby was authorized by superiors to leak sensitive data about Iraq would not appear to provide any help to the former Cheney aide for making false statements.

But some lawyers point out that setting up defenses before a jury involve more than simply constructing legal arguments.

"You're trying to present a persuasive case that your client should not be found guilty," said Ray, the former Whitewater prosecutor. "You're saying that even if my client did it, this is not a case that warrants conviction."

An authorization defense in the CIA leak case would mean that "much of what Libby was trying to do was aid and protect his boss Cheney," Ray suggested. The downside to employing such an approach is that it "almost comes with a defense that I did it."

Comment: What about all the alleged "enemy combatents" that have been rendered for torture, or locked up in Guantanamo? Aren't they entitled to the "presumption of innocence"? We need to focus on the issue here: even if, as Cheney claims, he has the "power to declassify" information, his choice of information to declassify did enormous damage to the intelligence gathering community of the USA. For that, he and Libby both ought to be charged with treason.

Comment on this Article


Cheney says he may be witness in CIA leak case

Reuters 15 Feb 06

Court papers released last week show that Libby was authorized to disclose classified information to news reporters by "his superiors," in an effort to counteract diplomat Joe Wilson's charge that the Bush administration twisted intelligence on Iraq's nuclear weapons to justify the 2003 invasion.

WASHINGTON () - Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday he may be called as a witness in the case of his former aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who faces perjury and other charges in the leak of a CIA operative's identity.

Cheney refused to comment on reports that he directed Libby to use classified material to discredit a critic of the Bush administration's Iraq war effort, saying: "It's nothing I can talk about."

"I've cooperated fully, including being interviewed, as well, by a special prosecutor," Cheney said in an interview on the Fox News Channel. "I may well be called as a witness at some point in the case and it's, therefore, inappropriate for me to comment on any facet of the case."

Court papers released last week show that Libby was authorized to disclose classified information to news reporters by "his superiors," in an effort to counteract diplomat Joe Wilson's charge that the Bush administration twisted intelligence on Iraq's nuclear weapons to justify the 2003 invasion.

The National Journal, a U.S. weekly magazine, citing attorneys familiar with the matter, reported that Cheney was among those superiors referred to in a letter from prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to Libby's lawyers.

Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, has pleaded not guilty to five counts of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice in the leak of the identity of Wilson's wife Valerie Plame, which effectively ended her career at the CIA.

Cheney's name has surfaced in other court documents as well. According to an appeals court decision made public this month, "the vice president informed Libby 'in an off sort of curiosity sort of fashion"' that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA one month before her identity was made public.

Comment: Now, get this, Cheney says he has the power to "declassify information." It just happens that the information he chose to "declassify" was designed to destroy the reputation of an individual who had exposed the lies of Cheney and pals. It also destroyed the career of his wife, not to mention putting many other career intelligence personnel at risk. If that isn't treason, I don't know what is.

Comment on this Article


Critics slam Cheney's interview choice

Matea Gold Los Angeles Times February 16, 2006

"Now that he feels forced to talk, he wants to restrict the discussion to a friendly news outlet, guaranteeing no hard questions from the press corps," Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said in a statement.

On CNN, commentator Jack Cafferty called the interview "a little bit like Bonnie interviewing Clyde. ... I mean, running over there to the Fox network -- talk about seeking a safe haven."
New York -- For days, the White House news corps has pounded the Bush administration, demanding to learn more about Vice President Dick Cheney's accidental shooting of a hunting companion Saturday.

Cheney finally addressed the incident Wednesday, but the forum in which he chose to do so -- in an exclusive interview with Fox News host Brit Hume -- quickly became another source of contention.

Fox News executives cast the scoop as the result of persistence and the growing clout of the top-rated cable news network.

"We've been after the vice president since Sunday, as everyone has, and our efforts paid off," said John Moody, Fox's senior vice president for news editorial. "I think he wanted to make sure he got a fair interview and a good interview -- good in the sense of thorough -- and Brit is sort of the pre-eminent journalist in Washington right now."

But some Democrats and competing broadcasters charged that Cheney chose to speak only with Fox News because of a perception that the cable channel is sympathetic to the Republican administration. They called for the vice president to hold a news conference with the rest of the media.

"Now that he feels forced to talk, he wants to restrict the discussion to a friendly news outlet, guaranteeing no hard questions from the press corps," Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said in a statement.

On CNN, commentator Jack Cafferty called the interview "a little bit like Bonnie interviewing Clyde. ... I mean, running over there to the Fox network -- talk about seeking a safe haven."

The interview came after days of sniping between the White House news corps and White House press secretary Scott McClellan over why news of the hunting accident wasn't released earlier to the national media. Supporters of Cheney called it a nonissue that was only of interest to the media itself.

Although Fox News is known for its outspoken conservative commentators, network officials reject the idea that partisanship creeps into its coverage.

"What we try to do is not shut out any points of view," Moody said.

Cheney "wouldn't have come to Brit Hume if he wanted a softball interview," he added, calling the criticism sour grapes. Fox News sought to make the most of its exclusive on Wednesday, airing excerpts of the interview throughout the afternoon. During an appearance on "Studio B With Shepard Smith," Hume previewed the highlights of Cheney's comments, even as he questioned whether the public was as upset as the White House news corps about the administration's handling of the incident.

"If my e-mail is any guide, and the things I'm hearing from just people in the street that you talk to and people that you know, I don't think much of the nation feels particularly deprived that they found out about this on Sunday afternoon or Sunday evening instead of Saturday night or Sunday morning," Hume said.



Comment on this Article


Text of Dick Cheney's Interview on Fox

By The Associated Press February 15, 2006

Transcript of Vice President Dick Cheney's interview Wednesday with Brit Hume of Fox News Channel, as released by the White House. Cheney addresses his shooting Saturday of a hunting companion, 78-year-old Harry Whittington of Austin, Texas, at a ranch owned by Katharine Armstrong about 60 miles south of Corpus Christi, Texas:

Question: Mr. Vice President, how is Mr. Whittington?

Answer: Well, the good news is he's doing very well today. I talked to him yesterday after they discovered the heart problem, but it appears now to have been pretty well resolved and the reporting today is very good.

Q: How did you feel when you heard about that?

A: Well, it's a great relief. But I won't be, obviously, totally at ease until he's home. He's going to be in the hospital, apparently, for a few more days, and the problem, obviously, is that there's always the possibility of complications in somebody who is 78-79 years old. But he's a great man, he's in great shape, good friend, and our thoughts and prayers go out to he and his family.

Q: How long have you known him?

A: I first met him in Vail, Colorado, when I worked for Jerry Ford about 30 years ago, and it was the first time I'd ever hunted with him.

Q: Would you describe him as a close friend, friendly acquaintance, what?

A: No, an acquaintance.

Q: Tell me what happened?

A: Well, basically, we were hunting quail late in the day ...

Q: Describe the setting.

A: It's in south Texas, wide open spaces, a lot of brush cover, fairly shallow. But it's wild quail. It's some of the best quail hunting anyplace in the country. I've gone there, to the Armstrong ranch, for years. The Armstrongs have been friends for over 30 years. And a group of us had hunted all day on Saturday ...

Q: How many?

A: Oh, probably 10 people. We weren't all together, but about 10 guests at the ranch. There were three of us who had gotten out of the vehicle and walked up on a covey of quail that had been pointed by the dogs. The covey is flushed, we've shot, and each of us got a bird. Harry couldn't find his. It had gone down in some deep cover and so he went off to look for it. The other hunter and I then turned and walked about a hundred yards in another direction ...

Q: Away from him?

A: Away from him — where another covey had been spotted by an outrider. I was on the far right ...

Q: There was just two of you then?

A: Just two of us at that point. The guide or outrider between us, and of course, there's this entourage behind us, all the cars and so forth that follow me around when I'm out there. But the bird flushed and went to my right, off to the west. I turned and shot at the bird, and at that second, saw Harry standing there. Didn't know he was there ...

Q: You had pulled the trigger and you saw him?

A: Well, I saw him fall, basically. It had happened so fast.

Q: What was he wearing?

A: He was dressed in orange, he was dressed properly, but he was also ... There was a little bit of a gully there, so he was down a little ways before land level, although I could see the upper part of his body when ... I didn't see it at the time I shot, until after I'd fired. And the sun was directly behind him — that affected the vision, too, I'm sure.

But the image of him falling is something I'll never be able to get out of my mind. I fired, and there's Harry falling. And it was, I'd have to say, one of the worst days of my life, at that moment.

Q: Then what?

A: Well, we went over to him, obviously, right away ...

Q: How far away from you was he?

A: I'm guessing about 30 yards, which was a good thing. If he'd been closer, obviously, the damage from the shot would have been greater.

Q: Now, is it clear that — he had caught part of the shot, is that right?

A: Part of the shot. He was struck in the right side of his face, his neck and his upper torso on the right side of his body.

Q: And you — and I take it, you missed the bird?

A: I have no idea. I mean, you focused on the bird, but as soon as I fired and saw Harry there, everything else went out of my mind. I don't know whether the bird went down or didn't.

Q: So did you run over to him or ...

A: Ran over to him and ...

Q: And what did you see? He's lying there.

A: He was laying there on his back, obviously bleeding. You could see where the shot had struck him. And one of the fortunate things was that I've always got a medical team, in effect, covering me wherever I go. I had a physician's assistant with me that day. Within a minute or two he was on the scene administering first aid.

Q: And Mr. Whittington was conscious, unconscious, what?

A: He was conscious.

Q: What did you say?

A: Well, I said, "Harry, I had no idea you were there."

Q: What did he say?

A: He didn't respond. He was — he was breathing, conscious at that point, but he didn't — he was, I'm sure, stunned, obviously, still trying to figure out what had happened to him. The doc was fantastic.

Q: What did you think when you saw the injuries? How serious did they appear to you to be?

A: I had no idea how serious it was going to be. I mean, it could have been extraordinarily serious. You just don't know at that moment. You know he's been struck, that there's a lot of shot that had hit him. But you don't know — you think about his eyes. Fortunately, he was wearing hunting glasses, and that protected his eyes. You, you just don't know. And the key thing, as I say, initially, was that the physician's assistant was right there. We also had an ambulance at the ranch, because one always follows me around wherever I go. And they were able to get the ambulance there and within about 30 minutes we had him on his way to the hospital.

Q: What did you do then? Did you get up and did you go with him, or did you go to the hospital?

A: No, I had told my physician's assistant to go with him, but the ambulance is crowded and they didn't need another body in there. And so we loaded up and went back to ranch headquarters, basically. By then, it's about 7:00 p.m. at night.

Q: Did you have a sense then of how he was doing?

A: Well, we're getting reports, but they were confusing. Early reports are always wrong. The initial reports that came back from the ambulance were that he was doing well, his eyes were open. They got him into the emergency room at Kingsville.

Q: His eyes were open when you found him, then, right?

A: Yes. One eye was open. But they got him in the emergency room in the small hospital at Kingsville, checked him out further there, then lifted him by helicopter from there into Corpus Christi, which has a big city hospital and all of the equipment.

Q: So by now what time is it?

A: I don't have an exact time line, although he got there sometime that evening, 8:00 p.m., 9:00 p.m.

Q: So this is several hours after the incident?

A: Well, I would say he was in Kingsville in the emergency room probably within, oh, less than an hour after they left the ranch.

Q: Now, you're a seasoned hunter.

A: I am, well, for the last 12, 15 years.

Q: Right, and so you know all the procedures and how to maintain the proper line and distance between you and other hunters, and all that. So how, in your judgment, did this happen? Who, what caused this? What was the responsibility here?

A: Well, ultimately, I'm the guy who pulled the trigger that fired the round that hit Harry. And you can talk about all of the other conditions that existed at the time, but that's the bottom line. And there's no — it was not Harry's fault. You can't blame anybody else. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend. And I say that is something I'll never forget.

Q: Now, what about this? It was said you were hunting out of vehicles. Was that because you have to have the vehicles, or was that because that's your — the way you chose to hunt that day?

A: No, the way — this is a big ranch, about 50,000 acres. You cover a lot of territory on a quail hunt. Birds are oftentimes — you're looking for coveys. And these are wild quail, they're not pen-raised. And you hunt them — basically, you have people out on horseback, what we call outriders, who are looking for the quail. And when they spot them, they've got radios, you'll go over, and say, get down and flush the quail. So you need ...

Q: So you could be a distance of miles from where you spot quail until the next place you may find them?

A: Well, usually you'll be, you know, maybe a few hundred yards. Might be farther than that; could be a quarter of a mile.

Q: Does that kind of hunting only go forward on foot, or is it mostly ...

A: No, you always — in that part of the country, you always are on vehicles, until you get up to where the covey is. Then you get off — there will be dogs down, put down; the dogs will point to covey. And then you walk up on the covey. And as the covey flushes, that's when you shoot.

Q: Was anybody drinking in this party?

A: No. You don't hunt with people who drink. That's not a good idea. We had ...

Q: So he wasn't, and you weren't?

A: Correct. We'd taken a break at lunch — go down under an old — ancient oak tree there on the place, and have a barbecue. I had a beer at lunch. After lunch we take a break, go back to ranch headquarters. Then we took about an hourlong tour of ranch, with a ranch hand driving the vehicle, looking at game. We didn't go back into the field to hunt quail until about, oh, sometime after 3:00 p.m. The five of us who were in that party were together all afternoon. Nobody was drinking, nobody was under the influence.

Q: Now, what thought did you give, then, to how — you must have known that this was — whether it was a matter of state, or not, was news. What thought did you give that evening to how this news should be transmitted?

A: Well, my first reaction, Brit, was not to think: I need to call the press. My first reaction is: My friend, Harry, has been shot and we've got to take care of him. That evening there were other considerations. We wanted to make sure his family was taken care of. His wife was on the ranch. She wasn't with us when it happened, but we got her hooked up with the ambulance on the way to the hospital with Harry. He has grown children; we wanted to make sure they were notified, so they didn't hear on television that their father had been shot. And that was important, too.

But we also didn't know what the outcome here was going to be. We didn't know for sure what kind of shape Harry was in. We had preliminary reports, but they wanted to do a CAT scan, for example, to see how — whether or not there was any internal damage, whether or not any vital organ had been penetrated by any of the shot. We did not know until Sunday morning that we could be confident that everything was probably going to be OK.

Q: When did the family — when had the family been informed? About what time?

A: Well, his wife — his wife knew as he was leaving the ranch ...

Q: Right, what about his children?

A: I didn't make the calls to his children, so I don't know exactly when those contacts were made. One of his daughters had made it to the hospital by the next day when I visited. But one of the things I'd learned over the years was first reports are often wrong and you need to really wait and nail it down. And there was enough variation in the reports we were getting from the hospital, and so forth — a couple of people who had been guests at the ranch went up to the hospital that evening; one of them was a doctor, so he obviously had some professional capabilities in terms of being able to relay messages. But we really didn't know until Sunday morning that Harry was probably going to be OK, that it looked like there hadn't been any serious damage to any vital organ. And that's when we began the process of notifying the press.

Q: Well, what — you must have recognized, though, with all your experience in Washington, that this was going to be a big story.

A: Well, true, it was unprecedented. I've been in the business for a long time and never seen a situation quite like this. We've had experiences where the President has been shot; we've never had a situation where the Vice President shot somebody.

Q: Not since Aaron Burr.

A: Not since Aaron Burr ...

Q: Different circumstances.

A: Different circumstances.

Q: Well, did it occur to you that sooner was — I mean, the one thing that we've all kind of learned over the last several decades is that if something like this happens, as a rule sooner is better.

A: Well, if it's accurate. If it's accurate. And this is a complicated story.

Q: But there were some things you knew. I mean, you knew the man had been shot, you knew he was injured, you knew he was in the hospital, and you knew you'd shot him.

A: Correct.

Q: And you knew certainly by sometime that evening that the relevant members of his family had been called. I realize you didn't know the outcome, and you could argue that you don't know the outcome today, really, finally.

A: As we saw, if we'd put out a report Saturday night on what we heard then — one report came in that said, superficial injuries. If we'd gone with a statement at that point, we'd have been wrong. And it was also important, I thought, to get the story out as accurately as possible, and this is a complicated story that, frankly, most reporters would never have dealt with before, so ...

Q: Had you discussed this with colleagues in the White House, with the president, and so on?

A: I did not. The White House was notified, but I did not discuss it directly, myself. I talked to Andy Card, I guess it was Sunday morning.

Q: Not until Sunday morning? Was that the first conversation you'd had with anybody in the — at the White House?

A: Yes.

Q: And did you discuss this with Karl Rove at any time, as has been reported?

A: No, Karl talks to — I don't recall talking to Karl. Karl did talk with Katharine Armstrong, who is a good mutual friend to both of us. Karl hunts at the Armstrong, as well ...

Q: Say that again?

A: I said Karl has hunted at the Armstrong, as well, and we're both good friends of the Armstrongs and of Katharine Armstrong. And Katharine suggested, and I agreed, that she would go make the announcement, that is that she'd put the story out. And I thought that made good sense for several reasons. First of all, she was an eyewitness. She'd seen the whole thing. Secondly, she'd grown up on the ranch, she'd hunted there all of her life. Third, she was the immediate past head of the Texas Wildlife and Parks Department, the game control commission in the state of Texas, an acknowledged expert in all of this.

And she wanted to go to the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, which is the local newspaper, covers that area, to reporters she knew. And I thought that made good sense because you can get as accurate a story as possible from somebody who knew and understood hunting. And then it would immediately go up to the wires and be posted on the Web site, which is the way it went out. And I thought that was the right call.

Q: What do you think now?

A: Well, I still do. I still think that the accuracy was enormously important. I had no press person with me, I didn't have any press people with me. I was there on a private weekend with friends on a private ranch. In terms of who I would contact to have somebody who would understand what we're even talking about, the first person that we talked with at one point, when Katharine first called the desk to get hold of a reporter, didn't know the difference between a bullet and a shotgun — a rifle bullet and a shotgun. And there are a lot of basic important parts of the story that required some degree of understanding. And so we were confident that Katharine was the right one, especially because she was an eyewitness and she could speak authoritatively on it. She probably knew better than I did what had happened since I'd only seen one piece of it.

Q: By the next morning, had you spoken again to Mr. Whittington?

A: The next morning I talked to his wife. And then I went to the hospital in Corpus Christi and visited with him.

Q: When was that?

A: Oh, it was shortly after noon on Sunday.

Q: Now, by that time had the word gone out to the newspaper?

A: I believe it had. I can't remember what time Katharine actually talked to the reporter. She had trouble that morning actually finding a reporter. But they finally got connected with the reporter, and that's when the story then went out.

Q: Now, it strikes me that you must have known that this was going to be a national story ...

A: Oh, sure.

Q: And it does raise the question of whether you couldn't have headed off this Beltway firestorm if you had put out the word to the national media, as well as to the local newspaper so that it could post it on its Web site. I mean, in retrospect, wouldn't that have been the wise course ...

A: Well, who is going to do that? Are they going to take my word for what happened? There is obviously ...

Q: Well, obviously, you could have put the statement out in the name of whoever you wanted. You could put it out in the name of Mrs. Armstrong, if you wanted to. Obviously, that's — she's the one who made the statement.

A: Exactly. That's what we did. We went with Mrs. Armstrong. We had — she's the one who put out the statement. And she was the most credible one to do it because she was a witness. It wasn't me in terms of saying, here's what happened, it was ...

Q: Right, understood. Now, the suspicion grows in some quarters that you — that this was an attempt to minimize it, by having it first appear in a little paper and appear like a little hunting incident down in a remote corner of Texas.

A: There wasn't any way this was going to be minimized, Brit; but it was important that it be accurate. I do think what I've experienced over the years here in Washington is as the media outlets have proliferated, speed has become sort of a driving force, lots of time at the expense of accuracy. And I wanted to make sure we got it as accurate as possible, and I think Katharine was an excellent choice. I don't know who you could get better as the basic source for the story than the witness who saw the whole thing.

Q: When did you first speak to — if you spoke to Andy Card at, what, midday, you said, on Sunday?

A: Sometime Sunday morning.

Q: And what about — when did you first — when, if ever, have you discussed it with the President?

A: I talked to him about it yesterday, or Monday — first on Monday, and then on Tuesday, too.

Q: There is reporting to the effect that some in the White House feel you kind of — well, look at what Scott McClellan went through the last couple days. There's some sense — and perhaps not unfairly so — that you kind of hung him out to dry. How do you feel about that?

A: Well, Scott does a great job and it's a tough job. It's especially a tough job under these conditions and circumstances. I had a bit of the feeling that the press corps was upset because, to some extent, it was about them — they didn't like the idea that we called the Corpus Christi Caller-Times instead of The New York Times. But it strikes me that the Corpus Christi Caller-Times is just as valid a news outlet as The New York Times is, especially for covering a major story in south Texas.

Q: Well, perhaps so, but isn't there an institution here present at the White House that has long established itself as the vehicle through which White House news gets out, and that's the pool?

A: I had no press person with me, no coverage with me, no White House reporters with me. I'm comfortable with the way we did it, obviously. You can disagree with that, and some of the White House press corps clearly do. But, no, I've got nothing but good things to say about Scott McClellan and Dan Bartlett. They've got a tough job to do and they do it well. They urged us to get the story out. The decision about how it got out, basically, was my responsibility.

Q: That was your call.

A: That was my call.

Q: All the way.

A: All the way. It was recommended to me — Katharine Armstrong wanted to do it, as she said, and I concurred in that; I thought it made good sense.

Q: Now, you're talking to me today — this is, what, Wednesday?

A: Wednesday.

Q: What about just coming out yourself Monday/Tuesday — how come?

A: Well, part of it obviously has to do with the status of Harry Whittington. And it's a difficult subject to talk about, frankly, Brit. But most especially I've been very concerned about him and focused on him and feel more comfortable coming out today because of the fact that his circumstances have improved, he's gotten by what was a potential crisis yesterday, with respect to the developments concerning his heart. I think this decision we made, that this was the right way to do it.

Q: Describe if you can your conversations with him, what you've said to him and the attitude he's shown toward you in the aftermath of this.

A: He's been fantastic. He's a gentleman in every respect. He oftentimes expressed more concern about me than about himself. He's been in good spirits, unfailingly cheerful ...

Q: What did he say about that? You said, "expressed concern" about you — what did he say?

A: Well, when I first saw him in the hospital, for example, he said, "Look," he said, "I don't want this to create problems for you." He literally was more concerned about me and the impact on me than he was on the fact that he'd been shot. He's a — I guess I'd describe him as a true Texas gentleman, a very successful attorney, successful businessman in Austin; a gentleman in every respect of the word. And he's been superb.

Q: For you, personally, how would you — you said this was one of the worst days of your life. How so?

A: What happened to my friend as a result of my actions, it's part of this sudden, you know, in less than a second, less time than it takes to tell, going from what is a very happy, pleasant day with great friends in a beautiful part of the country, doing something I love — to, my gosh, I've shot my friend. I've never experienced anything quite like that before.

Q: Will it affect your attitude toward this pastime you so love in the future?

A: I can't say that. You know, we canceled the Sunday hunt. I said, look, I'm not — we were scheduled to go out again on Sunday and I said I'm not going to go on Sunday, I want to focus on Harry. I'll have to think about it.

Q: Some organizations have said they hoped you would find a less violent pastime.

A: Well, it's brought me great pleasure over the years. I love the people that I've hunted with and do hunt with; love the outdoors, it's part of my heritage, growing up in Wyoming. It's part of who I am. But as I say, the season is ending, I'm going to let some time pass over it and think about the future.

Q: On another subject, court filings have indicated that Scooter Libby has suggested that his superiors — unidentified — authorized the release of some classified information. What do you know about that?

A: It's nothing I can talk about, Brit. This is an issue that's been under investigation for a couple of years. I've cooperated fully, including being interviewed, as well, by a special prosecutor. All of it is now going to trial. Scooter is entitled to the presumption of innocence. He's a great guy. I've worked with him for a long time, have enormous regard for him. I may well be called as a witness at some point in the case and it's, therefore, inappropriate for me to comment on any facet of the case.

Q: Let me ask you another question. Is it your view that a Vice President has the authority to declassify information?

A: There is an executive order to that effect.

Q: There is.

A: Yes.

Q: Have you done it?

A: Well, I've certainly advocated declassification and participated in declassification decisions. The executive order ...

Q: You ever done it unilaterally?

A: I don't want to get into that. There is an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously focuses first and foremost on the President, but also includes the Vice President.

Q: There have been two leaks, one that pertained to possible facilities in Europe; and another that pertained to this NSA matter. There are officials who have had various characterizations of the degree of damage done by those. How would you characterize the damage done by those two reports?

A: There clearly has been damage done.

Q: Which has been the more harmful, in your view?

A: I don't want to get into just sort of ranking them, then you get into why is one more damaging than the other. One of the problems we have as a government is our inability to keep secrets. And it costs us, in terms of our relationship with other governments, in terms of the willingness of other intelligence services to work with us, in terms of revealing sources and methods. And all of those elements enter into some of these leaks.

Q: Mr. Vice President, thank you very much for doing this.

A: Thank you, Brit.



Comment on this Article


Russia Warns U.S. Against Striking Iran

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV Associated Press Writer 16 Feb 06

With tension mounting over Iran's nuclear programs, Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the chief of Russia's general staff, warned the United States against attacking Iran.

"This may stir the whole world, and it is crucial to prevent anything like that," Baluyevsky was quoted as saying.
MOSCOW - Russia's top military chief on Thursday warned the United States against launching a military strike against Iran and a top diplomat voiced hope that close cooperation with China could help resolve the Tehran nuclear crisis.

With tension mounting over Iran's nuclear programs, Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the chief of Russia's general staff, warned the United States against attacking Iran.

"A military scenario can't be ruled out," Baluyevsky was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies.

He said that while Iran's military potential cannot compare to the United States', "it is hard to predict how the Muslim world will respond to the use of force against Iran."

"This may stir the whole world, and it is crucial to prevent anything like that," Baluyevsky was quoted as saying.

Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alekseyev, meanwhile, said that cooperation with China could help push Iran toward accepting Moscow's offer to host Iran's uranium enrichment program.

The Russian proposal has become a centerpiece of international efforts to defuse tensions over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

"We are counting on the continuation of close contacts with our Chinese colleagues and other interested countries," Alekseyev was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency. He added, however, that the Iranian nuclear issue recently had become "sharper," and "it is too early to assess the effectiveness of our joint steps to resolve it."

Iran's ambassador to Moscow said Thursday that Tehran hoped Russia would be able to help resolve the international crisis surrounding the Iranian nuclear program.

"Taking into account the good relations between Russia and Iran, I hope that together we can overcome this crisis which has arisen recently," Gholamreza Ansari said at a meeting with Russian lawmakers.

Ansari confirmed that a delegation is expected to travel to Moscow on Monday to discuss the proposal. He would not say who will lead it, but the Interfax news agency quoted Vyacheslav Moshkalo, a spokesman for the Russian embassy in Tehran, as saying that the team will be headed by Javad Vaeidi, Iran's deputy nuclear negotiator.

Konstantin Kosachev, the head of Russian parliament's foreign affairs committee, said after his discussions with the ambassador that he was satisfied that the Iranians would be coming in good faith.

"Iran understands the seriousness of the situation and is ready to continue discussions between experts to reach a compromise on the Russian proposal," he said. He said he had received assurances that "the delegation is getting ready for talks and will have all the necessary authority for conducting negotiations."

Kosachev also sharply criticized Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remarks in which he called for Israel's destruction and questioned whether the Holocaust occurred.

"Such statements don't help strengthen Iran's international prestige," he said with Ansari standing at his side.

A Western diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the strong international consensus developed so far, including Russia, "is probably the strongest instrument we have going right now in trying to influence Iranian behavior."

Moscow is deeply concerned about the current Iranian regime's prospects for acquiring nuclear weapons, not only because Russia is geographically located close to Iran, but also because of the impact that could have on other Middle East players' nuclear aspirations, including Saudi Arabia's, the diplomat said.

The diplomat also noted that by aspiring to a central role in resolving the Iran crisis, Russia wanted to show that it could use the contacts it has built up over the years _ including direct communications with the Iranians _ to advance the concerns of the international community.



Comment on this Article


France steps up rhetoric on Iran

CNN 16 Feb 06

France has for the first time explicitly accused Iran of using its nuclear programme as a cover for clandestine military nuclear activity.

Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told French TV no civilian programme could explain Iran's activity.

Iran says it resumed small-scale uranium enrichment work last week, after the UN nuclear watchdog reported it to the Security Council.

But Tehran insists the programme is solely for peaceful purposes.
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator sharply denied the charges made by Mr Douste-Blazy.

"Contrary to all the propaganda against us, we are not seeking a nuclear bomb, since we are a signatory to (the nuclear) Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)," he said on French radio.

"We are a responsible country - it is Western propaganda that keeps on saying that Iran is seeking a bomb, but it is not true."

Sombre mood

BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says that Mr Douste-Blazy's blunt characterisation shows that, in diplomatic terms at least, the gloves are coming off.

France, the UK and Germany have had a key role in pursuing long-running contact with Tehran, in an effort to persuade it to give up its plans.

But the mood among the Europeans is sombre, laced with an element of frustration, our correspondent says - as Iran now appears intent on pursuing its nuclear research programme.

Meanwhile, China has expressed concern about the nuclear issue.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said Beijing wanted a peaceful solution by diplomatic means.

The escalation of the crisis has come as US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked Congress for an additional $75m to subsidise dissident groups and to fund a 24-hour television station broadcasting in Farsi.

'Not listening'

The International Atomic Energy Agency resolution - supported by all five permanent members of the UN Security Council - could lead to eventual sanctions against Iran, although any action has been put off until a report by the head of the agency on 6 March.

Iranian officials are due to hold talks with Russia on 20 February to discuss uranium enrichment on Russian soil as a possible compromise.

But Mr Douste-Blazy said Iran was being disingenuous.

"No civil nuclear programme can explain the Iranian nuclear programme. It is a clandestine military nuclear programme," he said.

"The international community has sent a very strong message to the Iranians - show reason, suspend all nuclear activities and uranium enrichment. And they're not listening to us."

"That is the reason why, for the first time for days, the international community is united. It's not just the Europeans - France, Germany and the British - it's also Russia and China."

Comment: It's really interesting to note that most of Europe was behind Iran until Iran's president suggested that Europe should take back all the Jews to expiate their guilt for the Holocaust. After he said that, nearly all of Europe joined with the U.S. in the War Chant.

Comment on this Article


Bush plans huge propaganda campaign in Iran

Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington Thursday February 16, 2006 Guardian

The Bush administration made an emergency request to Congress yesterday for a seven-fold increase in funding to mount the biggest ever propaganda campaign against the Tehran government, in a further sign of the worsening crisis between Iran and the west.

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said the $75m (£43m) in extra funds, on top of $10m already allocated for later this year, would be used to broadcast US radio and television programmes into Iran, help pay for Iranians to study in America and support pro-democracy groups inside the country.
Although US officials acknowledge the limitations of such a campaign, the state department is determined to press ahead with measures that include extending the government-run Voice of America's Farsi service from a few hours a day to round-the-clock coverage.

The sudden budget request, which follows an outlay of only $4m over the last two years, is to be accompanied by a diplomatic drive by Ms Rice to discuss Tehran's suspect nuclear weapons programme. She is to begin with a visit to Gulf states. Ms Rice told the Senate foreign affairs committee that Iranian leaders "have now crossed a point where they are in open defiance of the international community".

She added: "The United States will actively confront the aggressive policies of the Iranian regime. At the same time, we will work to support the aspirations of the Iranian people for freedom and democracy in their country."

The US is to increase funds to Iranian non-governmental bodies that promote democracy, human rights and trade unionism. It began funding such bodies last year for the first time since Washington broke off ties with Iran in 1980. A US official said all existing citizens' groups and non-governmental organisations in Iran had been heavily infiltrated by the Tehran government, so the US would seek to help build new dissident networks.

US officials depicted the new pro-democracy spending as just one side of a multi-faceted diplomatic offensive aimed at increasing pressure on Tehran. They said Ms Rice would make Iran a focal point of her talks with Middle East leaders in her tour next week, put it centre-stage at the upcoming G8 meeting in Moscow, and call a meeting of political directors from the Nato alliance in late March or April solely to talk about policy towards Iran.

US propaganda efforts in the Middle East since September 11 have been relatively unsuccessful. Analysts say its Arabic news station al-Hurra (the Free One) is widely regarded with suspicion in the Middle East and has poor listening figures.

The move follows talks in Washington last week with British diplomats specialising in Iran. The Foreign Office yesterday welcomed the US move, noting it meant the continued pursuit of diplomatic means rather than hints of military action.

The Foreign Office funds the BBC World Service, whose Persian service has built a following in Iran. This month Iran began blocking the Persian service website.

A senior US official claimed there was now "a broad degree of concern" in the Middle East and around the world about the recent actions taken by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and that the proposed US offensive had been greeted "very enthusiastically".

The stand-off between Iran and the west worsened on Tuesday when an Iranian official said Tehran had resumed small-scale uranium enrichment, a necessary step towards achieving a nuclear weapons capability.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006



Comment on this Article


Iran's Nuclear Development Approved By US In 1970s

William Beeman Providence Journal 17/02/2006

Every aspect of Iran's current nuclear development was approved and encouraged by Washington in the 1970s. President Gerald Ford offered Iran a full nuclear cycle in 1976. Moreover, the only Iranian reactor currently about to become operative -- the reactor in Bushire (also known as Bushehr) -- was started before the Iranian revolution with U.S. approval, and cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium.

The Bushire reactor, a "light-water" reactor, produces Pu240, Pu241, and Pu242. Although these isotopes could theoretically be weaponized, the process is extremely long and complicated, and untried. To date, no nuclear weapon has ever been produced with plutonium produced with the kind of reactor at Bushire. Moreover, the plant must be completely shut down in order for the fuel rods to be extracted -- making the process immediately open to inspection and detection. Other possible reactors in Iran are far in the future. . .
Donald Weadon, an international lawyer active in Iran during that period, points out that after 1972, and the oil crisis, the United States was rabidly pursuing investment opportunities in Iran, including selling nuclear-power plants. He writes that "the Iranians were wooed hard with the prospect of nuclear power from trusted U.S.-backed suppliers, with the prospect of the reservation of significant revenues from oil exports for foreign and domestic investment."

American dissimulation on this point reveals some interesting motives on Washington's part. Iran under the Shah was as much of a threat to its neighbors -- including Iraq -- as it might be said to be today; its nuclear ambitions then could have been inflated and denigrated in exactly the same way that they are being inflated and denigrated today. But the United States was blissfully unconcerned. The big difference today is that Iran is now perceived to be a threat to Israel, and this fuels much of the threat of military action. . .

The mantra "Iran must not get nuclear weapons" has been repeated so often now that most people have come to believe that Iran has them, or is getting them. This implication is completely unproven. The tragedy would be that in the end the United States may goad Iran into a real nuclear-weapons program. The Iranians may reason that since they are being punished for the crime, they may as well commit it.
[William O. Beeman is a Brown University professor of anthropology and Middle East Studies]



Comment on this Article


Iran has the U.S.’s number

By Arthur R. Butz February 14, 2006

I have been asked “why people are so reluctant to consider” the validity of “Holocaust” revisionism. I shall try to answer that, showing the relationship to Iranian President Ahmadinejad.

The principal obstacle to the propagation of revisionism is, simply, fear. At present, the entrenched legend is protected by a system of legal and extra-legal prohibitions (“taboos”). Nobody could dispute the truth of that statement in Europe, where laws in most countries specifically proscribe the expression of revisionist ideas as criminal offenses. For me, the most painful instance of that intellectual terror is the incarceration of my chemist friend Germar Rudolf, presently being held in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison near Stuttgart.
His heinous crime? As a chemistry graduate student he did a forensic analysis of the walls of the alleged gas chambers, didn’t find the cyanide residues that ought to have been there and concluded they weren’t gas chambers. The lack of such forensic evidence is well known in the field. For example, in the Wall Street Journal of July 7, 2004, Timothy Ryback wrote that “there is little forensic evidence proving homicidal intent” in the ruins of Auschwitz.

For Germar that was a 14 month rap in 1994, and he bolted rather than serve it. Last November he was finally deported back to Germany by the US government, despite his application for political asylum and his marriage to an American woman. For his subsequent writings the Germans are now charging Germar with a new 5-year rap, enacted into law after his original “crime.”

This is not a strictly European reign of terror. The U.S. is definitely complicit. How many Americans know that our foremost execution technologist declared the alleged gassings not possible at the alleged sites? That was Fred Leuchter, who actually preceded Germar in the cyanide residue investigations. Leuchter was considered foremost in the execution field until 1990, when his views were widely publicized, and his business ruined by the refusal of authorities to work with him. I doubt he has any work in the field now. Illinois barred the politically unclean Leuchter from servicing the lethal injection machine he had designed and built. During the execution of John Wayne Gacy, there was a hitch attributed to incompetent operation of Leuchter’s machine.

The terror exists in the U.S., but it is more subtle than in Europe. That brings us to President Ahmadinejad of Iran. For many years I ignored revisionism coming from Islamic countries, because I found it inept. With Ahmadinejad, I found something else; his statements were formidable in their perspicacity. My original statement on him has to be read to make the specifics clear. He understands the intellectual terror in the West. However, the best surprise came after I wrote my endorsement. British Prime Minister Tony Blair made a routine pompous suggestion to Ahmadinejad: Visit the camps and see for yourself. Ahmadinejad replied: Good idea, I’ll bring a scientific team. He knows about the forensic issues too.

The most recent Iranian development has come from Hamshahri, Iran’s largest newspaper. They will answer the offensive cartoons of Muhammad, defended in Europe in the name of freedom of expression, with a cartoon contest on the theme of the “Holocaust.” Let’s hear the Europeans preach “human rights” and “freedom” then! The cartoons will likely be criminal offenses throughout continental Europe and perhaps actionable in Britain as well. The hypocrisy is staggering.

In the present Iran, we have a formidable enemy of some Western trends that ought to be vigorously opposed by all who value “freedom” as more than a mere slogan. That, and not mere “denial,” was the basis of my involvement with Ahmadinejad’s statements. Beware. Present-day Iran has our number, and is giving it to others.

Arthur R. Butz is an associate professor of electrical engineering. He can be reached at butz@ece.northwestern.edu.

Comment: Yes, the hypocrisy of the Western countries is astonishing. Questioning the figures of the number of Jewish victims of the holocaust can put you in jail.

It certainly appears as if certain people use the holocaust to raise Jewish victimhood to a unique status among those who have suffered genocide. However, to get bogged down in debates over figures is pointless. Whether it was 6 million or less than that, the numbers and the facts of the camps are horrifying. Unfortunately, they are typical of the way we have been set one against another throughout history, chained to ideologies and religions that demand obedience to bloodthirsty political leaders or bloodthirsty deities.

The real crime of the holocaust is that it is used as the justification to wipe out the Palestinians. In other words, there was no true moral lesson learned from this horrific experience. For all the claims of Israel as a Jewish state, that is, s state that is supposedly based upon a religious teaching, we see no true lesson of conscience.

How can a people who have been subject to such injustice turn around and inflict that same injustice on another?


Comment on this Article


UN report blasts Guantanamo prison, says detainees should be tried or freed

940News 16 Feb 06

GENEVA (CP) - The United States should shut down the prison for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay and either release all detainees or put them on trial, the United Nations said in a report released Thursday.

The world body also called on the United States to refrain from practices that "amount to torture."

The White House rejected the recommendation to shut the prison.

"These are dangerous terrorists that we're talking about that are there," spokesman Scott McClellan said.

McClellan dismissed the report as a "rehash" of allegations previously made by lawyers for some detainees and said the military treats all prisoners humanely.

"We know that al-Qaida terrorists are trained in trying to disseminate false allegations," McClellan said.
The report, summarizing an investigation by five UN experts who did not visit Guantanamo, said photographic evidence and testimony of former prisoners showed that detainees were shackled, chained, hooded and beaten if they resisted.

Some interrogation techniques, particularly the use of dogs, exposure to extreme temperatures, sleep deprivation for several consecutive days and prolonged isolation, caused extreme suffering, the report said.

"Such treatment amounts to torture," it said, urging the United States "to refrain from any practice amounting to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."

It also said Guantanamo's military commissions are under the ultimate authority of the White House and that detainees should have trials.

"The persons held at Guantanamo Bay are entitled to challenge the legality of their detention before a judicial body," the report concluded. "This right is currently being violated."

The report's findings were based on interviews with former detainees, public documents, news media reports, lawyers and a questionnaire filled out by the U.S. government.

The United States is holding about 500 men at the U.S. naval base on the southeastern tip of Cuba. The detainees are accused of having links to Afghanistan's ousted Taliban government or to the al-Qaida terror group, though only 10 have been charged since the detention camp opened in January 2001.

One of them is a Canadian, Omar Khadr, now 19, who faces charges of murder and aiding al-Qaida.

Khadr, the only Canadian known to be held at Guantanamo, was captured in Afghanistan in 2002 after being wounded in a firefight with American forces. The Americans have dubbed such fighters illegal combatants, thus denying them prisoner of war status.

In a response included at the end of the UN report, the U.S. ambassador to the UN offices in Geneva said the investigators had taken little account of evidence against the abuse allegations provided by the United States and had rejected an invitation to visit Guantanamo.

"It is particularly unfortunate that the special rapporteurs rejected the invitation and that their unedited report does not reflect the direct, personal knowledge that this visit would have provided," ambassador Kevin Moley wrote.

Although Moley's statement did not address specific allegations, the Pentagon has acknowledged 10 cases of abuse since the detentions began at Guantanamo, including a female interrogator climbing onto a detainee's lap and a detainee whose knees were bruised from being forced to kneel repeatedly.

Human rights activists supported the investigators' findings.

"Instead of disparaging these respected monitors, the United States should listen to what the world is saying," Reed Brody, a lawyer with Human Rights Watch in New York, told The Associated Press.

"The United States must release detainees it has no authority to hold, provide trials to detainees believed to have committed crimes, and prosecute those involved in the torture and mistreatment of captives."

The five UN experts had sought invitations from the United States to visit Guantanamo since 2002. Three were invited last year, but refused to go in November after being told they could not interview detainees.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has been allowed to visit Guantanamo's detainees, but the organization keeps its findings confidential, reporting them solely to U.S. authorities.

The report also concluded that the particular status of Guantanamo Bay under the international lease agreement between the United States and Cuba did not limit Washington's obligations under international human rights law toward those detained there.

Many of the allegations have been made before, but the document represented the first inquiry launched by the 53-country UN Human Rights Commission, the world body's top rights watchdog.

The five investigators, who come from Argentina, Austria, New Zealand, Algeria and Pakistan, were appointed by the commission to the three-year project. They worked independently and received no payment, though the UN covered expenses.

Comment: Seems that the terrorists that are experts at desseminating false allegations are the Neocon Administration. If "Al-Qaeda" is good at it too, that's only because it was created by the Neocons.

Comment on this Article


The Global Free Fire Zone: “Prompt Global Strike” and the Next Generation of U.S. Strategic Weapons

Andrew Lichterman

“Global is defined as the capability to strike any target set in the world.” Prompt Global Strike (PGS) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Study Plan Draft 28 Oct 2005, p.10

The Air Force has put out a “Prompt Global Strike Request for Information,” beginning the process of examining alternatives for new weapons capable of hitting targets anywhere on earth. Supporting materials state that the Prompt Global Strike Analysis of Alternatives will examine “a range of system concepts to deliver precision weapons with global reach, in minutes to hours.”
Prompt Global Strike (PGS) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Study Plan Draft 28 Oct 2005, p.9 The PGS AoA Study Plan Draft provides a laundry list of the kinds of concepts under consideration:

* “High Speed Strike Systems. This approach requires development/adaptation of a piloted, remotely controlled, or autonomous subsonic/supersonic/hypersonic vehicle (aircraft, sea craft, or missile) to deliver precision standoff or direct attack subsonic/ supersonic/ hypersonic munitions.
* Operationally Responsive Space. An expendable and/or reusable launch vehicle that can deliver precision guided munitions.
* Military Space Plane. A reusable launch vehicle that could directly deliver precision guided munitions.
* Ground or Sea-based Expendable Launch Vehicle. This approach consists of either modification of current space launch vehicles, conversion of deactivated intercontinental ballistic missiles or sea-launched ballistic missiles, or building a new launch vehicle to deliver weapon payloads; such as small launch vehicle or submarine launched intermediate range ballistic missiles. An advanced reentry vehicle/body; such as, a common aero vehicle could be developed to accompany these missile systems.
* Air-Launched Global Strike System. This concept consists of an aircraft that air-launches Pegasus-like space launch vehicles configured with weapons and/or an aircraft delivering supersonic or hypersonic long-range cruise missiles.” Prompt Global Strike (PGS) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Study Plan Draft 28 Oct 2005, p.9

Several of these concepts already are being examined in other studies or already are under development. (see, for example, the Land Based Strategic Deterrent Analysis of Alternatives and the Force Application and Launch for the Continental United States (FALCON) program. While these plans for new kinds of strategic weapons are ramping up, the Pentagon also wants to upgrade existing long-range forces, making its bombers more capable and putting conventional warheads on Trident submarine launched ballistic missiles. (see William Arkin’s Early Warning blog for an overview of these programs.) New long-range weapons are a high priority to the Bush administration, which announced in the recently released Quadrennial Defense Review that it plans to “begin development of the next generation long-range strike systems, accelerating projected initial operational capability by almost two decades.” U.S. Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, February 6, 2006 p.6

The “Prompt Global Strike” concepts under consideration currently are slated to deliver only non-nuclear weapons, but many of the technologies, such as more maneuverable and accurate missile re-entry vehicles and delivery of weapons with some variety of military reuseable launch vehicle could, if developed, be used to deliver nuclear weapons should the government decide to do so. This has been acknowledged in other planning documents. The 1997 Air Force Space Force Application Mission Area Development Plan noted the common aero vehicle’s potential to provide new nuclear, as well as non-nuclear capabilities:

“Common Aero Vehicles (CAVs) can deliver both nuclear and non-nuclear weapons to targets anywhere on the globe from CONUS [continental U.S.] bases with appropriate deployment systems. The CAV can be deployed from multiple deployment vehicles including missiles, Military Spaceplanes (MSPs), or space based platforms. The inherent maneuverability of the CAV, provides increased accuracy, lethality, and enemy defense evasion.” U.S. Air Force, 1997 Space Force Application Mission Area Development Plan, p.38.

These programs– some of which, it is important to note, were already in their early stages before Bush took office– threaten to blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons from both ends. There has been considerable discussion of the dangers posed by making nuclear weapons more useable, for example by improved accuracy allowing lower yields on long range missiles. There has been far less attention given to the dangers that may arise if the United States is able to develop non-nuclear weapons with global reach that are able to inflict severe damage on an adversary– for example, destroying air defenses in preparation for an overwhelming U.S. air offensive or even killing leadership– in a world where the only “strategic” weapons other states can afford are nuclear weapons.

All of this is taking place in a context where the U.S. has declared its willingness to engage in preventive warfare against unilaterally declared “threats.” The “Global Strike” concept is envisioned as a primary instrument of such preventive warfare, designed to strike quickly, without warning, anywhere on earth:

“Because many Global Strike scenarios involve threatened (or actual) preemptive attacks on very-high value targets that will only be exposed for brief periods, Global Strike capabilities must also be highly reliable. Single-string operations lacking the redundancy commonly associated with traditional military operations will be common. The Global Strike philosophy will be “one shot equals one kill.” Simultaneous attacks against all the major targets in a given category, e.g., all division headquarters, all WMD facilities, may be required against more capable adversaries, although the total scope of operations will remain dramatically less than those associated with major combat.” U.S. Department of Defense, Strategic Deterrence Joint Operating Concept, February 2004, p.37

In order to allow such unwarned preemptive strikes, the Pentagon wants Congress to further delegate its war making authority to the President. Among the desired “capabilities” identified by the Quadrennial Defense Review is

“Prompt and high-volume global strike to deter aggression or coercion, and if deterrence fails, to provide a broader range of conventional response options to the President. This will require broader authorities from the Congress.” U.S. Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report February 6, 2006 p.31

The Prompt Global Strike Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Study Plan Draft also states that “[a]ny system must comply with US international obligations and national policies; however, if analysis identifies advantages to changing obligations/policies that enable the PGS capability, these changes will be documented in the analysis for decision maker consideration.” at p.12 This could amount to little more than a hit list for for Bush regime “arms control” officials, who perhaps might be better described as arms decontrollers (for recent developments regarding the marginalization of long-time State Department arms control professionals by Bush political appointees hostile to arms control measures, see the Warren Strobel’s recent Knight Ridder piece, “An exodus of arms experts.”)

According to the Quadrennial Defense Review Report, the aim of this new round of strategic arms development, of which the “Global Strike” technologies are only a part, is to “possess sufficient capability to convince any potential adversary that it cannot prevail in a conflict and that engaging in conflict entails substantial strategic risks beyond military defeat.” at p. 31. This passage– threatening adversaries with “strategic risks beyond military defeat”– calls into question U.S. commitment to fundamental principles of international law, particularly those limiting the use of force to that proportional to an armed attack and necessary to defend against it:

“‘[T]here is a specific rule whereby self-defence would warrant only measures which are proportional to the armed attack and necessary to respond to it, a rule well established in customary international law.’” International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use Of Nuclear Weapons, 8 July 1996, General List No. 95, paragraph 41, quoting Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) (I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 94, para. 176)

For over half a century, American military and political elites have wrestled with the dilemmas at the heart of nuclear “deterrence”– that nuclear weapons by their nature inflict such horrific damage that a war between nuclear-armed adversaries is likely to constitute mutual suicide, and that using nuclear weapons against an adversary that has none is likely to inflict damage so horrific that it far exceeds anything permissible under the laws of war. Both the Quadrennial Defense Review and the path of U.S. weapons development suggest that those in power in the United States now have chosen to fully embrace the technological capacity to destroy societies as a first principle of warfare. Backed by the threat of societal destruction, whether inflicted with nuclear or non-nuclear strategic weapons, U.S. conventional expeditionary forces will be able to operate freely world wide. As a recent Air Force long term planning directive put it,

“The NR [Nuclear Response] CONOPS [Concept of Operations] will provide a credible deterrent umbrella under which conventional forces operate and, if deterrence fails, strike a wide variety of high-value targets with a highly reliable, responsive and lethal nuclear force… Desired effects include: Freedom for U.S. and Allied forces to operate, employ, and engage at will…” United States Air Force Strategic Planning Directive for Fiscal Years 2006-2023 p.20

With no new arms control negotiations on the horizon, those in power in the United States apparently have decided to wager all of our futures on the permanent pursuit of high-tech military advantage. As we enter another, larger round of military budget requests and another, more dangerous round of military threats purportedly to counter “proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,” the questions that can be asked in “mainstream” U.S. debate remain largely confined to peer review for those who pursue military dominance in service of a global empire: What is the best way to prevent countries that are not our allies from obtaining nuclear weapons (without really questioning the right of those who already have them to keep them for the foreseeable future?) What is the most efficient and least risky mix of nuclear and high-tech conventional weapons to accomplish “the mission” (without really questioning what the “mission” is?) The fundamental questions that concern the rest of us remain taboo: Who profits from the endless U.S. pursuit of global military dominance? Does it really make ordinary people here or anywhere else safer?
One Response

1. M. Veiluva Says:
February 15th, 2006 at 10:06 am

The USAF’s “Prompt Global Strike” analysis and the Pentagon’s “Quadrennial Defense Review Report” are valuable windows into the identity crisis affecting strategic planners in the Air Force, and to a lesser extent, the Navy. Both services are saddled with delivery systems designed for a different era, ostensibly to be used in or deter a massive attack between rival nuclear powers. Outside of the strategic weapons departments of these services, the contractors who build them, and the Congressmen and women who vote to keep the component contracts in their home districts, it should be obvious to rational folks that delivery systems such as Trident and B-2’s ought to be phased out like the battleships of old.

Instead, the organic interdependence of the nuclear warfighting sub-departments within the Navy and Air Force, contractors, and constituents creates an irrationality. Using such systems as a ballistic missile to deliver conventional warheads indicates to me a certain desperation among certain people to maintain vigorous departments or to remain employed. As the Air Force itself figured out many years ago, just about any good sized transport or aged monster like a B-52 can launch a modern cruise missile. And one can only speculate what military leaders on the receiving end of a silo-launched missile will think as the warhead is coming in - “Is it live, or is it Memorex?”

The fact that such notions prevail bespeaks of a systemic pathology inhabiting both the military-industrial-Congressional cabal and its opponents as well. Weapons procurement in the K-Street era tends to place the ability to maximize the number of districts with a stake in component manufacturing ahead of any realistic or practical mission. This requires the continued manufacture of expensive dinosaurs like Trident, B-2 and the F-22 instead of body armour or effective armoured personnel carriers. The imperative of the machine to feed itself encourages the military branches to aggressively respond to new threats by adapting systems designed for completely different purposes, and demanding new destabilizing ones. This machine, which has existed since the 1950s, happens to be now blessed with an Administration, like Ado Annie, that just can’t say no.

This is not to say that the newer proposals are without malice aforethought. While I continue to disagree with those who think that the US is bent on planning to employ a massive first strike on an Iran or even North Korea (the Chinese will prevent this), there is definitely an intent to utilize retooled systems for likely conventional intervention and to maintain “all options.”

The conventional arms control community is also facing a crisis of existence. The counting of beans is no longer relevant, and reductions of 90% in nuclear warhead stockpiles still would not interfere one jot with the US’s ability to “project power” anywhere or intervene militarily. As indicated by the article, the main purpose of designing new nuclear warheads is to adapt to the necessity of smaller, lighter, more accurate delivery systems, preferably unmanned and not dependent upon the need for bases in unreliable client countries. I am particularly intrigued that the Air Force is still enamored of space-based bombardment systems - these were actively discussed in the 60s (“FOBS”). Lord knows what would happen if one of these dropped from the sky like Skylab.

To understand the delivery systems (and their mission) is to understand the future of the nuclear weapons complex, not the other way around. “Irrational” systems like the F-22 will of course continue to be funded, but the newer systems will tell us what warplanners have in mind.




Comment on this Article


Counting Some of the Votes in Haiti

Brian Concannon Jr., Esq February 14, 2006

Haiti’s elections on February 7 went well enough that the post-election vote counting should have been uncontroversial. The turnout was huge, there was almost no violence, and the people’s choice was so clear that the second place finisher received less than 12% of the vote. But incredibly, a week later the final results have not been declared, and the Electoral Council is in disarray. The voters have taken to the streets to protect their vote, and the clear winner is alleging fraud.
The battle lines have been drawn around the 50% of the total vote that former President Rene Preval needs to avoid a runoff election against his distant nearest challenger. Initial official results and unofficial reports had Mr. Preval comfortably above that bar, but his official numbers crept steadily downward over the last week. As of Tuesday morning, with 90% of the votes counted, Mr. Preval was stuck at 48.7%, 22,586 votes shy of outright victory.

What’s At Stake

In a better world, Mr. Preval would be happy to go into a runoff with a 48.7% share, assured that he could attract 1.3% of the voters more easily than his opponent, Leslie Manigat, could attract 38%. Mr. Manigat might even save his country time and money by conceding an obviously futile contest. But this is Haiti, where electoral support does not always translate into political power. Mr. Preval and his supporters know that the vote only came close to 50% because the votes of Haiti’s poor- who overwhelmingly voted for Mr. Preval- had been systematically suppressed through a series of irregularities, from the voter registration last summer through election day. They draw a line from this vote suppression through questionable tabulation practices, and see it pointing towards a second round somehow stolen from them.

Mr. Manigat may have Haiti’s history on his side, if not Haiti’s voters. He knows from experience that there are many routes to Haiti’s Presidency, not all of them requiring electoral support. He ran in the first elections under Haiti’s current Constitution, in November 1987, and was projected to run a distant third at best. But the army and paramilitaries stopped the voting by firing at voting centers, killing at least 34 people. Two months later the army ran new elections. The candidates with democratic convictions called a boycott of the charade, which the voters supported. But Mr. Manigat, Hubert de Ronceray (who won less than 1% this year) and one other candidate threw their hats in the ring, and the army declared Manigat its President.

Last week’s election was Haiti’s fourth Presidential election since 1990. The previous three- 1990, 1995 and 2000- were all conducted without serious violence. Each time, the voters delivered a landslide to the candidate of the Lavalas political movement-no runner-up ever topped 16% of the vote. But each time a minority in Haiti, usually with outside support, successfully limited this mandate. President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the victor in the first and third of those elections, suffered two successful coup d’etats, and spent half of his two terms in exile. President Preval managed to spend his whole term in office and pass power to an elected successor (the first Haitian President to do so), but a manufactured political crisis and perpetual squabbling about the extent of the Lavalas landslides prevented the seating of a legislature. More important, the crisis successfully diverted President Preval’s energies and attention from the economic and social development policies he was elected to implement.

Mr. Preval did not run this year under the banner of the Fanmi Lavalas party, but with a brand-new party, Lespwa (Hope). Fanmi Lavalas boycotted the elections because the Interim Government of Haiti (IGH) refused to stop its persecution of the party, which included jailing dozens of political opponents, attacking anti-IGH protests and mounting murderous police raids in the poor neighborhoods that were the party’s strongholds.

But Preval’s victory was nonetheless delivered by the Lavalas base. Voters said as much to anyone who would listen as they waited to vote, afterwards, and in this week’s demonstrations. More tellingly, Preval won his landslide with almost no institutional support or even campaigning. The Espwa party is brand new, fielding candidates in barely half of the senatorial races. Preval received almost no formal endorsements, and did not even speak publicly until the last weeks of the campaign. He planned very few rallies, and many of these were cancelled after two events were violently attacked. But despite these handicaps, he won a landslide because the Lavalas base voted overwhelmingly for him (candidate Marc Bazin claimed the Lavalas mantle, but had the support of neither the party’s top leadership nor its base, and won less than 1% of the vote).

Pre-Election Vote Suppression

The IGH engaged in a comprehensive program to suppress Lavalas political activities in the ten months before the elections. Several prominent politicians were not able to participate, as candidates or activists, because they were kept in jail illegally, including Haiti’s last constitutional Prime Minister, a former member of the House of Deputies, the former Minister of the Interior, and dozens of other local officials and grassroots activists. When Haiti’s most prominent dissident, Rev. Gerard Jean-Juste, was diagnosed with leukemia, it took a massive campaign, including intervention of top U.S. Republicans, just to obtain his provisional release for desperately needed treatment.

Making Registration Difficult

The voting registration process systematically discouraged poor rural and urban voters from signing up. Where Haiti’s democratic government provided over 10,000 voter registration centers for elections in 2000, the IGH installed less than 500. The offices would have been too few and far between for many voters even if they had been evenly distributed. But placement was heavily weighted in favor of areas likely to support the IGH and its allies. Halfway through the registration period, for example, there were three offices in the upscale suburb of Petionville, and the same number in the large and largely roadless Central Plateau Department. In cities, the poor neighborhoods were the last to get registration centers, and Cite Soleil, the largest poor neighborhood of all, never got one.

Complaints and protests forced the IGH to extend the registration period three times and open additional registration facilities. Eventually over 3.5 million voters registered, about three-quarters of the estimated eligible voters. But we will never know how many voters could not get to a registration center, or gave up after losing too many precious work days in the effort. We do know that the registration difficulties disproportionately impacted the rural and urban poor, who voted overwhelmingly for Preval.

Making Campaigning Difficult

Neither Lavalas nor the Preval campaign was able to effectively engage in pre-election campaigning. Police repeatedly fired guns at peaceful pro-Lavalas demonstrations throughout the two years of the IGH’s reign. In January, a pro-government gang destroyed structures erected for a Preval campaign speech in the town of St. Marc, cancelling the event. No arrests were made. Violence and threats of violence forced the cancellation of subsequent events, even the campaign’s grand finale the week before the election.

Election Day Vote Suppression

The IGH had limited the voting centers to 807, which would have been inadequate even if the elections had run smoothly (Los Angeles County, with a slightly larger population but only 37% of Haiti’s land area and infinitely better private and public transportation had about 4,400 polling places in November 2005). But by 1 PM on election day, Reuters’ headline read: “Chaos, fraud claims mar Haiti election.” Most election offices opened late and lacked ballots or other materials; many did not become fully functional until mid-afternoon. Voters arrived at the designated centers to find the center had been moved at the last minute. Many who found the center identified on their voting card waited in line for hours only to be told they could not vote because their names were not on the list. At some centers, tens of thousands of voters were crammed into a single building, creating confusion, and in one case a deadly stampede.

As with the registration deficiencies, the poor bore the lion’s share of the election day problems. The two voting centers for Cite Soleil, both located well outside the neighborhood, saw the worst. One of the two, the Carrefour Aviation site, was transferred at the last minute to a single building where 32,000 voters had to find the right line to wait in without posted instructions, lists of names or an information center. Throughout the day, journalists and observers noted over and over that centers in Petionville and other wealthy areas were better organized and equipped.

As with registration, many voters persevered despite the obstacles. After frustrated would-be voters took to the streets in spontaneous protests, the IGH made concessions, such as keeping the polls open later and allowing people with voting cards whose names were not on the local list to vote in some places. By the end of the day, most voting centers were operating at a minimal level, and over 60% of registered voters did vote. But we will never know how many people gave up, because they were sick or frustrated or needed to get back to their families.

Counting Some of the Votes

After the problems with registration and voting, Mr. Preval’s supporters were pleasantly surprised that the CEP gave him a large lead in initial reports. On Thursday, the CEP announced that with 22% of the votes counted, Preval had a commanding lead with 62% of the vote. Mr. Manigat trailed at 11%, and Charles Henri Baker, in third place, had 6%. Unofficial reports of the local results from international and Haitian observers and journalists consistently had Preval far over 50%. But by Saturday night the Preval’s official vote had decreased to 49.61%, and by Monday it was at 48.7%.

The IGH claims that Preval’s decrease was the result of more information coming in and better calculations. But many questions about the tabulation process, combined with the efforts to suppress the Lavalas vote before and during election day, raise doubts about those claims. On Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Preval claimed that he had proof that he won 54% of the vote, and that the Electoral Council fraudulently reduced his number. Shortly after Mr. Preval’s announcement, Haitian television broadcast such proof: thousands of ballots, most of them Preval votes, found in a dump near Cite Soleil, and not far from the SONAPI warehouse where the votes are counted.

Who’s In Charge?

The Electoral Council is supposed to be running the counting, but it is not. Jacques Bernard was appointed “Executive Director” of the Council- a position not previously recognized in Haitian law- by the Prime Minister late last year. He is running the show and has kept regular Council members out of the counting room. Councilor Pierre Richard Duchemin charges “manipulation,” and “an effort to stop people from asking questions.” Another Councilor, Patrick Fequiere, claims that Mr. Bernard is working without the Council and not telling them where his information is coming from. The UN Peacekeeping mission was forced to remove the doors to the tabulation center to prevent Mr. Bernard and his advisors from acting secretly.

Uncounted Votes

A large number of tally sheets from polling centers are not being counted. 254 sheets were destroyed, reportedly by gangs from political parties opposed to Preval. 504 tally sheets reportedly lack the codes needed to enter them officially. The missing tally sheets probably represent about 190,000 votes- over 9% of the total votes cast- and according to the UN, disproportionately affect poor areas that support Preval.

The Electoral Code anticipated these types of problems, and provided a mechanism for reconstituting official results that are intercepted. The actual counting of the ballots is done on site, immediately after the closing of the polls, by each Bureau de Vote (each Bureau serves 400 voters). The Bureau officials conduct the counting, but are observed by mandataires, or representatives of political parties. A report listing the results of the counting is prepared, and at least six copies are made. The Bureau officials and the mandataires all sign each of the copies if they agree with the report. The copies are then distributed widely: one is posted on the voting center door, one copy each is sent to the Communal Electoral Office, the Departmental Electoral Office, and the Electoral Council, and each mandataire is entitled to one.

Presumably these copies will leave the Bureau in many different directions. It may be easy to intercept the official results in some areas, but it would be much harder to track down all the copies in the hands of mandataires. It would be difficult for a mandataire to introduce a fraudulent copy of the results, because that would require forging several signatures.

Null and Blank Votes

Electoral officials have also discarded 147,765 votes, over 7% of the total, as “null.” Article 185 of the Electoral Code allows officials to nullify ballots if they “cannot recognize the intention or political will of the elector.” The Presidential ballots were complicated- 33 candidates, each with a photo, an emblem and the names of the candidate and the party. Some Haitian voters, unused to filling out forms or writing, undoubtedly made mistakes-like marking two boxes- that made determining their choice impossible. But 147,765 voided votes is a lot, especially when that decision was made by local officials handpicked by an Electoral Council that had no representation from Lavalas or Lespwa. Overly strict criterion (such as requiring an “x” to be completely within a candidate’s box), even if neutrally applied, would have a disproportionate impact on Preval voters, who are more unused to filling out forms than their better-heeled compatriots, and therefore more likely to make mistakes.

Another group of votes, 85,290, or 4.6%, are classified as blank ballots. These votes are actually counted against Preval, because they are included in the total number of valid votes that provides the baseline for the 50% threshold. This is a potentially reasonable system, just unreasonably applied to Haiti. It allows voters to show their displeasure with all the candidates by voting for no one. It makes sense in wealthy countries, but it is absurd to think that 85,000 people would leave their babies, their fields and other work and spend hours walking or waiting in the tropical heat just to say they did not like any of the 33 candidates. A more likely explanation is that illiterate voters got confused by the complicated ballots and marked nothing. Again, this problem would disproportionately affect poor voters likely to vote for Preval. But even if it did not- if the blank votes were allocated to candidates based on their percentage of other votes- Preval would clear 50%.

The blank and null ballots combined exceeded Mr. Manigat’s vote by 17,000. The rules for blank and null votes are consistent with previous Haitian elections, so it is hard to call the rules themselves fraudulent. But the scale of the distortion of the vote caused by these rules was both foreseeable and preventable. The same problem has arisen at every election since 1990, most of which were observed by the UN and the Organization of American States, which were active in preparing the elections this time around. The distortion could be sharply reduced with a simple voter education campaign: going into poor neighborhoods, showing how to mark ballots and giving voters an opportunity to practice on sample ballots. There was money available for such a program- the election cost over $70 million dollars, most of it coming from abroad, more than $30 for every vote cast. The political parties, many of which represented a fraction of one percent of the electorate, received generous subsidies. But no concerted effort was made to help the much larger share of the voters who had demonstrated difficulty with filling out the ballots.

Foxes Guarding the Henhouse

Although there are international observers on the ground, they do not reassure Haitian voters. The observation delegations are organized and funded by the U.S., Canada and France, the three countries that led the overthrow of Haiti’s Constitutional government in February, 2004. With good reason, Haitians wonder whether countries that spent millions of dollars two years ago to remove the President they elected will make much effort to install their latest choice. The Bush Administration fanned the fires of distrust last Friday, just as concerns about the count were rising, by signaling its continued intention to intervene in Haiti’s affairs. State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack publicly warned Mr. Preval that if he is installed as President, he should not allow President Aristide back from his exile in South Africa. The U.S., obviously, has no right to tell another country not to let a citizen return. In this case, Mr. Preval, even as President would not have the right to exclude Mr. Aristide: as Mr. Preval has noted, Haiti’s Constitution prohibits involuntary exile.

Taking the Streets

Haiti’s voters may be inexperienced in filling out forms, but they have seen enough stolen elections to qualify as world-class experts in the field. They can trace the pattern from registration through election day to the current calculations, and they can see their votes discounted at every step. They know that they did enough to win according to the rules of the game, which they believe in. But they know that voting, in Haiti, is not enough, so they are now out in the streets by the thousands, erecting barricades, protesting, even occupying the pool at the luxurious Montana Hotel, where the CEP holds it press conferences and the journalists and other expatriates are lodged.

The IGH and the US government have responded by calling on Preval to call off the protests. He implored his supporters not to damage people or property, but also recommended that they keep demonstrating until the IGH stops trying to steal the election. Haiti’s voters will undoubtedly take this recommendation. They have done their job in marking their ballots, but know that they need to keep fighting to ensure that the IGH counts them.

By Tuesday afternoon, many of the other candidates, including fourth place finisher Jean Chavannes Jeune, had called on Manigat to bow out, but he refused. Under pressure, the IGH agreed to name a special commission, with one representative each from the Executive Branch, the Electoral Council and the Espwa party to go over the results. As of Wednesday morning, the standoff over another landslide victory continued, with Haitian voters once again in the streets, shouting: “veye yo”- “watch them.”

Brian Concannon Jr., Esquire, directs the Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti, www.ijdh.org, and observed several elections in Haiti for the Organization of American States.



Comment on this Article


U.S. judge dismisses Arar's lawsuit challenging his deportation to Syria

22:31:35 EST Feb 16, 2006 BETH GORHAM

WASHINGTON (CP) - A U.S. federal judge has dismissed Maher Arar's lawsuit against American officials claiming he was deported to Syria as a terrorism suspect to be tortured.

In a ruling Thursday in New York, Judge David Trager said he can't interfere in the case because it involves crucial national security and foreign relations issues in the anti-terror fight. "The need for much secrecy can hardly be doubted," Trager wrote in his 88-page ruling.

"One need not have much imagination to contemplate the negative effect on our relations with Canada if discovery were to proceed in this case and were it to turn out that certain high Canadian officials had, despite public denials, acquiesced in Arar's removal to Syria."
Comment: Yeah, you can't go and out the fact that certain Canadian public officials were lying to their people!


He also noted Congress has yet to take a position on court reviews of cases like Arar's, saying judges should be "hesitant" to hold officials liable for damages without "explicit direction" from legislators, "even if such conduct violates our treaty obligations or customary international law."

Comment: You mean until legislators decide that other legislators can be liable for damages??? Yeah, that's gonna happen really quick!


In Ottawa, Arar called the decision "very disappointing, emotionally very hard to digest."

"I was not expecting the judge to dismiss the entire case. I was hoping that he could let at least part of it proceed to discovery," he said.

"It is giving the green light to the Bush administration and the CIA to continue with their practice of rendition.

"Bascially they're telling people . . . if you're ever wronged by our politicians or intelligence people, you are on your own, good luck."


The Center for Constitutional Rights launched the lawsuit on Arar's behalf in January 2004 against former attorney general John Ashcroft and other U.S. officials, seeking undisclosed damages.

The case is believed to be the first to challenge the U.S. government's policy of extraordinary rendition, where suspects are transferred to third countries without court approval.

Arar claimed his rights under the U.S. constitution were violated. He says he was tortured during a 13-day detention at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport in the fall of 2002 and during 10 months in a Syrian jail, where he was forced to make false confessions of terrorist activity. He was released in 2003.

Trager rejected Arar's suit but said he could resubmit his claim that he was denied due process while held in the U.S. because of "the circumstances and conditions of confinement."

He must specifically name the authorities who allegedly infringed his rights and outline how he suffered by not having access to a lawyer when he was detained, said Trager.

"This ruling sets a frightening precedent," said Maria LaHood, Arar's lawyer.

"To allow the Bush administration to continue to evade accountability and continue to hide behind the smokescreen of national security is to do grave and irreparable damage to the constitution and the guarantee of human rights that people in this country could once be proud of," she said.

Barbara Olshansky, the centre's deputy legal director, called it a "dark day."

"We will not accept this decision and are committed to continuing our campaign to obtain the truth about what happened."

The U.S. government argued last year the case should be dismissed because it would involve revealing classified information which supposedly linked Arar to al-Qaida and justified sending him to Syria instead of Canada.

Comment: Which comes down to saying, "we can arrest you, torture you, send you off to another country to be imprisioned, and we never have to show you any evidence or proof, much less bring you to a court of law."


Arar, who holds dual Syrian-Canadian citizenship, was travelling on a Canadian passport when he was detained in New York on a stopover en route to Montreal.

Canada is conducting a public inquiry into the role Canadian authorities played in the case.

Arar said he had not yet decided whether to appeal the decision.

"One thing I can tell you is, I will never give up," said Arar. "Whether it's appealing, or going to the UN or something else, I don't know at this point. But I'll let this go like that, never."

Meanwhile, Arar's lawsuit in Canada is still before the courts. He hopes the commission of inquiry in Canada will shed more light on what happened to him. The inquiry, headed by Justice Dennis O'Connor, is expected to issue preliminary findings this spring.



Comment on this Article


Richard Cohen, advocate for ignorance

P.Z. Myers Pharyngula

Here is a serious problem:

Here's the thing, Gabriela: You will never need to know algebra. I have never once used it and never once even rued that I could not use it. You will never need to know—never mind want to know—how many boys it will take to mow a lawn if one of them quits halfway and two more show up later—or something like that. Most of math can now be done by a computer or a calculator. On the other hand, no computer can write a column or even a thank-you note—or reason even a little bit. If, say, the school asked you for another year of English or, God forbid, history, so that you actually had to know something about your world, I would be on its side. But algebra? Please.

That's Richard Cohen, who is supposedly the 'liberal' columnist for the Washington Post, giving advice to a young girl.

It's outrageous.


Because Richard Cohen is ignorant of elementary mathematics, he can smugly tell a young lady to throw away any chance being a scientist, a technician, a teacher, an accountant; any possibility of contributing to science and technology, of even being able to grasp what she's doing beyond pushing buttons. It's Richard Cohen condescendingly telling someone, "You're as stupid as I am; give up." And everything he said is completely wrong.

Algebra is not about calculating the answer to basic word problems: it's about symbolic reasoning, the ability to manipulate values by a set of logical rules. It's basic stuff—I know many students struggle with it, but it's a minimal foundation for understanding mathematics and everything in science. Even more plainly, it's a basic requirement for getting into a good college—here, for instance, are my university's mathematics entrance requirements.

Three years of mathematics, including one year each of elementary algebra, geometry, and intermediate algebra. Students who plan to enter the natural sciences, health sciences, or quantitative social sciences should have additional preparation beyond intermediate algebra.

This isn't what you need to be a math major. It's what you need to just get in, whether you're going to major in physics or art. Richard Cohen is telling Gabriela to forget about a college education.

I'm sure that he has never once rued not being able to use algebra. If I had never heard a poem or listened to a symphony or read a novel or visited Independence Hall, I could probably dumbly write that I don't miss literature, music, or history…never heard of 'em. Don't need 'em. Bugger all you eggheads pushing your useless 'knowledge' on me!

That kind of foolish complacency is what we'd expect of the ignorant, but it takes the true arrogance of the stupid to insist that others don't need that knowledge…especially after you've dismissed the utility of algebra because they can just use calculators. What, Mr Cohen, you don't think the engineers who make calculators need algebra?

Cohen insists, though, that algebra is useless and doesn't even teach reasoning.

Gabriela, sooner or later someone's going to tell you that algebra teaches reasoning. This is a lie propagated by, among others, algebra teachers. Writing is the highest form of reasoning. This is a fact. Algebra is not.

That's easy enough for a man to say, especially when his very next sentence is an example of the quality of the reasoning he believes he mastered with his ability to write.

The proof of this, Gabriela, is all the people in my high school who were whizzes at math but did not know a thing about history and could not write a readable English sentence.

Maybe it's because I was bamboozled by all those teachers who taught me algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and calculus, but I don't think a bogus anecdote (seriously—the college prep crowd at my high school were taking math, languages, English, etc., and doing well at all of them) is "proof" of much of anything.

It's about what you'd expect of a fellow who brags elsewhere in his essay that his best class in high school was typing. That's right, figuring out mindless, mechanical reflex action, rote memorization, and the repetition of stock phrases from a book were the height of intellectual activity in Richard Cohen's academic career. And the highlight of his elementary school education must have been mastering breathing. This is the man whose advice about education should be taken seriously?

After all, education isn't important to live a happy, contented life.

I have lived a pretty full life and never, ever used—or wanted to use—algebra.

If sheep could talk, they'd say the same thing.

Yeah, a person can live a good, bland life without knowing much: eat, watch a little TV, fornicate now and then, bleat out opinions that the other contented consumers will praise. It's so easy.

Or we could push a little bit, stretch our minds, challenge ourselves intellectually, learn something new every day. We ought to expect that our public schools would give kids the basic tools to go on and learn more—skills in reading and writing, a general knowledge of their history and culture, an introduction to the sciences, and yes, mathematics as a foundation. Algebra isn't asking much. It's knowledge that will get kids beyond a future of stocking shelves at WalMart or pecking out foolish screeds on a typewriter.

We're supposed to be living in a country built on Enlightenment values, founded by people who knew the importance of a well-rounded education—people like Thomas Jefferson, who had no problem listing the important elements of a good education.

What are the objects of an useful American education? Classical knowledge, modern languages, chiefly French, Spanish and Italian; mathematics, natural philosophy, natural history, civil history and ethics. In natural philosophy, I mean to include chemistry and agriculture; and in natural history to include botany, as well as the other branches of those departments.

Note "mathematics", which would have included geometry and algebra. In Richard Cohen we have a 21st century man insisting that an 18th century education is too much for our poor students.

While Cohen may think a little more English or history is an adequate substitute for elementary mathematics, Jefferson would suggest otherwise…and if anything, this sentiment has become more true in these modern times.

[I have] a conviction that science is important to the preservation of our republican government, and that it is also essential to its protection against foreign power.

I can't resist. I have to let Jefferson dope-slap Cohen one more time.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.





Comment on this Article


Commercial photos show Chinese nuke buildup

By Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES February 16, 2006

U.S. intelligence agencies recently produced a National Intelligence Estimate, or major interagency analysis, that concluded China is using strategic deception to fool the United States and other nations about its goals and programs, including its military buildup.

Pentagon officials have asked China to allow visits to underground facilities such as the submarine tunnel and a command center in Beijing, but either the requests were denied or the existence of the sites was denied.

"The Chinese have denied having any underground submarine facilities," the Pentagon official said, noting that the satellite photos indicate that China has misled the United States.
Commercial satellite photos made public recently provide a new look at China's nuclear forces and bases -- images that include the first view of a secret underwater submarine tunnel.

A Pentagon official said the photograph of the tunnel entrance reveals for the first time a key element of China's hidden military buildup. Similar but more detailed intelligence photos of the entrance are highly classified within the U.S. government, the official said.

"The Chinese have a whole network of secret facilities that the U.S. government understands but cannot make public," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "This is the first public revelation of China's secret buildup."

The photographs, taken from 2000 to 2004, show China's Xia-class ballistic missile submarine docked at the Jianggezhuang base, located on the Yellow Sea in Shandong province.

Nuclear warheads for the submarine's 12 JL-1 missiles are thought to be stored inside an underwater tunnel that was photographed about 450 meters to the northwest of the submarine. The high-resolution satellite photo shows a waterway leading to a ground-covered facility.

Other photographs show additional underground military facilities, including the Feidong air base in Anhui province with a runway built into a nearby hill.

The photographs were obtained by the nonprofit groups Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Federation of American Scientists. The photos first appeared Friday in the winter edition of the quarterly newsletter Imaging Notes.

The photographs are sharp enough to identify objects on the ground about 3 feet in size. Such digital images were once the exclusive domain of U.S. technical intelligence agencies, but in recent years, commercial companies have deployed equally capable space-based cameras.

Disclosure of the underground bases supports analyses of Pentagon and intelligence officials who say China is engaged in a secret military buildup that threatens U.S. interests, while stating publicly that its forces pose no threat.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said during a trip to China in October that Beijing was sending "mixed signals" by building up forces in secret and without explaining their purpose.

Adm. Gary Roughead, commander of the Navy's Pacific Fleet, said he did not consider China "a threat." But he also said in a speech Tuesday that China's purpose behind its rapid military buildup is not fully known. "That's a little unclear," he said, noting that "increased transparency" is needed from China.

The photographs included several shots of Chinese H-6 strategic bombers and related aerial refueling tankers at Dangyang airfield in Hubei province. Also, 70 nuclear-capable Qian-5 aircraft were photographed parked at an airfield in Jianqiao, Zhejiang province, on the East China Sea coast.

The Pentagon's four-year strategy report made public earlier this month stated that China is emerging as a power with "the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States." The report stated that Beijing is investing heavily in "strategic [nuclear] arsenal and capabilities to project power beyond its borders."

The report did not provide specifics. U.S. officials said, however, that the secrecy of the Chinese buildup has fueled a debate within the U.S. government over the threat posed by that country.

U.S. intelligence agencies recently produced a National Intelligence Estimate, or major interagency analysis, that concluded China is using strategic deception to fool the United States and other nations about its goals and programs, including its military buildup.

Pentagon officials have asked China to allow visits to underground facilities such as the submarine tunnel and a command center in Beijing, but either the requests were denied or the existence of the sites was denied.

"The Chinese have denied having any underground submarine facilities," the Pentagon official said, noting that the satellite photos indicate that China has misled the United States.

Underground submarine sites are one of 10 major types of facilities hidden by the Chinese military, U.S. officials said. The others include nuclear missile storage facilities, other weapons plants, command centers and political leadership offices.

In 2004, China revealed the first of a new class of submarines. The development of the Yuan-class submarines was kept secret through the use of an underground factory in south-central China, the officials said.

Since 2002, Beijing has deployed 14 submarines. And it is working on a new ballistic-missile submarine, known as the Jin class, and two new Shang-class attack submarines.

According to a classified Defense Intelligence Agency assessment, China's nuclear forces include about 45 long-range missiles, 12 submarine-launched missiles and about 100 short-range missiles -- each with a single warhead.

By 2020, China's arsenal will include up to 220 long-range missiles, up to 44 submarine-launched missiles and up to 200 short-range missiles, the DIA report stated.

Richard Fisher, a China military analyst at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said that in addition to the northern submarine base, China also has a major submarine base at Yulin, on Hainan island in the South China Sea.

The southern base gives Chinese missile submarines easier access to firing areas than the Yellow Sea base, which is more vulnerable to attacks from U.S. anti-submarine warfare systems.

Comment: Well, what a surprise! (Not!) But you won't see the U.S. going after China they way they went after Iraq, or the way they are going after Iran. Oh, no indeed. And note also that the U.S. never went after North Korea either. Why? Because they actually HAVE WMDs! The U.S. only goes after weak, innocent states/people.

And so, what about China?

We predict that this question will take on a lot of significance in the coming months to years.


Comment on this Article