Politics of Dissent

Some Pigs Are More Equal Than Others

2007-07-03T17:04:00.000-07:00

It wasn’t unexpected. Indeed, it was entirely anticipated. Inevitable, even. Nevertheless, whether it was the timing or the crass politics, Bush’s commutation of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s prison sentence sent the Republic reeling.

In his prepared statement, Bush patronizingly avowed his “respect” for the jury’s verdict. In both words and deeds, however, Bush clearly evidenced his disrespect and contempt for the sentencing judge, a member of that pesky co-equal branch of government known as the judiciary. He also referenced the studied deliberations that led him to his considered judgment that Libby’s sentence of 30 months in prison was “excessive.”

Excessive? Such a claim is simply beyond the pale, even for this President.

As governor of Texas, Bush never saw a death sentence he didn’t like. Whether the condemned was retarded, denied a fair trial, or just plain not guilty, Bush denied clemency to every petition that came across his desk. Apparently, Bush found nothing excessive about death as punishment.

As President, Bush has granted himself the authority (if not the Divine right) to indefinitely incarcerate anyone he wishes, without charge, without counsel, and without any prospect of even the semblance of a fair trial. Jose Padilla, for example, was imprisoned for three years, in extreme solitary confinement in a military brig solely because Bush & Co. declared him a “dirty bomber.” Finally, after intervention by the courts, Padilla was afforded counsel, transferred to a civilian jail and indicted. Notably, once he was finally charged, no mention was made of the government’s original, unfounded allegations.

Bush found nothing excessive about water boarding, stress positions, physical assault, or any of the myriad of “not-torture” techniques employed by the U.S. against alleged terror suspects. There’s apparently nothing excessive about CIA black sites or secretly transporting suspects to foreign countries for the sole purpose of being tortured.

There was nothing excessive about abducting Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, in 2002 and sending him to Syria where he was tortured for nearly a year before eventually released without charge. Without apology, either.

During Bush’s reign of terror, the Justice Department has taken repeated steps to ensure that all sentences handed down in the federal courts are as draconian as possible. In July 2003, outraged over “activist” judges who downwardly departed from the federal sentencing guidelines, then Attorney General John Ashcroft directed all federal prosecutors to report any judge deemed too lenient. The Administration’s stated purpose for the Ashcroft amendment was to ensure that all cases were treated equally.

In September 2003, Bush’s Justice Department ordered all federal prosecutors to seek maximum criminal charges and sentences whenever possible and to eschew plea agreements. In his remarks supporting the order, Ashcroft declared, “If you violate a federal law, the punishment will be uniform.”

Unless, of course, you happen to be Cheney’s former chief of staff who took the fall for the Administration’s smear campaign against a critic of Bush’s propaganda campaign for invading Iraq. In that case, lying to a federal grand jury never warrants incarceration. Never mind that the prison term was fully in accordance with the very sentencing guidelines once so cherished by Bush. Never mind that it was the minimum period of incarceration permitted by law. Never mind ....

It would have been far less outrageous had Bush skipped the “excessive” bit and simply explained that, like in any crime family, good things come to those who bite their tongue.

- July 3, 2007

REGIME CHANGE DEJA VU

2007-03-11T12:23:00.000-07:00

If one had been watching or (for those worshipers of relics) reading the news of late, one could easily be forgiven for being wholly unaware of the numerous signs pointing ominously to an eventual, if not imminent, preemptive, regime-changing attack by the United States and its proxies upon Iran. What with all of the legal maneuvering over where to bury Ana Nicole Smith’s rapidly decaying body, combined with the rampant speculation as to Brittany’s motivations for shaving her head, there simply hasn’t been either time or space for such pedestrian fare as the latest preemptive war by the U.S. Nevertheless, if one were to read beyond the front page of any given news publication, and if one were inclined to connect the dots, one might find some startling, indeed dismaying clues of America’s gradual but unmistakable preparations for war with Iran.

In January 2007, during his prime time address to the nation, ostensibly to sell the country on his “surge” snake oil, President Bush declared that a second carrier group led by the USS John Stennis had been deployed to the Persian Gulf. This week, Newsweek is reporting that yet a third carrier strike group is bound for the Persian Gulf. Furthermore, and as reported by Seymour Hersh in the most recent New Yorker, the Pentagon is devising attack plans against Iran which can be implemented within twenty-four hours of Bush’s command. And, as reported in the London Daily Telegraph, Israel is negotiating with the U.S. for permission to use Iraqi air space in order to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. Tellingly, Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert has also vested control of all military aspects of an attack on Iran with the head of the Israeli Air Force.

Finally, in a bit of news completely missed by the Fourth Estate, the U.S. Diplomatic Mission to Italy, reported something interesting on its webpage on February 22, 2007. On that date, Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried told reporters at the Washington Foreign Press Center that ten U.S. ballistic missile interceptors in Poland, as well as tracking radar positioned in the Czech Republic, are not targeting Russia. As it turns out, the intended target is Iran. According to Lieutenant General Henry Obering, director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, the U.S. wants to have ballistic missile defenses in place by 2013. Apparently, that is the earliest that the U.S. expects Iran to have missiles with sufficient range to pose a threat to the U.S.

The ramping up of military preparations to preemptively attack Iran is, of course, a perfectly anticipated response to Bush’s own declarations, breathlessly stamped with the imprimatur of the venerable New York Times, that the “highest levels” of the Iranian government are involved in supplying weapons used to kill and maim innocent and virtuous American soldiers in Iraq. In fact, as reported by the BBC earlier this month, a high-casualty attack on U.S. forces in Iraq would trigger a U.S. response if it were proven that Iran was involved. As noted by Rep. Dennis Kucinich in The Nation, such a scenario would, under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, provide Bush with the authority to attack Iran while circumventing a new but only slightly less acquiescent Congress.

The other trigger reported by the BBC - confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon.

Iran’s Alleged Support of Iraqi Insurgents

Problems abound regarding both triggers identified by the BBC. As to the former, Bush’s declarations to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no evidence that the Iranian government is arming or otherwise supplying Iraqi insurgents. In fact, Bush does not even have the support of his own Secretary of Defense who promptly backpedaled from Dubya’s claims. Likewise, Lt. General Raymond T. Odierno, the officer in charge of daily operations in Iraq, told reporters on February 22, 2007, “[We] don’t know if it [Iran’s supplying of anti-American insurgents in Iraq] goes to the highest levels of the government.”

Any semblance of historical perspective appears to be lacking from the Bush administration’s accusations about Iranian “interference” in Iraq. (Also missing is any sense of irony. Can the invaders and occupiers of a sovereign nation legitimately complain that another country is “interfering” therein?) Much is made of the allegation that some of the weapons used against U.S. forces in Iraq have borne Iranian serial numbers. Assuming such allegations are true, the presence of Iranian-made weapons in Iraq should come as no surprise given the eight year-long war between the two countries. The presence of such weapons should be even less surprising when one recalls that anti-Saddam forces received support from Iran for decades. Never mind the fact that the largest political parties in Iraq, and those that receive the backing of the Bush administration, are the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Dawa Party. Both are Shiite and pro-Iranian. Indeed, the military arm of SCIRI, the infamous Badr Brigade, has been operating anti-Sunni death squads for years with U.S. acquiescence. The only Shia organization in Iraq that opposes the U.S. occupation is Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mehdi Army, which, as Patrick Cockburn of The Independent explains, is traditionally anti-Iranian.

Furthermore, as noted recently by former U.S. Marine and U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, the weapons for which Iran is allegedly responsible - explosively formed projectiles (EFPs) - have been employed in Iraq against the U.S. since 2003. Only now, however, has the Bush administration accused Iran of supplying such weapons. What’s more, the use of EFPs dates at least as far back as the 1980s and the Irish Republican Army. Thus, for the Bush administration to try to depict EFPs in Iraq as some sort of new weapons development created by Iran is simply dishonest.

Skepticism of claims about Iranian-backed attacks against the U.S. is further bolstered by expert opinion and analysis. Michael Knights in last month’s Jane’s Intelligence Review, reported that while there was an organization in Basra engaged in the purchase and delivery of imported EFPs, it was comprised entirely of police officials and followed no specific Shiite faction. Indeed, all factions of Basra were represented in the smuggling organization. In short, Knights found no apparent official Iranian influence.

Knights also explained that, despite Bush’s implications that EFP attacks are so rampant in Iraq that they could not occur without official Iranian sanction, the monthly average of EFP attacks has remained at 100. According to Knights, such a low average number could be easily accomplished by one or two bomb-makers in a single workshop. Based upon his three-year analysis of EFP’s in Iraq, Knights concluded that Hezbollah and not Iran was far more likely to be behind the attacks. Indeed, as Knights pointed out, Hezbollah, not Iran, transferred EFP devices and components to Palestinian militants after the second Infitada began in 2000. Moreover, the same batch number of C-4 explosive found in an intercepted Hezbollah ship as found in southern Iraq links Shiite militias to Hezbollah, not Iran. All of this led Knights to conclude that Bush & Co. “are taking a data point and blowing it out of proportion” in their policy-driven but factually weak anti-Iran campaign.

Similarly, as reported by McClatchy Newspapers in early February, the U.S. government’s own data prove that Sunni insurgents, rather than Iran-backed Shiite militias, have been responsible for most American combat deaths in Iraq. In 2006 alone, more than forty percent of U.S. combat deaths occurred in the Anbar province, the Sunni heartland where Iran has little if any influence. This percentage was an increase over the previous year when about thirty six percent of U.S. combat deaths occurred in Anbar. In fact, according to Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution, the vast majority of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq are caused by improvised explosive devices set by Sunnis.

Diligently ignored by the Bush administration and its apologists is that the Sunni insurgency in Iraq receives significant backing from Saudi Arabia. Only after repeated questioning before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February did the new U.S. intelligence “czar,” Mike McConnell, concede that Saudi Arabian sources are providing support for the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. Of course, McConnell would not go so far as to allege that the “highest levels” of the Saudi government were involved. Such an accusation would be irresponsible.

Why is Saudi Arabia’s “interference” with America’s imperial designs for Iraq ignored while Iran’s gets elevated to casus belli? For the same reason that, despite the fact that nearly all of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, the U.S. attacked Afghanistan and Iraq instead. Quite simply, so long as it continues to provide us with oil, the U.S. will never do anything to alienate Saudi Arabia, much less attack it. It can’t legitimately be argued that the Saudi leadership is vastly superior than Iraq’s or Iran’s, particularly from the standpoint of human rights and civil liberties. Such taints to the Saudis, however, are ignored as long as Americans can gas up their Hummers.

At any rate, Iran’s alleged interference in America’s colonization of Iraq makes little sense when considered from the point of view of Iran. First, Iran, like Iraq, is predominantly Shia. The U.S. and its partners are, for the most part, battling Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda fighters, who also happen to be Sunni. In other words, other than a few clashes with the Shiite Muqtada al-Sadr and his followers, the Iraqi opposition is Sunni. Clearly, Iran would not be lending support to Sunni insurgents, no matter how sympathetic Iran might find their anti-American cause to be.
Second, there would be no benefit to Iran if the U.S. were to abruptly leave Iraq rioting and burning next door. Iran, being no more and no less self-interested than say the United States, does not want and would not benefit from an Iraq fractured and fragmented along ethnic and sectarian lines. Indeed, given the demographic composition of Iraq, Iran’s interests would only be furthered if the U.S. succeeds in its forced imposition of democracy upon Iraq since it would mean a Shia Iraq.

Third, Iran wants a stable Iraq so as to avoid to a massive influx of Iraqi refugees as has happened in Syria and Jordan. Such an influx would not only be devastating to the already fragile Iranian economy, it would likely excite unrest among Iran’s minority Kurdish and Arab populations. Moreover, as explained by the Middle East Institute, Iran has no interest in and would derive no benefit from a failed state in Iraq.

Finally, from an economic standpoint, Iran benefits from a stable ally in Iraq. While Saddam Hussein was in power, Iran was prevented from using Iraq as a trade route to other Arab countries. Iraq’s de facto blockade of Iranian trade routes continues today due to Iraq’s current chaotic state. Only through a stable Iraq can Iran link its railroads with those of Iraq and Syria, thereby restructuring the region’s economic landscape.

This by no means implies that Iran wants the U.S. to remain in Iraq. Iran wants a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq about as much as the U.S. would want a Venezuelan presence in Mexico. For the U.S. to think that Iran would simply sit idly by while the U.S. attempts to foster a secular, pro-U.S. and anti-Iranian Iraqi government is naive. Just as the U.S. would oppose Venezuelan intervention in Mexico on the basis of national security, so too does Iran fundamentally oppose U.S. colonization of Iraq.

Besides, if one employs the fundamental principal of universality, U.S. allegations against Iran must simultaneously serve as admissions by the U.S. Take Israel’s most recent invasion of Lebanon. It is undisputed that much, if not most, of the weaponry employed by Israel to kill civilians and destroy neighborhoods and civilian infrastructure were made and supplied by the U.S. Under the principal of universality, therefore, the U.S. “interfered” in Lebanon and the “highest levels” of the U.S. government participated in the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians. Such accusations against the U.S. are, of course, dismissed out of hand.

Similarly, it is well-established that the U.S. is using allegations of Iranian interference in Iraq as a basis for whipping the public into a fever for war. However, as reported by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker, and as corroborated by the London Daily Telegraph, the U.S. and Britain are funding militant separatist groups in Iran in an effort to destabilize the regime. Many of these militant groups employ terrorist methods. Again, under the principal of universality, if Iran’s alleged “interference” in Iraq is grounds for military action, then surely U.S. interference in Iran is grounds for Iranian military action against the U.S. Such arguments are, once again, clearly untenable from a U.S. perspective.

Iran’s Nuclear Capabilities

Falling back on its tried-and-true strategy of invoking mushroom clouds to generate support for a war of aggression, the Bush administration has taken every opportunity to ring the alarm regarding Iran’s alleged nuclear capabilities. To hear Bush and his apologists tell it, Iran is on the verge of acquiring a (as in one) nuclear weapon. Of course, as before, Bush & Co. aren’t at liberty to tell the American public exactly how they so confidently know that Iran could launch a nuclear strike at any given moment. As with Iraq’s infamous WMD, Bush & Co. simply expect the public to take them on faith.

Fortunately, those at the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are blessed with qualities lacking from the average American automaton - a healthy dose of skepticism and an insistence on evidence. As such, officials with the IAEA have declared that most of the U.S. intelligence provided to the IAEA regarding Iran’s nuclear program has proven to be inaccurate. None of the “intelligence” provided by the U.S. has led to any significant discoveries by the IAEA inside Iran. As reported in the Los Angeles Times in late February, all of the intelligence regarding Iran’s nuclear capabilities that has been provided by the U.S. since 2002 has proven useless.

An example of such useless U.S. intelligence include documents the U.S. claims it recovered from a laptop supposedly stolen from Iran. According to the U.S., the documents included detailed designs for modifying ballistic missiles to carry nuclear warheads, as well as other potentially damning evidence of prohibited nuclear weapons activities by Iran. Very quickly, however, IAEA officials raised questions regarding the documents’ authenticity. Apparently, the IAEA thought it odd that documents purportedly from Iran would be entirely in English rather than Persian.

If nothing provided by the U.S. intelligence community has led to any meaningful discovery of anything in Iran, one must wonder how Bush & Co. can so confidently portend nuclear annihilation by Iran.

There is no dispute that Iran has nuclear technology and is enriching uranium. Iran admits as much. However, Iran insists that its nuclear program is for energy purposes only. Propagandists for the Bush administration, most notably Dick Cheney, dismiss out of hand Iran’s claims of needing nuclear energy. According to these propagandists, including much of the corporate press, Iran does not need nuclear energy since it has significant oil and gas reserves. As such, the story goes, Iran’s claim that it needs nuclear technology for civilian energy purposes is mere pretense.

What is not told by the propagandists is that Iran has made identical arguments in support of its nuclear program since 1959. At that time, Shah Mohammad Pahlavi, having recently taken power after the U.S.-backed coup of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadeq, purchased a nuclear reactor from the U.S. The Shah planned to construct as many as 23 nuclear power stations across Iran by 2000, with U.S. assistance of course.

As explained by the nonpartisan Oxford Research Group in its recent report, Would Air Strikes Work?, since the U.S.-installation of the Shah in 1953, Iran has consistently argued that it needs nuclear power to accommodate its population’s increasing appetite for energy. “Driven by a young population and high oil revenues, Iran’s power consumption is growing by around seven per cent annually and its capacity must nearly triple over the next fifteen years to meet projected demand.” In other words, Iran’s claim that it needs nuclear power for peaceful energy purposes is not so outlandish as Bush and his apologists would have the public believe.

Nonetheless, many have suspicions that Iran might be developing nuclear weapons technology as well. Given that the nuclear technologies used in a civil nuclear program are identical to those used in a military program, such suspicions are not unfounded. Indeed, as El Baradei explained to the Financial Times, even if the Iranian program is for purely peaceful purposes, deterrence is undoubtedly at the back of their minds. Regardless, to date there has not been any evidence to support or refute such suspicions. Bush & Co. have also argued that Iran has failed to fully cooperate with the inspections regime. Again, however, less-than-full cooperation does not prove that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

Think about it. Four years ago, the U.S. unequivocally declared that Iraq possessed, even stockpiled, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Such declarations were based entirely upon supposition and speculation. As is currently the case with Iran, there were plenty of doubts about Iraq’s credibility when it declared that all of its WMD had been destroyed in the 1990s. Similarly, Iraq had never fully complied with the inspections regime. Nevertheless, as even Dick Cheney might now be willing to admit, Iraq had no WMD The WMD had been destroyed as Iraq had claimed. Iraq’s lack of full cooperation did not prove it possessed WMD.
Simply put, the U.S. was wrong, inexcusably wrong, about Iraq’s WMD. The U.S. was so wrong, in fact, that many find it difficult to believe that the U.S. was merely mistaken. And yet, despite the stinging rebuke on Iraq’s WMD, the U.S. is once again invoking mushroom clouds based on mere suspicions and incomplete cooperation with inspections.

On Iraq, the U.S. dismissed, disparaged, and defamed the IAEA and its head, Mohamed El Baradei, for contradicting the U.S. propaganda. The IAEA and El Baradei were proven right. Perhaps, then, the U.S. should shut its mouth and listen to what the IAEA and El Baradei are saying about Iran.

According to the IAEA’s most recent report on Iran, while Iran has not suspended its enrichment activities (something which Iran swore it would not do), there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons or their technology. In an interview with the Financial Times, El Baradei declared that Iran is still five to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, El Baradei explained that regardless of whether Iran ever obtains 3,000 centrifuges for uranium enrichment (a landmark for weapons development), so long as NPT safeguards are in place (i.e., inspections and monitoring), Iran could never exceed enrichment levels of five percent.

El Baradei’s predictions are supported by the Oxford Research Group (ORG) which notes that uranium must be enriched to concentrations of over ninety per cent to be suitable for nuclear weapons. For use as nuclear fuel, on the other hand, enrichment need not exceed five per cent. To date, the highest enrichment of uranium achieved by Iran has been 3.5 per cent. The ORG estimates that Iran would need to construct “many thousands of gas centrifuges” to produce enough sufficiently enriched uranium to build “a strategically significant number [five or six] of nuclear weapons.” Given that sixty percent of Iran’s current gas centrifuges are technologically sub-standard, and that Iranian uranium is contaminated with significant amounts of heavy metals (which inhibits enrichment), Iran would not be able to develop nuclear weapons before 2014.

Of course, it is appropriate to criticize Iran for not being fully transparent with the IAEA or fully compliant with the NPT. The U.S., however, is in no position to level such criticisms. The U.S. Energy Department is working on the development of a nuclear "bunker buster," officially known as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. The Energy Department has also initiated an "Advanced Concepts" research program whereby it is exploring new kinds of nuclear weapons technologies, specifically a low-yield (less than 5 kilotons) "mini-nuke." Such research was made possible when, at the request of the Bush administration, Congress in 2004 repealed a 1994 law that prohibited development of any low-yield weapons. To date, approximately $16.8 million has already been spent on bunker-buster research with an additional $8.5 million currently requested in Bush's budget.

As reflected by the foregoing, as well as in its Nuclear Posture Review of 2001, the United States endeavors to make nuclear weapons more "usable" and envisions an enlarged range of circumstances in which they could be used, including against non-nuclear attacks or threats. On March 2, 2007, in fact, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) announced that it had approved the development of new nuclear warheads for the Navy’s sea-based nuclear missiles. Under the Orwellian moniker of “Reliable Replacement Warhead” (RRW), the NNSA promised that its new nuclear warheads would “ensure long-term confidence in a more secure, smaller and safer nuclear weapons stockpile.”

Furthermore, despite the fact that the State Department declared in 2003 that the U.S. does not target any countries with nuclear weapons, the U.S. has repeatedly reserved the right to preemptively use nuclear and conventional weapons against nations or groups threatening to use of weapons of mass destruction.

All of the aforementioned U.S. activities are in express contravention of the NPT. No one, of course, would dare suggest that the U.S. be sanctioned, much less attacked or invaded, for its intransigence.

Nevertheless, the world’s only nuclear aggressor, and a blatant violator of the NPT, condemns and threatens Iran for developing nuclear technology which, if is indeed peaceful in nature, would be permitted under the NPT. Should the U.S. continue to insist on sanctions or, as seems to be imminent, take military action against Iran, the opposite of Bush’s stated objective would likely occur. As El Baradei explained, “you cannot bomb knowledge.” Should the U.S. proceed militarily against Iran, it might succeed in damaging or destroying Iran’s current nuclear facilities. Military action would not, however, eradicate Iran’s knowledge regarding nuclear development. Indeed, threats and bullying may only drive Iran to actually develop nuclear weapons, or to do so at a more rapid pace. As El Baradei explained to the Financial Times, if Iran feels that force will be used against them, if it thinks that what happened in Iraq could happen in Iran, it “would sure be a recipe for [Iran] to go down that route [of developing nuclear weapons].” Put differently, El Baradei believes that if the U.S. were to bomb Iran it would compel Iran to “put it in high gear for developing a nuclear weapon.”

These are the precise conclusions reached by the ORG.

Questions of Intent

El Baradei’s concerns seem reasonable and predict likely outcomes of the Bush administration’s current Iran policy. Assuming that the Bush administration has at least considered El Baradei’s projections as possible consequences of its policy, one is left to conclude that the U.S. is not sincerely interested in halting nuclear proliferation. Put differently, if attacking Iran would likely increase the likelihood that Iran would develop nuclear weapons, then U.S. plans to attack Iran are not intended to prevent Iran from developing such weapons.

The same was true regarding Iraq. The stated policy of the United States, dating as far back as the Clinton administration, was never to disarm Iraq. Rather, the express policy of the U.S. was regime change. All talk about WMD and mushroom clouds was mere pretext. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was never about disarming a tyrant (since he had already been disarmed). Bush admitted as much when, on the eve of invading Iraq, he issued one final ultimatum to Saddam: only if Saddam and his sons immediately fled Iraq would the U.S. and its “coalition of the willing” forestall invading. Disarmament, in other words, was irrelevant.

Disarmament of Iran is equally irrelevant to the Bush administration. Regime change is what the U.S. is truly after. Iran and Iraq have the second and fourth largest reserves, respectively, of conventional crude oil in the world. Given the increasing scarcity of crude oil, coupled with explosive global demand, one need not be a conspiracy theorist to conclude that removing anti-American regimes in both Iran and Iraq would serve the U.S. “national interest.” Can there really be any doubt that if Iran were ruled by a pro-U.S. government that was generous in its exporting of oil to the U.S. that there would be any controversy about Iran developing nuclear technology? It was the U.S., after all, that provided Iran’s U.S.-installed Shah with nuclear technology in the first place.

All of the grandstanding, tough talk, threats, and deployments by the U.S. are not to disarm Iran. They are for regime change. They are, in short, to guarantee access to the world’s second largest oil reserves.

The Sorrows of Regime Change

2006-10-13T14:05:00.000-07:00

It is virtually beyond dispute that the Bush administration’s misadventures in Iraq, and increasingly in Afghanistan, are worsening by the day. I say virtually because it appears that the Bush administration, and some of its more fanatical apologists, have yet to recognize the severity of the chaos, death, and destruction unleashed by U.S. “regime change” in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Regardless of whether Bush, Cheney, or Fox News wish to acknowledge the miserable state of affairs on both fronts of the infinite war on terror, the facts are hard to ignore. Iraq is on the brink of complete immolation as the violence between Sunni and Shia feeds on itself without any sign of being satiated. Meanwhile, long ignored by the “news” media as well as the White House, Afghanistan finds itself torn asunder by opium-funded warlords on the one hand and a reborn Taliban on the other. In both countries, casualties among civilians continue mount while attacks against the U.S. and its occupying partners grows in frequency and effectiveness. In Iraq alone, regime change is responsible for as many as 650,000 civilian deaths.

With each passing poll or survey, Americans’ confidence in their dear leader wanes a bit more. Conversely, Americans’ disillusionment with the crusade to make the world safe for Christianity and multinational corporations continues to grow. Intriguingly, the fact that so many Americans profess to being disillusioned with the unfolding events in Iraq and Afghanistan implies that they once thought all would go well. That they ever entertained such a thought speaks to how little most Americans know about history, particularly when it comes to regime change.

Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq are the United States’ first forays into regime change. In fact, U.S. history (the actual as opposed to the official history, that is) is replete with examples of regime change either instigated or backed by the U.S. As with the current cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, past efforts at regime change did not result in flourishing democracies or better lives for those living under the replaced regimes. Instead, as with Iraq and Afghanistan, regime change has always led to the death and suffering of civilians at the hands of U.S.-backed tyrants.
Take, for example, the CIA-led coup of democratically elected Iranian Premier, Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953. Outraged at Mossadeq’s plans to nationalize Iran’s oil industry (much to the chagrin of U.S. and U.K. corporate interests), the CIA orchestrated Mossadeq’s ouster and replaced him with the Shah – himself ousted by the British following World War II. Of course, in the U.S., oil was not the publicly stated justification for ousting Mossadeq. The U.S. was “saving” the people of Iran from the scourge of communism. Instead of communism, the Iranians got the Shah, an autocratic despot who, through the SAVAK secret police, squelched dissent through intimidation, torture, and murder. In 1976, Amnesty International declared, “No county in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran.” Popular resistance to the Shah, largely organized in Iran's mosques, culminated in the 1979 revolution, which included the taking of dozens of American hostages. The rest, as they say, is history.

Then there’s the case of U.S.-instituted regime change in Guatemala. In 1950, democratically elected President Jacobo Arbenz sought to nationalize Guatemalan lands owned by United Fruit Company, a U.S. corporation. (Sense a pattern?) Beginning in 1952 with operation “PBFORTUNE,” the CIA tried, and failed, to orchestrate a coup to remove Arbenz from power and “save” Guatemala from communism. Undeterred by its initial failure, in 1954 the CIA launched operation “PBSUCCESS” and successfully deposed Arbenz. After the CIA installed Castillo Armas in power, hundreds of Guatemalans were promptly rounded up and killed. Thousands more were promptly detained. For the next 40 years, Guatemalans, under successive U.S.-backed dictatorships, suffered death squads, disappearances, and torture. By 1990, more than 100,000 Guatemalan civilians had been murdered. Tens of thousands more had been “disappeared.”

Brazil was another victim of U.S.-sponsored regime change. Irritated that President Joao Goulart had been reelected in 1963, despite having spent $20 million on anti-Goulart propaganda, the U.S. decided to take a more direct approach. Again under the pretense of “saving” Brazil from communism and making it a haven for democracy, in 1964, the U.S. took significant steps, including the secret mobilization of a naval task force, to help the Brazilian military forcibly remove Goulart. On April 1, 1964, Goulart was overthrown in a U.S.-backed military coup. Brazil suffered under U.S.-backed military rule until 1985. Death squads, torture, and disappearances were the norm.

Chile. Nicaragua. Haiti. The Dominican Republic. Indonesia. British Guyana. Italy. Venezuela. All were targeted by the U.S. for regime change to one extent or another. Whether rigging elections, producing propaganda, or simply through violence, the U.S. has a decades-long history of replacing regimes it dislikes with more favorable ones. In every “successful” case of regime change, however, nothing resembling democracy resulted. Instead, the U.S. installed or condoned brutal and tyrannical regimes which tortured, terrorized, and murdered civilians. In places like El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala, the U.S. trained and funded “counterinsurgency” operations designed to eliminate, in every sense of the word, anyone who took exception to the U.S. arrogantly selecting a sovereign nation’s government.

It is often said that the past is the best predictor of the future. Based upon past results of the U.S. practice of regime change, no one should be at all surprised that things are so violent, horrible, and grim in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only real difference between Iraq, Afghanistan and past efforts at regime change is that in Iraq and Afghanistan the U.S. is not some hidden player, lurking safely in the shadows while its proxies kill and die. This time, Americans are finally seeing and, to some small degree, paying the price for regime change.

It’s Official: Americans Are Torturers

2006-10-04T12:22:00.000-07:00

Not that you’d know it from the purveyors of infotainment which pass for news outlets these days, but the final days of September were the latest of the increasingly frequent, but decreasingly proverbial “dark days” that have befallen the United States and, as a consequence, the world. It was, after all, in those closing days of September, as summer began its slow concession to fall, that the United States decided that torture, long maligned by pro-terrorist liberals as immoral and inhumane, really isn’t such a horrible practice after all. Indeed, our champions in Washington “compromised” and legalized torture, as well as extrajudicial and indefinite detention. The compromise? Just don’t call it torture.

But wait, you say. Didn’t “dissident” Republican Senators, led by that “maverick” John McCain, shock us all by opposing the White House, preventing it from vesting itself with the draconian authority commonly reserved to despots, dictators, and churches? Doesn’t the so-called McCain compromise expressly forbid such torture – I mean interrogation – methods as water-boarding, electric shock, beatings, and mock executions. Doesn’t the compromise require that all interrogations of suspected terrorists conform with the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution? Doesn’t the McCain compromise specifically uphold the Geneva Conventions and make them applicable to all detainees in U.S. custody?

You would, of course, be right on all counts. It is true that, on its face, the McCain compromise, which passed into law with the passing of September, does prohibit what all reasonable people, as well as the U.S. State Department, consider to be torture. Its prohibitions, however, are rhetorical only, for several reasons.

First, many of the prohibitions apply only to those suspected terrorists held in military custody. The McCain compromise specifically adopts the Army Field Manual, which was recently updated to prohibit the torture methods that are known to have been widely used by the United States in its “war on terror.” The CIA, however, being a “civilian” organization, is in no way bound by the rules and regulations of the Army Field Manual. As such, all those enrolled in what Bush refers to as the CIA’s “vital program” of “aggressive interrogation techniques” would remain largely unprotected by the McCain compromise.

Moreover, there is nothing within the McCain compromise to prevent the military from subsequently amending the Field Manual to make torture techniques “legal.” Thus, the McCain compromise permits the military to quietly authorize torture at a later date, preferably when the notoriously vacuous American public is once again distracted by the newest developments regarding Brangelina or TomKat.

Even those detainees, whether in military or CIA custody, who are technically covered by the McCain compromise’s adoption of the Geneva Conventions are, in reality, denied any of the Conventions’ protections. Indeed, the McCain compromise specifically prohibits anyone detained by the U.S. from invoking the Geneva Conventions or any of its protocols in any proceeding “in any court of the United States or its States or territories.” Clearly, if there is no means of enforcing the Geneva Conventions, the Geneva Conventions themselves are reduced to hollow promises, devoid of meaning or value.

The McCain compromise further eviscerates the Geneva Conventions by leaving the Conventions open to the President’s exclusive interpretation. Under the McCain compromise, “the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions.” In other words, it is entirely within the President’s discretion to determine whether or not, say, water-boarding or electric shock constitutes “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.” Judging by Bush’s past interpretations and applications of the Geneva Conventions, one can easily guess how Bush will exercise his discretion. Furthermore, since the McCain compromise bars anyone from invoking the Geneva Conventions, there is no way to challenge Bush’s interpretation and fetter is discretion in any way.

Finally, while the McCain compromise does invoke the protections of the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, such protections are virtually meaningless in the context of the intergalactic war on terror. The Constitution does not apply to noncitizens not found within the borders and jurisdiction of the United States. Thus, all those suspected terrorists (emphasis on suspected) of foreign nationality who are detained in U.S. facilities hither and yon are simply not entitled to any protections under the Constitution. By invoking the Constitution, the McCain compromise makes a good show of protecting the basic rights of those in U.S. custody, but does virtually nothing to actually protect those rights.

In short, the McCain compromise is not a compromise at all. Rather, it is a masterful piece of deceit designed to make the public believe that Republicans, while unwaveringly “tough on terror,” are not willing to reduce either themselves or the vaunted United States to the level of condoning torture. Of course, the exact opposite is true. Nevertheless, the “compromise” never would have passed into law without cooperation from a compliant press more interested in reporting on a false split in the Republican party rather than on the substantive issue of whether the U.S. would legalize torture. Nor could the “compromise” have passed were it not for a Democratic party less concerned with taking a principled stand than with ensuring job security. Finally, and most importantly, had the American public cared as much about whether the U.S. (officially) joined the ranks of such despotic and torturous regimes as Uzbekistan and Syria than about how much it costs to fill up their Hummer, maybe, just maybe, the McCain compromise would have been exposed for what it is.

As it stands, however, the United States is now an official proponent and practitioner of torture. May the screams of our victims haunt us for the rest of our pathetic and selfish lives.

Christian Pity Party

2005-07-14T10:14:00.000-07:00

Listening to them tell it, one would think Christians in America are the most ostracized and oppressed group of people in the country. According to them, they are the constant object of ridicule and persecution, demonized by liberal media, hated nationwide. Christians claim they are denied equal rights and protections under the Constitution and complain that gays, liberals, and lawyers are conspiring to eradicate Christianity from American government and culture.

Take, for instance, a recent article by Stanley Kurtz in the National Review wherein Kurtz laments the beginnings "of a systematic campaign of hatred directed at traditional Christians." According to Kurtz, Christians in America have been forced to become more militant and political because of "40 years of revolutionary social reforms" (the civil rights movement?) that have made it "impossible for religious conservatives to have a voice in ordinary political give and take." Indeed, things are so bad in America that "traditional Christians are openly excoriated in the mainstream press as evil, fascist, segregationist bigots." Worse yet, their political speech is "under legislative threat" and "their institutions of higher education are attacked and destroyed."

Kurtz is not alone in his bemoaning of the intolerant persecution of American Christians by homosexual liberal heathens. Last month, on the floor of the House of Representatives, Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.) decried "the long war on Christianity in America." The perpetrators of that war? Democrats, of course! Hostettler deplored the anti-Christian war which "continues unabated with aid and comfort to those who would eradicate any vestige of our Christian heritage being supplied by the usual suspects, the Democrats."

Yikes! Who knew Christians had it so rough?

The truth is, Christians don't have it rough at all. And they certainly don't have it rough in the United States.

It is well known that the current President is an unabashed born-again Christian who once declared Jesus Christ to be his "favorite political philosopher." Bush even once commented that he believed Jesus wanted him to become President. One of Bush's first acts in office was the creation of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (FBCI). It marked the first time the federal government openly subsidized religious organizations.

As it turns out, the majority of groups that have received funding from the FBCI have been overtly Christian. Indeed, secular charities which were denied federal funds have subsequently been granted funding after re-registering as faith-based programs. What's more, in his 2006 budget, Bush proposed cutting funding for such secular programs as public housing subsidies, food stamps, energy assistance, community development, social services, and community service block grants. At the same time, Bush proposed adding $385 million in new faith-based programs. In 2004, more than $2 billion in faith-based grants were awarded by the Bush administration – nearly double the amount for 2003.

In April, Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist addressed 1,700 evangelical Christians at a rally called "Justice Sunday – Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith." The clear message of the rally (a message unequivocally endorsed by Frist) was that all Democrats opposed to Bush's judicial nominations are anti-Christian. Frist's remarks, along with the rest of the rally, were simulcast to 130 other churches, 500 Christian radio stations, and across the internet.

Like Bush, Republican House Majority Leader Tom "The Hammer" DeLay considers himself a born-again Christian and is arguably the most powerful and influential member of the House of Representatives. DeLay is not alone in his salvation. According to a study by Furman University's Jim Guth, nearly one-third of congressional leaders in America consider themselves evangelical.

To recap, the President of the United States and the Republican leaders of both the House and the Senate are openly conservative Christians. Openly Christian groups have also received billions of dollars in federal grants. Not to mention the President's staunch pro-life stance (except when it comes to the death penalty) and his repeated calls for a constitutional amendment to protect the sacred institution of marriage from homosexuals (but not from divorce). After all, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Clearly, Christians are completely shut out of and have no voice in politics or government.

In terms of the oft-criticized "liberal" media, Christians are hardly out in the cold there, either. The Left Behind book series is a perennial best-seller and The Purpose Driven Life (the self-described "manifesto for Christian living in the 21st century") is the best-selling hardcover book in U.S. history. In fact, Christian-based books are the fastest-growing segment of the publishing industry. The same is true for Contemporary Christian music.

As for movies and television, not too long ago NBC aired the weeks-long mini series "Revelations," depicting the Bible's End of Days. Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ was a blockbuster hit. There's also the 700 Club, as well as Life in the Word and Believer's Voice of Victory, all of which air on a daily basis. Every Sunday, evangelical Christian worship programs air nationwide, like the Hour of Power from the Crystal Cathedral. Trinity Broadcasting Network, The Inspiration Network, and the Eternal Word Television Network all appear on cable networks around the country.

Let's not forget Billy Graham. The pioneer of televangelism embarked upon his final evangelistic crusade this summer. To mark his retirement, talk-show hosts Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, and Chris Matthews all broadcast live from the crusade. So inspired was Matthews by Graham's proselytizing that he took his MSNBC show Hardball on the week-long "Church Tour: One Nation Under God."

Christians figure prominently on radio, too. The popular "Focus on the Family" radio show is listened to by four million people every day on 4,000 radio (and TV) stations in over 40 countries. American Family Radio owns nearly 200 radio stations throughout the United States. AFR has also successfully taken over the airwaves of National Public Radio in Louisiana, Oregon, and Indiana.

Remember when Pope John Paul II died? Of course you do. Coverage of his illness and death, followed by the selection of Pope Benedict XVI, dominated network and cable news for weeks. Don't think for a minute that the Dalai Lama's death would garner such rapt attention from the media.

Christmas and Easter are official government holidays. Not Ramadan or Yom Kippur. "The Ten Commandments" airs every year on national television. Jesus fish and Christian bumper stickers adorn cars everywhere. Public schools consider teaching "intelligent design" (a.k.a. creationism, a.k.a. the Book of Genesis) to counter the scientific theory of evolution. On and on and on.

The point is, all of their whining to the contrary notwithstanding, conservative and evangelical Christians play the dominant role in American government and society. No other religious or cultural group in America can hold a candle to Christians. For them to claim otherwise, that they are persecuted and discriminated against, is simply dishonest.

Red, White, and Without a Clue

2005-05-21T10:22:00.000-07:00

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, America naively asked in its stunned stupor, "Why do they hate us?" In consoling us, our fearless leaders appealed to our collective sense of superiority and self-righteousness by explaining that the Muslim world (a.k.a. "they") hate us because of what we stand for: freedom, democracy, Mom, baseball, and apple pie. Comforted, we patted ourselves on our collective back for being so gosh-darn wonderful and condemned the savage heathens who wanted nothing less than to destroy all that is right and good in the world -- us.

Thanks to a recent confluence of events involving our interaction with the Muslim world, it is clear that "they" do hate us for what we stand for. Unfortunately, what we stand for is not freedom, democracy, nor any other high-minded ideal. Rather, we stand for arrogance, barbarism, and violence.

Sure. We talk a lot about freedom and democracy and bringing such enlightenment to the Muslim world. The thing is, we stop far-short of actually putting those ideals into practice. Instead, we look at the people of the Muslim world as being somehow inferior and not really deserving of the noble gifts so generously bestowed upon them by America the Almighty. But, as pitying nobility, bestow we must.

Take, for instance, our penchant for torturing, degrading, and dehumanizing Muslims whom we routinely round up as part of our never-to-end war on terror. We note how those silly, unenlightened Muslim men are ashamed by nudity, so we stack them naked in human pyramids. We force them to masturbate in front of a crowd of gawking U.S. soldiers, men and women. We smear them with shit, or, better yet, with what they believe to be menstrual blood, fresh from a female soldier's crotch. We attach wires to their extremities and tell them, oh so teasingly, that if they move... zap!

We force them to dig their own graves, fire shots over their heads, and then laugh hysterically when the stupid sand-niggers realize in a mix of horror and relief that they really haven't been executed. Then, after the sub-human Muslims finish wetting themselves like untrained dogs, we chuckle a bit more and let them go.

We desecrate their holy text and mock their religion in order to break their spirits during interrogation. We kick the Koran, piss on it, shit on it, cut it up with scissors. With Rumsfeld's blessing, we confiscate their religious trinkets and forcibly shave their facial hair. But what's the big deal? After all, ours, the Christian god, is the only true god. Theirs is but a false idol, undeserving of respect, much less of worship and adulation. Indeed, according to legend, our god is the benevolent protector and savior of America, our blessed nation. Theirs is but a blood-thirsty savage, worshiped by other dirty, smelly, blood-thirsty savages.

We march into towns like al-Qaim and Fallujah, ostensibly to rout out "foreign fighters" who for some reason use our occupation of Iraq as an excuse for waging Jihad. In the name of efficiency, however, we bomb entire neighborhoods to kill a handful of insurgents. Non-insurgent townspeople are forced to evacuate and live in ad-hoc refugee camps in the desert, leaving what little they have behind. They struggle to stave off thirst and starvation as they watch plumes of black smoke replace their homes. After we declare victory and withdraw, those whom we claim to be liberating return to towns reduced to rubble, without power, water, or sewer. Even the hospitals are gone. We blew them up to kill the insurgents rumored to be hiding inside.

Who cares that the "liberated" have nothing to return to, no water to drink, no food to eat, no hospital for when they become sick with dysentery or cholera? Not us. We only care that our military was successful and that insurgents died. If the "liberated" dare complain about such collateral matters as dead or wounded loved ones or homes reduced to rubble, we write them off as just a bunch of Muslim ingrates who fail to appreciate how lucky they are to receive American benevolence.

The results of our inherent distaste for the Muslim world are evident. Thousands of ungrateful Shiites took to the streets of Iraq denouncing the U.S. occupation of their country. In an act of contemptuous disrespect for their liberating benefactors, the godless Shiites painted the American flag on the steps of their houses of unholy worship, desecrating it with each passing step. How dare they step on our flag, blessed by our god?

How dare they, indeed.

Maybe next time terrorists attack the United States (and there will be a next time), we won't be so stupid to ask, "Why do they hate us?"

Touching Evil: Holding Hands with Uzbekistan

2005-05-17T10:27:00.000-07:00

Last week, President Bush spoke to thousands of adoring fans in the former Soviet republic of Georgia. He spoke of freedom, liberty and justice and held up Georgia as an example for other nations to follow. Referring to Georgia's progression to democracy, Bush declared, "Now, across the Caucasus, in Central Asia and the broader Middle East, we see the same desire for liberty burning in the hearts of young people. They are demanding their freedom - and they shall have it."

Unless, of course, they happen to live in Uzbekistan.

Days after Bush got his ego stroked in Georgia, soldiers in Uzbekistan killed hundreds of civilians in the city of Andijon as they protested the arrest of several prominent business owners on charges of religious extremism. At one point, the protesters began calling for the resignation of Bush's "key ally" in his global war on terrorism, Uzbek President Islam Karimov.

That's when Uzbek soldiers opened fire into a crowd of women and children, and even Uzbek police officers, who begged the soldiers not to shoot. After the opening salvo, the soldiers walked among the hundreds of bodies, shooting the wounded. The dead were laid out for identification in front of a local school. On Monday, Uzbekis began digging a mass common grave under the watch of Uzbek forces.

While denying that his soldiers opened fire on the demonstrators, President Karimov attempted to keep reporters out of Andijon , as well as Pakhtabad where another 200 civilians were killed by Uzbek troops.

Over the weekend, Britain condemned the actions of the Uzbek government as "a clear abuse of human rights." The U.S., on the other hand, while "concerned" about the slaughter of hundreds of civilians in Uzbekistan, was "particularly" concerned with the escape of prisoners, "including possibly members of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan."

The claim about escaped terrorists was naturally made by the Uzbek government. There has not been any independent confirmation that terrorists were actually freed by the demonstrators. Any such claims by Uzbekistan are inherently incredible anyway. According to the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, Uzbek authorities frequently have political and human rights activists declared insane and involuntarily committed to stop their anti-government activities. Uzbekistan also has a record of arresting protest organizers and their families in order to prevent demonstrations. Additionally, on at least one occasion, officers of the Uzbek Antiterrorism Department beat political activists and threatened them with more serious harm if they engaged in protest activities.

In other words, Uzbekistan is not known for tolerating political dissidence.

Assuming for the sake of argument, however, that the demonstrations did lead to the release of suspected terrorists, what kind of statement is the U.S. making by de-emphasizing the deaths of hundreds of Uzbek citizens? The statement is that the U.S. is apparently less concerned about the reactionary slaughter of hundreds of people than it is about the alleged escape of a handful of possible terrorists. The U.S. is less concerned about the gross human rights abuses of the Uzbek government than it is about keeping a heavy-handed ally in Bush's infinite war on terror.

It is the same statement on Uzbekistan that the U.S. has made since Bush embarked upon his crusade. The U.S. has long known that, in the words of the State Department, "Uzbekistan is an authoritarian state with limited civil rights." The U.S. knows that the Uzbek government has a "very poor" human rights record and continues "to commit numerous serious abuses," as evidenced by the fact that its police and security service "tortured, beat, and harassed persons." In fact, the best thing the State Department could say in its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices about Uzbekistan was, "Unlike past years, there were no credible reports of persons dying in custody as a result of torture."

Talk about damning with faint praise.

Nonetheless, in spite of (or, more likely, because of) Uzbekistan's atrocious record of torture and human rights abuses, the U.S. sends terror suspects there for detention and interrogation. In other words, the U.S. sends terror suspects to Uzbekistan to be tortured. Knowing what it does about Uzbekistan's penchant for torture, particularly of suspected Islamic extremists, the U.S. cannot plausibly deny that it knowingly employs Uzbekistan to do its dirty work.

The U.S. has brokered a deal with the devil in its alliance with Uzbekistan. In exchange for military bases and torture facilities, the U.S. looks the other way as Karimov violently oppresses and kills the Uzbek people. As a result, the blood of hundreds of dead and thousands of wounded Uzbekis, gunned down for demanding the freedom Bush said they would not be denied, is now on our hands.

Crony Capitalists

2005-05-12T10:21:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday, May 10, 2005, and without a hint of shame, the Bush administration awarded Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) $72 million in bonuses for its "very good" and "excellent" work in Iraq.

Excuse me?

Just two months ago, the Justice Department indicted a KBR manager for "major fraud against the United States" under the same LOGCAP contract for which KBR is now being awarded bonuses. According to the indictment, former KBR manager Jeff Mazon billed the U.S. more than $5.5 million for $680,000 worth of work. In other words, Mazon inflated KBR's bill by over 700 percent.

By the way, that LOGCAP contract is a cost-plus-award-fee, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract. That means Halliburton/KBR supplies an indefinite quantity of supplies for an indefinite period of time, its costs are fully reimbursed, and it get paid an additional amount of 2 to 7 percent of those costs. Good work, if you can get it.

Bush & Co. decided to award KBR over $72 million in bonuses despite the fact that senior Halliburton/KBR officials perjured themselves before the House Committee on Government Reform back in July of 2004. At the time, the Committee was investigating allegations that Halliburton/KBR employees were taking kickbacks under the LOGCAP contract. At the hearing, Halliburton/KBR representatives testified, under oath, that none of their thieving employees were managers.

Oops. According to the federal indictment, Mazon was KBR's Procurement, Materials and Property Manager.

Aside from the LOGCAP contract, Halliburton/KBR has bilked and defrauded the U.S. for millions of dollars on other contracts associated with the "rebuilding" of Iraq. Investigations by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), revealed that Halliburton/KBR overcharged the U.S. no less than $212 million under its Restore Iraqi Oil (RIO) contract. The Bush administration awarded the RIO contract to Halliburton/KBR without asking for competitive bids.

Under the RIO contract, Halliburton/KBR was issued ten task orders for oil-related work throughout Iraq. While the Bush administration has repeatedly refused to provide Congress with any unredacted copies of the DCAA's audits of the ten task orders, the National Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Reform was able to obtain the audits for task orders 5 through 10. Those audits reveal that Halliburton/KBR overcharged by as much as 47.4 percent of the total value of the individual task orders. The average overcharge by Halliburton/KBR amounted to 12.6 percent of the task order value.

Ever-eager to defend the good name of the Vice President and his former company, Bush & Co. have repeatedly refused to provide Congress with the audit reports prepared by the DCAA. In fact, Bush & Co. made the extensive redactions to the audit reports at the specific request of Halliburton/KBR. Then, when the National Security Subcommittee threatened to subpoena the audit reports (after its requests for the audits were denied no fewer than 12 times), the Pentagon replied that "issuing a subpoena will not get the material released any faster."

Or, in the immortal words of our poetic Vice President, "Go fuck yourself."

In fairness, what good would it be to have the Vice President in your pocket if it didn't allow you to conceal evidence of your fraudulent activity and then get a $72 million bonus?

Regardless, Bush & Co. have decided to conceal the documented criminality of Halliburton/KBR despite Bush's earlier promise to the contrary. Upon the release of the DCAA's preliminary findings regarding the fraud and thievery of Halliburton/KBR, Bush declared at a press conference on December 12, 2003, that the DCAA's investigation would "lay the facts out for everybody to see."

Apparently, Bush doesn't include Congress and the American public in his definition of "everybody."

Fallujah -- Dresden in Iraq

2005-04-14T10:20:00.000-07:00

Although studiously ignored by the mainstream news media, last month came reports that the U.S. used napalm and chemical weapons in its assault upon the city of Fallujah. The assault of November 2004 resulted in the near-total destruction of the city, as well as the deaths of thousands of non-insurgent Iraqi civilians. If the reports about napalm and chemical weapons are true, not only would the U.S. be in violation of international law, it would be guilty of the very crimes against humanity that it previously leveled against Saddam Hussein and used as a justification for invading Iraq.

Reportedly, Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli of the Iraq Ministry of Health held a press conference last month and charged the U.S. with using napalm, mustard gas, and nerve gas when it attacked Fallujah in November 2004. Dr. ash-Shaykhli described "melted" bodies and fires that could not be put out with water. Similarly, Dr. ash-Shaykhli described entire sections of the city where nothing, neither cats nor dogs nor birds, was left alive, suggesting the use of chemical weapons.

Promptly, the United States denied Dr. ash-Shaykhli's allegations about mustard and nerve gasses. The U.S. even went so far as to deny the very existence of Dr. ash-Shaykhli or that anyone by that name ever worked for Iraq's Ministry of Health. According to the U.S., the false story about the U.S. military's use of chemical and nerve gasses in Fallujah was invented by a web site pretending to be that of the Qatari television network Al Jazeera.

Unfortunately, the U.S. denial of wrongdoing in Fallujah cannot withstand scrutiny.

For example, while the U.S. is correct that a fake Al Jazeera ("aljazeera.com") published a story about U.S. atrocities in Fallujah, the U.S. glosses over the fact that the real Al Jazeera ("aljazeera.net") published a similar story. On March 17, 2005, the real Al Jazeera reported on the wholesale killings of civilians by U.S. forces in Fallujah, including through the use of napalm. In that story, the real Al Jazeera provided eyewitness accounts of U.S. forces killing entire families, including women and children. Likewise, the real Al Jazeera reported that the U.S. raided the only hospital in Fallujah at the beginning of the assault in order to prevent reports of civilian casualties.

The U.S. has yet to attempt to discredit the story published by the real Al Jazeera.

Furthermore, U.S. denials about using prohibited weapons in Fallujah, particularly napalm, lack credibility inasmuch as the U.S. was forced to retract previous denials of similar accusations. On March 22, 2003, following the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that U.S. forces had used napalm. Noting that napalm had been banned by a United Nations convention in 1980 (a convention never signed by the U.S.), U.S. military spokesmen denied using napalm in Iraq. On August 5, 2003, however, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported that U.S. officials confirmed using "napalm-like" weapons in Iraq between March and April 2003.

In a feat of semantic hair-splitting of which Bill Clinton would have been proud, the U.S. claimed the incendiaries used in Iraq contained less benzene than the internationally-banned napalm and, therefore, were "firebombs" and not napalm. According to U.S. officials, had reporters asked about firebombs in March of 2003, the U.S. would have confirmed their use. Nonetheless, the U.S. was forced to concede that regardless of the technicalities, the napalm-like weapons were functionally equivalent to napalm. In fact, the difference between napalm and firebombs is so minute that U.S. forces still refer to the weapons as napalm.

With that kind of track-record, it is difficult to swallow the recent denials by the U.S. that it used napalm or any other banned weapons in Fallujah.

Such denials are even less convincing when contrasted with eye-witness reports of what happened in Fallujah. There are, first of all, the findings by Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhil of Iraq's Ministry of Health that U.S. forces used napalm and chemical weapons in Fallujah. However, even taking as true the U.S. claim that Dr. ash-Shaykhli never existed, much less worked for Iraq's Ministry of Health, he is not the only individual to claim that the U.S. used banned weapons in Fallujah.

For instance, on November 10, 2004, the San Francisco Chronicle quoted Kamal Hadeethi, a physician from a hospital near Fallujah, as saying, "The corpses of the mujahedeen which we received were burned, and some corpses were melted."

When he spoke from Baghdad on November 29, 2004 with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, American journalist Dahr Jamail recounted stories told to him by refugees from Fallujah. According to Jamail, the refugees described bombs which covered entire areas with fire that could not be extinguished with water and which burned bodies beyond recognition.

Likewise, in a November 26, 2004 story for the Inter Press Service, Jamail reported eye-witness accounts of U.S. forces using chemical weapons and napalm in Fallujah. Later, in a January 18, 2005 report for Electronic Iraq, Jamail reported eye-witness accounts of U.S. forces using bulldozers and dump-trucks to remove tons of soil from various sections of Fallujah. Eye-witnesses also described U.S. forces using water tankers to "power wash" some of the streets in Fallujah. It does not take a conspiracy-theorist to conclude that U.S. forces wanted to "decontaminate" the city and remove evidence of chemical weapons.

On November 29, 2004, Al Jazeera TV (the real Al Jazeera) interviewed Dr. Ibrahim al-Kubaysi in Baghdad after his medical delegation was denied access to Fallujah. In that interview, Dr. al-Kubaysi recounted eye-witness descriptions of blackened corpses and corpses without bullet holes strewn throughout the streets of Fallujah.

On February 26, 2005, the German newspaper Junge Welt published an interview with Dr. Mohammad J. Haded, a member of the medical staff of the Central Hospital of Fallujah, and Mohammad F. Awad, a member of the Iraqi Red Crescent Society who helped gather corpses in Fallujah for identification. In that interview, Dr. Haded described Fallujah as "Dresden in Iraq" and Awad recounted the "remarkable number of dead people [who] were totally charred." Dr. Haded also described how U.S. forces "wiped out" the hospital in Fallujah, attacked rescue vehicles, and destroyed a makeshift field hospital.

American documentary-maker Mark Manning made similar observations while in Fallujah, as reported in the March 17, 2005 edition of the Santa Barbara Independent. Manning visited Fallujah in January 2005 and interviewed Iraqi physicians who told him that the first target of U.S. forces in the November 2004 assault on Fallujah was the hospital and that ambulances were fair-game. Iraqi physicians told Manning they were certain chemical weapons had been used in Fallujah "because they handled many dead bodies bearing no evident sign of trauma." As for the use of napalm by U.S. forces, Manning returned home from Fallujah with photographs of charred corpses "whose clothes had been melted into their skin."

Michele Naar-Obed, of the Chicago-based Christian Peacemaker Team, also visited Fallujah in early 2005. Naar-Obed described her trip in the March 13, 2005 edition of the Duluth News Tribune of Minnesota. As with Manning, Naar-Obed described Iraqi physicians who were convinced that chemical weapons and napalm were used by U.S. forces in Fallujah. According to Naar-Obed, U.N. representatives confirmed to her reports of execution-style killings of handcuffed and blindfolded Iraqis, as well as reports of bodies that were burned and horribly disfigured.

Finally, on March 21, 2005, the Commission for the Compensation of Fallujah Citizens, established by the Iraqi transitional government, reported that approximately 100,000 wild and domesticated animals were found dead in Fallujah, killed by chemical or gaseous munitions.

An estimated 600 non-insurgent civilians died in the U.S. assaults upon Fallujah. Over half of them were women and children. According to an April 4, 2005 report by IRIN, a U.N. humanitarian information unit, as many as 70 percent of all structures were destroyed or rendered uninhabitable. There is similarly no water, electricity, or sewage treatment in Fallujah. Not surprisingly, a mission that was meant to pacify an insurgent stronghold ended up breeding anti-American hatred among Fallujah's survivors and their sympathizers.

U.S. denials of wrongdoing notwithstanding, there are numerous independent sources making similar reports about U.S. forces employing banned weapons in Fallujah, as well as targeting hospitals and civilians. In the face of such independent and corroborating reports, it is hard to escape the sickening conclusion that the U.S. violated international law and committed war crimes in its assaults upon Fallujah. In doing so, the U.S. became the evil the Bush administration has vowed to eradicate.

Suddenly, the Bush administration's open hostility toward the International Criminal Court in particular, and international law in general, makes a whole lot more sense.

Suffer the Children

2005-04-08T10:18:00.000-07:00

Last week, the United States denied the allegations of the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has doubled malnutrition among Iraqi children. The Bush Administration criticized Ziegler for "taking some information that in itself is difficult to validate and juxtaposing his own views which are widely known about the war in Iraq and suggesting the two are linked."

It is, of course, richly ironic that the Bush Administration, with an apparently straight face, leveled such criticisms against Ziegler. After all, as most recently reported by the presidential commission on intelligence leading up to the Iraq invasion, the Bush Administration based its decision to invade Iraq on information that could not be validated, principally because the information was either blatantly false or "dead wrong."

Moreover, it is now widely known that the Bush Administration longed to invade Iraq immediately following the attacks of 9/11, if not earlier. No one with even the most tenuous of grips on reality can sincerely say that the Bush Administration did not juxtapose its own widely-known views about invading Iraq with information that not only could not be validated but was, in fact, proven to be false, and then suggested a link between the two. Take, for instance, Vice President Cheney's block-headed insistence until as late as November 2004 that Iraq was involved in the attacks of 9/11.

Regardless of the Bush Administration's laughably hypocritical criticisms of Ziegler's statements, Ziegler is not alone in blaming the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq for increased rates of mortality and malnutrition among Iraqis, children in particular. In fact, Ziegler's comments were not based upon his own observations. Rather, they were based upon previous reports by and findings of UNICEF, the World Food Program, and Johns Hopkins University.

The organizations upon which Ziegler relied in criticizing the U.S. cannot be dismissed as mere America-bashers, motivated by politics. Indeed, according to the U.S. Agency for International Development, in 2003 nearly a third of Iraqi children suffered from malnutrition. Similarly, in April of 2003, the Congressional Research Service reported in "Iraq: Recent Developments in Humanitarian and Reconstruction Assistance," that the invasion of Iraq worsened the already fragile humanitarian situation in Iraq. The CRS report noted that before it was suspended on the eve of the invasion, the U.N. Oil-For-Food Program provided food and medicine to sixty percent of Iraq's 24 to 27 million citizens. With the abrupt suspension of the OFFP, between 14.4 and 16.2 million Iraqis promptly found themselves without the food or medicine upon which their lives depended.

The CRS report also predicted that the invasion of Iraq would increase malnutrition and the disruption of food supplies, as well as reduce access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation.

Verily, that prediction came to pass.

In its report to the International Reconstruction Fund Facility for Iraq in October of 2004, the Iraqi Ministry of Health reported that approximately twenty percent of urban households and more than fifty percent of rural households had no access to safe drinking water or adequate sanitation. According to the Ministry of Health, one third of all Iraqi children were chronically malnourished. In the first half of 2004 alone there were 8,253 reported cases of measles, compared with 454 reported cases for all of 2003. By the same token, there were nearly 12,000 reported cases of mumps in the first four months of 2004, while there were fewer than 7,000 reported cases for all of 2003. In March of 2003, UNICEF reported that Iraq had one of the highest mortality rates in the world for children under the age of five. One in four Iraqi children under the age of five, totaling nearly one million children, were malnourished. Nearly one quarter of all Iraqi children were born underweight, a situation only partly explained by the fact that sixty percent of Iraqi women were iron deficient. In its 2005 State of the World's Children, UNICEF reported that between 1990 and 2003, Iraq's mortality rate for children under five increased seven percent.

In July of 2003, increasing numbers of Iraqi children were reported to be suffering from malnutrition, as well as chronic diarrhea and vomiting. The increase was directly attributed to the lack of reliable electricity following the U.S. "shock and awe" campaign and subsequent invasion. The lack of electricity in Iraq caused water to be pumped at low pressure which, in turn, allowed sewage to seep into the system. As reported by the New York Times in September 2004, the water and sewage failures contributed to an outbreak of hepatitis E.

In November of 2004, the Washington Post reported that while acute malnutrition in Iraqi children under the age of five declined to four percent in 2002, it nearly doubled in 2004, spiking to 7.7 percent. The sharp increase translated to approximately 400,000 Iraqi children suffering from "wasting," a condition characterized by chronic diarrhea and extreme protein deficiency.

According to a study led by the Johns Hopkins Center for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies, published by The Lancet in October 2004, a conservative estimate of 100,000 excess deaths occurred since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Likewise, the risk of death increased more than two-fold, and risk of death from violence increased fifty-eight percent. Following the invasion, the estimated infant mortality rate in Iraq was fifty-seven deaths for every one thousand live births. Forty-six percent of all Iraqis killed by coalition forces were under fifteen. More than half of all Iraqis killed by the U.S.-led coalition of the willing were women and children.

The U.S., not surprisingly, dismisses the Lancet study as inaccurate and unverifiable. Then again, as General Tommy Franks so eloquently summarized U.S. policy toward Iraqi civilian casualties, "we don't do body counts." Inasmuch as the U.S. isn't interested in how many Iraqi civilians are killed or injured, its summary dismissal of the Lancet study lacks credibility. At any rate, in November 2004, The Economist scrutinized the Lancet study and deemed its statistical analyses and data-gathering techniques to be sound.

Bush and his cronies tend to rhapsodize about liberating the Iraqi people and freeing them from the wanton cruelty of a tyrannical despot. However, as evidenced by its callous disregard for the health and well-being of the Iraqi people, particularly Iraqi children, the U.S. government's intentions in Iraq are not and never were altruistic. By way of example, since the April 2003 CRS report mentioned above, all subsequent reports bear the title, "Iraq: Recent Developments in Reconstruction Assistance." The word "humanitarian" is nowhere to be found.

How fitting.

The Starving of the Five (Hundred) Thousand

2005-04-01T10:16:00.000-07:00

Ah, the hollow piety of the sanctimonious and self-righteous. They who shout and weep, curse and pray, toot horns and even juggle outside a Florida hospice where one very famous woman has died, and several other less-known and therefore unimportant people, gradually, slowly, and even painfully die. Sadly, none of them can die peacefully so long as the circus from on high is in town.

Genuflecting before poorly-made signs bearing poorly-conceived slogans, hands raised in order to be that much closer to Heaven, these self-declared men and women of faith clutch their personalized Bibles and bemoan the "black-robed tyrants" who sanctioned the "murder" of Terri Schiavo. In the same breath, many of these same God-fearing opponents of the Constitution and its separation of powers, praise their President Bush and other "saved" elected officials like Representative Tom DeLay and Senator Bill Frist for being honorable men by legislating increased activism in the federal judiciary for the sake of poor Terri. Of what use is the Constitution, after all, when it cannot save the chosen or, at least, increase one's political capital?

Honorable men, indeed.

Yes, Terri Schiavo starved to death. Starvation, however, is something with which she was entirely familiar. After all, it was her self-imposed starvation which ultimately placed her in her final state of persistent vegetation. Tragic though her plight may be, it was Terri's own actions that set the stage for her tragedy. Likewise, as determined by courts of law (activist and tyrannical though they might be), upon review of evidence to which the general public has not been privy, Terri preferred death over a persistent state of mere existence. According to those courts, bodies for which our fair President and his disciples have little need and less respect, the evidence of Terri's wishes was clear and convincing.

In short, Terri had choices.

Those condemned to death by St. George the Pious and St. Thomas the Just, and the "honorable men" who preceded them, didn't and don't have such choices. By way of example, the ordinary citizens of Iraq were long subjected to sanctions imposed by the honorable men of the United States through the United Nations, before the U.S. relegated U.N. to the dustbin of irrelevance. After ten years, those sanctions were responsible for the deaths of nearly a quarter-million Iraqi children. Many starved to death.

Increasing the number of dead Iraqi children were the 90,000 tons of bombs dropped on Iraq's civilian infrastructure during the U.S.-led Gulf War air campaign. Ninety percent of Iraq's electricity-generating facilities were destroyed, as well as water-pumping and sanitation systems. Raw sewage flowed through Iraqi streets and contaminated the drinking water, resulting in an explosion of infectious disease.

By 2000, thirteen percent of all Iraqi children died before they could turn five, more than double the child-mortality rate before the imposition of sanctions. By 2000, twenty-five percent of Iraqi children suffered from chronic and frequently irreversible malnutrition. Nine percent suffered from acute malnutrition.

In 1995, then-U.N. Ambassador Madeline Albright, when asked about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, remorselessly said, "[W]e think the price is worth it."

Apologists for U.S. policy argue that Saddam Hussein did far more to harm his people than sanctions ever did. Granted, Saddam Hussein must bear a significant portion of the blame for such deaths, particularly for his regime's obstruction of the Oil-for-Food program. Be that as it may, for years the U.S. deliberately turned a blind eye to the prohibited trade of Iraqi oil, trade which undermined the Oil-for-Food program and enriched only Saddam and his corporate partners in crime. Regardless, justifying U.S. behavior by comparing it to that of Saddam Hussein is, quite simply, asinine.

Moreover, the honorable men of the United States intended to deprive ordinary Iraqis of food and drinkable water through sanctions and massive bombing. During the Gulf War, Iraq's electrical grid was deliberately targeted by U.S. "smart" bombs in order to degrade the civilian infrastructure and accelerate the impact of the sanctions regime. In January of 1991, just before the start of the Gulf War and six months into the sanctions regime, the U.S. predicted that Iraq's ability to provide clean drinking water could not last more than six months. As a result, the U.S., with gruesome accuracy, predicted epidemics of cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid.

Having achieved their desired end of killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, the U.S. then repeatedly blocked U.N. humanitarian projects aimed at alleviating the suffering it had created. The U.S. blocked international efforts to permit foreign companies to mill flour for Iraq to curb the unconscionable rate of civilian deaths from malnutrition. The U.S. also blocked efforts to provide Iraq with water tankers, arguing they could be used to haul Iraq's much-celebrated but never-located chemical weapons. The U.S. thus denied Iraqis access to potable water despite the insistence of UNMOVIC that tankers designed to carry water could not also carry chemicals.

In today's parlance, the U.S. blocked every effort to have Iraq's feeding tube reinserted.

The pious and the holy did not protest the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children at the hands of the U.S. through its deliberate and calculated denial of food and water. Our sanctimonious elected officials did not pass ill-conceived and illegal legislation to end the suffering of Iraqi children. The falsely-pious pundits and politicians did not deem the starvation and thirst of the Iraqis sufficient bases to primp and preen before the cameras and congratulate themselves for being sufficiently familiar with the commands of the good book and the fundamentals of morality.

Instead, Saint George and his disciples, under false pretenses but with overwhelming popular support, decided to invade Iraq. The result? Sure, Saddam is gone. Good riddance. But unnoticed and unreported is that the already staggering rates of child malnutrition and child mortality have doubled and tripled, respectively, since the invasion. No demonstrations. No illegal legislation. No televised prayer vigils. Nothing.

What if Terri Schiavo were not white and Christian? What if she were, instead, a Muslim Arab? Would the self-righteous still have gathered outside her hospice and decried her court-sanctioned murder? Would they have given her a second thought? Would they have given her any thought at all?

Bush, Schiavo, and the Stench of Hypocrisy

2005-03-22T10:24:00.000-07:00

In the pre-dawn hours of March 21, 2005, and after being awakened to do so, President Bush signed into law the legally-questionable and politically-motivated bill entitled “An Act for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.” The bill allowed the family of Terri Schiavo to file suit in federal court in the hopes that her life could be forcibly sustained. Upon signing the bill President Bush declared, “[W]here there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life.”

An interesting statement from the man who, while Governor of Texas, presided over more executions of convicted felons than occurred in all the other States combined. A particularly hypocritical statement since, while Governor of Texas, Bush refused to grant clemency even in cases with serious questions and substantial doubts.

As revealed and discussed by Alan Berlow in his 2003 article for the Atlantic Monthly, “The Texas Clemency Memos,” Bush was presented with several pleas for clemency in which there were serious questions and substantial doubts which, according to now-President Bush, should have created a presumption in favor of life.

The most infamous of those cases was that of Terry Washington, a mentally-retarded thirty-three-year-old man with the communication skills of a seven-year-old child. In addition to the underlying moral and legal legitimacy of executing the mentally retarded (a practice since deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court), Washington's mental handicap was never presented to the jury which sentenced him, nor did his attorney retain a mental health expert to testify on Washington's behalf. Moreover, Washington's counsel never presented the substantial mitigating evidence that Washington and his ten siblings were all regularly beaten with whips, water hoses, extension cords, wire hangers, and fan belts. Such lapses by Washington's defense counsel commonly constitute ineffective assistance in capital cases.

None of these serious legal questions and substantial doubts about the adequacy of his representation excused Washington's heinous crime of murdering Beatrice Huling by stabbing her 85 times. However, the above factors clearly raised serious questions and substantial doubts as to the decision to condemn Washington to death instead of incarcerating him for life. According to President Bush, these serious questions and substantial doubts should have created a presumption in favor of sparing Washington's life. Governor Bush, apparently, was neither so enlightened nor so compassionate.

President Bush's hypocrisy on the Terri Schiavo bill is not limited to his refusal to spare the lives of convicted murders that were denied a fair trial. His hypocrisy extends to his disinterest in applying the presumption of life to helpless individuals similar to Terri Schiavo.

Also while governor of Texas, Bush signed into law the Advance Directive Act which authorizes physicians to refuse to honor a patient's advance directive, or the wishes of a patient's guardian, and discontinue life-sustaining medical care, including ventilators and feeding tubes. The Act was used March 15, 2005, to remove 6-month-old Sun Hudson from a ventilator at Texas Children's Hospital, his parents' wishes to the contrary notwithstanding. Hudson died is his mother's arms moments later.

Under the Act, a physician, with the approval of an ethics committee, may override an advance directive or a parent's wishes in so-called “futility cases” where continued treatment is not deemed medically beneficial. In the case of Terri Schiavo, the Florida state courts have consistently ruled that there is overwhelming medical evidence that she is in a permanent or persistent vegetative state, from which she cannot and will not ever recover. Mrs. Schiavo's cerebral cortex is gone, replaced by cerebral spinal fluid, an incurable condition. As explained by one Florida state court, “Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to replace her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for most of her private needs.”

Truly, Terri Schiavo's is a futility case. Under Texas law, enacted by the Texas legislature and signed by Governor Bush, regardless of whether Terri would want to live in such a condition, and regardless of her family's wishes, Terri's physicians could discontinue her life-sustaining treatment as non-beneficial. Apparently, President Bush thinks Texas’ Advance Directive Act is wrong and runs counter to the “culture of life” to which he so frequently refers. Luckily for President Bush, Terri Schiavo is in Florida, not Texas.

If President Bush truly thinks discontinuing life-sustaining measures is contrary to the “presumption in favor of life,” why was there no ad hoc federal legislation to save the life of young Sun Hudson? Was it because Hudson was black? Was it because his parents declined to exploit their helpless child and turn their personal tragedy into a three-ring media circus? Or was it simply that it would have been just a little too transparently hypocritical for Bush to contravene a State law he authorized?

Regardless of how the sad tale of Terri Schiavo ends, Bush's hasty signing of “An Act for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo,” and his sanctimonious declaration regarding “a presumption in favor of life,” reek of hypocrisy and political opportunism.

Supporting the Troops

2005-03-21T10:25:00.000-07:00

In a frame on my desk I have a statement that I came across on March 23, 2003. The invasion of Iraq had just begun and my brother, a sergeant in the Army, was over there, somewhere. My brother's reasons for joining the Army were his own, but he was my brother and I was sickened by the prospect of him killing and dying, particularly for a lie. That is why the following statement rang so true for me and why it still sits framed on my desk two years later.

"There are few areas of service to America more honorable than that of military service. Our sons and daughters step to the line and take their oath because they believe their nation to be the best on earth. Implicit in that oath, however, is a leap of faith on the part of these troops. They trust that they will not be used, that their lives will not be spent, in actions and wars that do not warrant the shedding of their blood. They trust their leaders when they put on that uniform. In this matter of war on Iraq, that trust has been betrayed, and these children of ours have paid the highest price for that betrayal." (www.truthout.org, 3/23/03)

Two years later the betrayal continues and is likely to continue for years to come. To date, 1,511 U.S. troops have died and 11,285 have been wounded (often severely and permanently) paying for our government's betrayal. At the same time, as many as 19,432 Iraqi civilians have died, with untold numbers wounded, traumatized, and displaced, all because Bush & Co. needed a proving ground for their doctrine of preemption. They cooked the books, doctored evidence, and hid inconvenient truths to justify their war, to justify the death and disfigurement of tens of thousands of people.

All of the justifications floated by Bush & Co. were proven to be lies. No weapons of mass destruction. No connection to Al Qaeda. No hand in 9/11. Nothing. The post hoc justification of liberating the Iraqi people from a tyrannical dictator was so transparent it would have been laughable if so many weren't dying and suffering for the joke.

Perhaps that is why it is so infuriating to see all the cars on the roads and in parking lots with those magnetic ribbons declaring "I Support Our Troops." Most are yellow. Some are a patriotic red, white, and blue. For those who fear looking overly gay with a dainty yellow ribbon on their Hummer, there are now macho camouflage ribbons available. My favorites are the ones with a cross inserted in the ribbon's loop. Because war is so Christian.

How exactly do these ribbon-toting folks support "their" troops? Do they demand that "their" troops be brought home immediately? Do they hold responsible the elected and appointed officials who fraudulently sent "their" troops into harm's way? Are they the least bit interested in really knowing why "their" troops are dying and suffering hand-over-fist while corporate coffers overflow? Do they support those troops who listened to their consciences and refused to kill or die for an unjust cause?

Somehow I doubt it.

More likely, the ribbon-people merely slap magnets on their SUVs, wish "their" troops well, and murmur something about war being a dirty business. Meanwhile, they pay more attention to speculations about Robert Blake's future in Hollywood than to reports that yet another one of "their" troops is dead because of our government's betrayal.

I propose a new slogan for all the ribbon-people who think a trendy magnet is enough: I Support the Killing of Our Troops. It would be a far more accurate reflection of the support they truly offer.

Torture's Our Business ... And Business is Good

2005-02-26T09:53:00.000-07:00

Who could forget President Bush's repeated invocations of liberty, freedom, and human rights in his second inauguration speech? It warmed the cockles of the heart to hear our beloved President wax poetic about the grand ideals for which America stands. It chills the soul to contrast Bush's lofty rhetoric with the awful truth perpetuated by our government.

The truth is, our government condones, promotes and even celebrates torture.

Promotes and celebrates? Indeed. Take, for example, the recent appointments of Alberto Gonzales and John Negroponte to the respective positions of Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence. It is by now well-known that Gonzales commissioned and signed off on what are colloquially known as the torture memos. In those memos, the Justice Department, at the behest of and now headed by Gonzales, bent over backwards to justify and “legalize” America's use of torture in Bush's war on terror, free of the “quaint” shackles of the Geneva Conventions.

As a result of the policies engendered by the torture memos, and with Gonzlaes’ imprimatur, torture was widely employed in such places as Abu Ghraib in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, and Bagram air base in Afghanistan. The United States’ use of torture in Abu Ghraib even led, in part, to Human Rights Watch to declare that the U.S. “eroded” global human rights in 2004. Gonzales' subsequent denunciation of torture and the torture memos came too late, coming as it did after his policies were put into practice. Not only did Gonzales' denunciation come too late, it smacked of political insincerity, particularly since Gonzales' assiduously avoided defining what he meant by torture. You can't denounce what you refuse to define.

Accordingly, Gonzales was appointed Attorney General of the United States.

John Negroponte has an even darker past. From 1981 to 1985, Negroponte was U.S. ambassador to Honduras. At the time, Honduras had become a central front in President Reagan's proxy war against communism in Central America. Before even arriving in Honduras, Negroponte was briefed on the Honduran government's use of “extralegal tactics,” including abduction and murder, to quash dissent. In fact, Negroponte was appointed ambassador to Honduras after the previous ambassador, Jack Binns, was removed as punishment for his crime of reporting human rights abuses in Honduras.

In his time as ambassador to Honduras, Negroponte never committed such indiscretions. Despite overwhelming daily evidence of institutionalized abductions, assassinations, and torture, Negroponte in particular, and the Reagan administration in general, denied that Honduras was anything but a haven for democratic ideals and respect for human rights. Negroponte maintained this deadly lie despite being rebuked by Honduran Congressman Efrain Diaz Arrivillaga for the U.S. government's refusal to take a stand against the Honduran government's murderous repression. As early as 1982, Negroponte was even presented with evidence of abductions, executions, and torture by an aid at the embassy, Rick Chidester, who was preparing the embassy's annual human rights report. While Chidester included descriptions of the abductions and executions in the draft report, the final report presented to the U.S. Congress was cleansed of such unpleasantness.

To this day, Negroponte denies any knowledge of anything untoward occurring on his watch in Honduras. According to Peter Kornbluh of the National Security Archive, Negroponte maintains his denial in the face of declassified documents which show that he ran Honduras on behalf of the Reagan administration. Those same documents show that Negroponte quashed reports from the embassy on human rights abuses committed by the Honduran military. Most disturbingly, Negroponte worked closely with General Gustavo Alvarez, a graduate of the U.S. Army's School of the Americas and head of the CIA-trained Battalion 3-16, a secret Honduran death squad.

For his loyal service, Negroponte was promoted to ambassador to the United Nations, ambassador to Iraq, and, most recently, Director of National Intelligence.

Aside from the disturbing tales of Gonzales and Negroponte, there is additional evidence of the United States' policy of embracing torture. Currently, the Bush administration is working to prevent U.S. pilots who were captured and tortured during the 1991 Gulf War from recovering damages from Iraq. Seventeen U.S. pilots sued Iraq for monetary and punitive damages and were awarded nearly $1 billion by a federal judge in 2003. In swooped the Bush administration, arguing that the lawsuit and the judgment should be dismissed on the grounds that the U.S. occupation of Iraq voided the plaintiffs' claims. Why? The Bush administration does not want to establish a legal precedent whereby its once and future torture victims can use federal law to sue the United States for damages.

Simultaneously, the Bush administration strenuously opposes the International Criminal Court, as well as the International Court of Justice. The proffered reason for Bush's opposition to both courts is that it would subject American soldiers and officials to punitive and frivolous litigation. In truth, however, the Bush administration is more concerned with legitimate lawsuits than hypothetical frivolous suits. It has reason to. In 1986 the ICJ entered judgment against the United States for engaging in and supporting military and paramilitary attacks against Nicaragua during Reagan's Contra war. The United States refuses to acknowledge the judgment or jurisdiction of the ICJ. Similarly, the U.S. does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC and, as evidenced by the U.S. position regarding Sudan, does everything in its power to subvert the court.

Our government, while paying lip service to freedom and human rights, brazenly promotes the subversion of those very ideals. While pretending to champion human dignity and the rule of law, our government subverts international law and promotes those responsible for inhumane practices and policies that can only be described as evil.

As shameful and horrific as the barbarism of the our government is, our silent complicity is worse. We sit on our hands and look away as our government debases, tortures, and murders in our name. For how long?

Remember Afghanistan?

2005-02-24T10:08:00.000-07:00

Does anyone remember Afghanistan, the first stop in Bush's “War On Terror” world tour? It wouldn't be at all surprising if no one did since only Newsweek, the Associated Press, and the Washington Post have full-time reporters in the country. With hundreds of reporters on the ground in Iraq, we hear daily about the successes and failures there, the atrocities committed there by insurgents and U.S. forces alike, as well as constant prognostications about the future of Iraq and its people. When it comes to Afghanistan, however, the home of Al-Qaeda, we hear almost nothing.

Pity. There is a lot to be heard.

This week, a report released by the U.N. Development Program raises significant concerns about the future stability of Afghanistan. While the report notes Afghanistan's improving economy and education, the report concludes that Afghanistan is teetering on the brink of chaos and could easily return to being a terrorist haven. In addition to the world's worst education system, Afghanistan has some of the world's worst rates of life expectancy (44.5 years), deaths of mothers during pregnancy (1 every 30 minutes), child mortality (20% under the age of 5), and adult literacy (28.7%). Currently, tens of thousands of homeless Afghans are struggling to survive the bitter winter. Hundreds have already died from exposure and disease.

Apparently, the abject suffering of the people purportedly liberated by the United States isn't worthy of mention on the nightly news.

While Afghanistan's democratic elections did manage to receive the fleeting attention of the American media, democracy isn't exactly flourishing there. The fact is, President Hamid Karzai's elected government has little influence outside of Kabul, the nation's capital. As before the elections, the remote, rural areas of Afghanistan remain under the control of warlords and remnants of the Taliban. These local power structures compete with and undermine Afghanistan's fledgling centralized government.

Further undermining Afghanistan's stability is its burgeoning drug trade. According to the International Monetary Fund, Afghanistan's opium trade is responsible for nearly 90% of the world's opium supply, generates about $2.8 billion in revenue, equals approximately 60% of Afghanistan's non-drug gross domestic product, and directly employs more than 10% of the population. Such enormous profits have led to the corruption of senior government officials and will only further weaken the already-fragile central government. Furthermore, drug economies fund terrorism and invariably plunge narco-states like Colombia into violent conflict and civil instability. There is no reason to think Afghanistan will be any different.

In sum, the dire conditions in which Afghans live, as well as the limited influence of the central government, makes them vulnerable to terrorist groups and warlords, who, enriched by the opium trade, can easily raise and sustain armies from impoverished populations by offering people food, shelter, and security. Should Afghanistan regress to a state of civil war it would again become a haven for terrorism. Nonetheless, despite the very real possibility of history repeating itself in Afghanistan, neither the government nor the media appear to be paying any attention.

Another story demanding more attention is that U.S. forces have tortured and abused prisoners as well as civilians in Afghanistan. Earlier this month, when U.N. human rights inspector Cherif Bassiouni reported incidences of torture and mistreatment by U.S. forces, the U.S. military flatly denied the allegations and claimed its prison conditions in Afghanistan were “humane”. Less than a week later, photos surfaced of U.S. soldiers torturing detainees in Afghanistan by subjecting them to mock executions. Likewise, Army Special Forces kicked and beat Afghan villagers to such a degree that Army psy-ops officers who witnessed the barbarism were compelled to report it. The U.S. now concedes that these examples of torture and abuse occurred without provocation and violated Army regulations as well as the Geneva Conventions. How humane.

One recent development in Afghanistan that has received some domestic attention is Senator John McCain's call for “permanent bases” in Afghanistan for U.S. military forces. Overlooked, however, is the irony of McCain's statement. The U.S. once waged a proxy war in Afghanistan to halt the expansion of the Soviet Union. Now, decades later, the U.S. intends to claim Afghanistan as its own. Who will halt our expansion? Other than ourselves, no one. However, as long as Americans continue to swallow government illusions regurgitated by the mainstream media, U.S. hegemony will continue unabated.

Despite the recent occurrences in Afghanistan, the American “news” media frets over Queen Elizabeth's snubbing of Charles and Camilla and questions the possibility of Michael Jackson receiving a fair trial. America should be terrified that “The Daily Show,” a self-declared fake news program, offers better analysis and more information than the so-called real news broadcasts on NBC, CBS, CNN, or FOX. It should be. Sadly, it is not.

The United States' Hypocritical Nuclear Policy

2005-02-16T10:09:00.000-07:00

With all of the recent talk about North Korea's not-so-surprising admission that it possesses nuclear weapons, as well as Iran's refusal to cease its pursuit of nuclear technology, it is worth considering the United States’ own policy. That policy, such as it is, basically boils down to this: the U.S. and its proxies (e.g., Israel) may possess nuclear weapons. Everybody else is a global threat.

Speaking of global threats, the U.S. twice used nuclear weapons in 1945, in the Japanese cities Nagasaki and Hiroshima, resulting in tens of thousands of civilian deaths and innumerable injuries, both immediate and gradual. No other nation, terrorist organization, or individual has proven itself as deadly and dangerous as the United States, the world's only nuclear aggressor.

It is estimated that as of January 2005 the U.S. has approximately 5,300 nuclear warheads stockpiled, as well as nearly 5,000 additional warheads maintained in inactive status. The U.S. has over 2,000 strategic warheads ready for rapid deployment. The U.S. Energy Department is working on the development of a nuclear “bunker buster,” officially known as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. The Energy Department has also initiated an “Advanced Concepts” research program whereby it is exploring new kinds of nuclear weapons technologies, specifically a low-yield (less than 5 kilotons) “mini-nuke.” Such research was made possible when, at the request of the Bush administration, Congress in 2004 repealed a 1994 law that prohibited development of any low-yield weapons. To date, approximately $16.8 million has already been spent on bunker-buster research with an additional $8.5 million currently requested in Bush's budget.

As reflected by the foregoing, as well as in its Nuclear Posture Review of 2001, the United States endeavors to make nuclear weapons more “usable” and envisions an enlarged range of circumstances in which they could be used, including against non-nuclear attacks or threats. Indeed, despite the fact that the State Department declared in 2003 that the U.S. does not target any countries with nuclear weapons, the U.S. has repeatedly reserved the right to preemptively use nuclear and conventional weapons against nations or groups threatening to use of weapons of mass destruction.

As with any do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do policy, the United States’ policy of researching and developing new nuclear weapons and technologies undermines its credibility when it advocates nonproliferation and condemns “rogue states” for pursuing their own nuclear technologies. Further undermining U.S. credibility is the Bush administration's arrogant rejection of and withdrawal from numerous nonproliferation treaties. For instance, the United States rejected the Enforcement Protocol of the Biological Weapons Convention which would have established a formal regime to ensure that nations lived up to their commitment to destroy and not produce, stockpile, or transfer biological weapons. Bush's rationale for rejecting it -- Iran supported it.

Likewise, in 2001 Bush withdrew the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, declaring that it hindered the ability of the U.S. to develop new weapons. That was the point, after all.

In 2004, the Bush administration voiced its opposition to and rejection of inspections and verification as part of the Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty. According to the Bush administration, it opposes inspections and verification on the premise that the FMCT cannot be “effectively verifiable.” This opposition to the FMCT puts the U.S. at odds with Australia, Canada, and Japan.

Additionally, Bush has refused to submit the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification or to categorically commit to halting all future tests. Without U.S. ratification of the CTBT, the treaty cannot enter into force. Nonetheless, Bush has said, in no uncertain terms, that he will not submit the CTBT to the Senate and that the U.S. may resume nuclear testing. Evidencing this intent to resume nuclear testing, Bush's Nuclear Posture Review calls for reducing the time frame for conducting tests from 3 years to 18 or even 12 months of a Presidential decision to do so. Congress has approved funds for this time reduction.

Most recently, the U.S. has been trying to remove Mohammed El Baradei as head of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency. Why? Not because El Baradei is ineffective. Rather, the U.S. wants El Baradei gone because he questioned U.S. intelligence on Iraq (he was right) and is critical of U.S. refusal to deal with Iran diplomatically. However, all 15 nations approached by the U.S., including Britain, Canada, and Australia, refused to back El Baradei's ouster. Indeed, a majority of the IAEA board asked El Baradei to serve for another five years.

Would the world be safer if North Korea or Iran did not have nuclear weapons? Certainly. It would be safer still if the U.S. adopted a coherent and sincere nuclear policy that led by example. However, as long as the U.S. pursues newer and “better” nuclear weapons while simultaneously undermining international efforts at nonproliferation, it will only enhance rather than diminish the nuclear threat.

The Boogeyman and Social Security

2005-02-14T09:45:00.000-07:00

President Bush devoted a large portion of his State of the Union address to describing the gloomy future of Social Security. Currently, he is gallivanting around the country in something reminiscent of a medicine show, doing his best to scare people into thinking Social Security is in "crisis" and will be "bankrupt" by the time younger workers begin to retire. He preaches before a background of charts and graphs, dripping red ink, showing Social Security in a kamikaze-like nosedive. He even goes so far as to admonish the young not to look at the charts, fearing that the images are too grisly for such tender youth. Then, after scaring everyone out of their wits, Bush declares that the only way to "save" Social Security and prevent future retirees from living on the streets in abject poverty is through personal savings accounts.

Is the future of Social Security really so dire? Economists far more knowledgeable than I don't seem to think so. In fact, according to the folks at Dollars and Sense magazine and the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Social Security, while far from perfect, is in much better condition than Bush would have us believe. As with the Boogeyman lurking under the bed, turn on the lights and things aren't so scary.

First, some background. The Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance Program, commonly known as Social Security, was enacted in the 1930's as part of FDR's New deal. Social Security is an insurance program that protects workers and their families from the income losses that come with retirement, disability, or death. It is a "pay as you go" system, whereby taxes paid by today's workers are not set aside to pay future benefits, but instead go to pay the benefits of current Social Security recipients.

As originally designed, Social Security supplemented pensions provided by the private sector. Since the 1960's, however, corporations have systematically eliminated pension systems so that today only 16% of all private-sector workers are covered by pensions. Thus, as a direct result of corporate efforts to maximize the bottom line, Social Security is now the primary source of retirement income for nearly two-thirds of America's retirees. Private-sector pensions have been replaced by defined-contribution savings plans such as 401(k)'s and 403(b)'s, which provide some retirement income but no protection from "longevity risk" (living too long). Unlike Social Security, which pays retirement benefits until death, once the savings of a defined-contribution plan are exhausted, that's it.

Social Security is not limited to retirement benefits. While 70% of Social Security funds do go to retirees, 15% go to disabled workers, and 15% go to workers' survivors. Thus, unlike Bush's personal savings accounts, Social Security shares risk across the entire workforce to ensure that all workers and their families are protected from the hardships of retirement, disability, and death. By contrast, Bush's plan would enable high-wage workers to profit from private retirement investment without contributing to the protection of lower-wage workers from their disproportionate risks of disability and death. Furthermore, Social Security, which spends less than 0.6 cents out of every dollar in benefits paid on administrative costs, is far more efficient than personal accounts. Under Bush's proposed system, 5 cents of every dollar would go to administrative costs.

But wait, you say. The Social Security Administration and Congressional Budget Office predict that the Social Security trust fund will be bankrupt by 2042 or 2052, respectively. Numbers don't lie, right? Maybe not. However, flawed assumptions can only lead to flawed conclusions.

For example, the SSA bases its projections on a forecast of only 1.6% annual labor productivity growth. The CBO projects 1.9% growth. However, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, between 1947 and 2003 productivity rates in the non-farm sector improved an average 2.3% annually. After adjusting 0.2% for the difference between productivity growth and the growth of the economy as a whole, economy-wide productivity is still 2.1% since World War II. Indeed, in no 20-year period, including the Great Depression, has the U.S. economy grown as slowly as projected by either the SSA or the CBO. Therefore, each year the economy grows faster than projected, the "zero balance" date moves farther into the future. This fact is borne out by a review of the SSA's past predictions for Social Security's bankruptcy. In 1996, the zero balance date was 2030; in 2000 it was extended to 2036; today that date is 2042. See a pattern?

Additionally, opponents of Social Security obsess over the concept of a "demographic imperative," to wit: in 1960, there were 5.1 workers per retiree, but in 1998 there were only 3.4 and by 2030 there will only be 2.1. According to opponents, this demographic decline in workers per retiree will result in insufficient funds to pay Social Security retirement benefits. Hard to argue with that. Again, however, the premise is flawed.

Social Security is not limited to retirement benefits but pays disability and death benefits, as well. Thus, it is the overall dependency ratio (the number of workers relative to all non-workers, not just retirees) that determines the future solvency of Social Security. In the 1960's, there were 1.05 workers for each Social Security dependent. In 2030, there will be 1.27 workers per dependent - more than in the past. Compounding the larger number of workers per dependents is the fact that average worker productivity over the past 50 years has increased approximately 2% annually, adjusted for inflation. Thus, real worker output doubles every 36 and is projected to continue to do so, meaning that workers in 2040 will be twice as productive as today. Such numbers don't add up to Social Security's bankruptcy.

Speaking of bankruptcy, the term "bankruptcy" implies that Social Security will cease to exist. However, even if the trust fund should be depleted, it will not mean that Social Security will simply turn off the lights and go out of business. Rather, it will merely revert to a purely "pay as you go system," as it was before 1984, and continue to pay current benefits with current tax revenues. Under such a worst-case scenario, workers' taxes would need to increase by only about 2%, and not until 2030.

To meet its unfunded obligations over the next 75 years, the Social Security trust fund needs $3.7 trillion. Equaling about 1.89% of taxable payroll and about 0.7% of GDP over the same period, $3.7 trillion is no small sum. However, it is far less than the 2% of GDP that Bush's 2001 to 2003 tax cuts will cost over the next 75 years if they are made permanent. Indeed, the CBO-projected shortfall for Social Security is only 0.4% of GDP, less than the 0.6% Bush's tax cuts will cost for the richest 1% of taxpayers alone. Indeed, Bush's tax cuts are disturbingly reminiscent of Reagan's cuts in the 1980's. Reagan's cuts created the largest government deficits up to that point, the slowest GDP growth rate aside from the Great Depression, interest rates four times higher than the historic average, and contributed to Congress raising payroll taxes in 1984 to pay for Social Security.

Perhaps this is the real reason Bush is so adamant about "fixing" Social Security with personal accounts: he needs to pay for his tax cuts. That and a near-religious opposition to government assistance to anyone other than the rich and powerful.

Ensuring the Future of the War on Terror

2005-02-11T09:43:00.000-07:00

It's official. The war in Iraq was not a mere diversion from the War on Terror, as Senator Kerry repeatedly alleged during the 2004 presidential campaign. As it turns out, President Bush was right - the war in Iraq is an integral part of the overall War on Terror. Thanks to the Iraq invasion, Iraq is now the new training ground for "professionalized" terrorists. These newly-trained professional terrorists will return home to share and implement their new skills. In other words, by invading Iraq, the United States has helped to ensure the future of the War on Terror. How incredibly prescient of President Bush and company.

As reported in the Washington Post on January 14, 2005, the National Intelligence Council, the think tank of the CIA, issued its new report on long-term global trends, entitled "Mapping the Global Future." As part of its report, the NIC concluded that Al-Qaida will eventually be replaced "by the dispersion of experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq." Currently, Iraq provides "recruitment training grounds, technical skills and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are 'professionalized' and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself."

According to the NIC, there has been a "revival of Muslim identity" that "will create a framework for the spread of radical Islamic ideology." The source of this revival? A "deepening solidarity among Muslims caught up in national or regional separatist struggles, such as Palestine, Chechnya,, Iraq, Kashmir, Mindanao, or southern Thailand." This solidarity "emerged in response to government repression, corruption, and ineffectiveness." As we already know, Islamists also seem to resent the presence of the American military in or near such holy places as Mecca and Najaf.

Muslims take exception to the desecration of their holy lands and the oppression and killing of fellow Muslims? Go figure.

Did anyone ever stop to think that the powers-that-be (political, religious, jihadist or otherwise) in the Middle East might view the incursion by the United States and its western ideals into the region similarly to how the United States viewed the rise of Communism in East Asia and Indochina? Might those in the Middle East be similarly concerned about a "domino effect" in the region, but instead of Communism it is American hegemony causing the dominoes to fall? Is it so inconceivable that the people of the Middle East might not cotton to the idea of the region being transformed into a springboard for American militarism or happy hunting grounds for American corporate interests?

Maybe, just maybe, the people of the Middle East, much like the people of Latin America in the 1980s, see right through the transparent hypocrisy of the United States. Maybe they can't or won't buy the feigned sincerity of the United States when it purports to "liberate" the Iraqi people from the rule of the tyrant that the United States propped up and supported for decades. Maybe they suspect that, like Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein simply outlived his usefulness to the United States.

Whatever their reasons, radical Islamists are drawn to Iraq like a magnet, to paraphrase NIC Chairman Robert L. Hutchins. Those jihadists who survive the Iraq conflict will, according to David B. Low, national intelligence officer for transnational threats, "go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries." How comforting.

This seems a far cry from the rosy scenario President Bush painted a month before the invasion of Iraq. At that time, Bush assured the nation that "a free Iraq can be a source of hope for all the Middle East." Bush further declared, "Instead of threatening its neighbors and harboring terrorists, Iraq can be an example of progress and prosperity in a region that needs both."

Let us consider America's extreme makeover of Iraq.

Before the invasion, Iraq's government was secular and any ties it allegedly had to jihadist terrorists were tenuous at best. There is no credible evidence that Iraq ever served as a haven for terrorists, much less as a training ground.

After the invasion, it can hardly be said that Iraq is "free" - not so long as it remains under foreign military occupation and innocent civilians continue to be killed in appalling numbers. Likewise, no one can honestly say that Iraq is a source of hope to the Middle East, at least not in the sense that President Bush surely intended. Whatever hope it does offer is to jihadists, terrorists, and insurgents who see every American casualty as a victory. Iraq offers hope to those caught up in the revival and spread of radical Islamist ideology. It offers hope to everyone determined to strike a blow at what much of the world views as the gravest danger to global security - the United States.

So President Bush was slightly off in his rosy predictions about Iraq. To err is human. What's more important is just how right President Bush was about Iraq being part and parcel of the overall War on Terror. Thanks to America's invasion and occupation of Iraq, there is now a whole new source for jihadist terrorists bent on America's destruction. Thanks to Iraq, the future of the War on Terror is that much more guaranteed.

See? Kerry really was just fear-mongering.

Still Playing Cute with the Law

2005-02-09T10:07:00.000-07:00

As the graphic images of torture, degradation, and abuse at Abu Ghraib slowly fade from America's collective consciousness and as scapegoats are prosecuted while those who created legal loopholes justifying torture are promoted to the President's Cabinet, it is worth noting that very little has actually changed. The U.S. and its proxies still engage in torture and abuse as part of the global war on terror. At the same time, the White House, Congress, and U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies continue, in the words of Senator Lindsey Graham, “playing cute with the law.”

Senator Graham’s comments were directed toward Alberto Gonzales during the confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning Gonzales’ nomination to Attorney General. During those hearings, as was widely reported, Gonzales denounced the use of torture and performed heroic feats of logic to distance himself from the now-infamous “torture memos.” While it may have been refreshing to some to hear Gonzales condemn the use of torture, less refreshing was his refusal to define torture itself. As a result, by means of a semantic shell game, Gonzales and the White House can continue to authorize “aggressive” interrogation techniques while simultaneously decrying torture. How cute.

Nonetheless, on February 7, 2005, the Human Rights Commission of the arbitrarily irrelevant United Nations decried the treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan at the hands of foreign coalition forces. As in Iraq, the vast majority of foreign troops in Afghanistan are from the U.S. and the U.S. is the only foreign force with detention facilities. According to the Commission, foreign troops, in “a very unusual practice,” have assumed the authority to arrest and detain people, without legal process, and then proceed to mistreat and even torture them.

Cherif Bassiouni, the Commission's independent expert on human rights in Afghanistan and a professor of law at DePaul University, alleged on February 7 that hundreds of detainees are being illegally detained because they were arrested as combatants and therefore are prisoners of war. With the “war” in Afghanistan over and the Taliban defeated, the Third Geneva Convention mandates the detainees’ release “without delay.” Rejecting allegations of any impropriety, spokesman for coalition forces in Afghanistan, Major Mark McCann explained, “We don't arrest people, we detain individuals during the course of combat operations.” (Emphasis mine) Furthermore, according to Major McCann, the U.S. is “abiding by the spirit of the Geneva Convention.” Considering the fact that the U.S. admitted in December that eight prisoners died in Afghanistan while in U.S. custody (including four known cases of murder or manslaughter), maybe it ought to be abiding by the letter of the Conventions. In other words, maybe it ought to stop playing cute with the Geneva Conventions.

Also on February 7, eleven detainees alleged they were abused by U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan before being transferred to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The detainees’ allegations include beatings with chains, sexual humiliation, electrocution, and sodomy with foreign objects. All eleven detainees are from Kuwait and claim they were coerced into falsely confessing to being members of either the Taliban or al-Qaida. According to Pentagon spokesman Major Michael Shavers, the allegations of torture by the eleven men “fit the standard operating procedure in al-Qaida training manuals.” Nonetheless, despite years’ of detention, none of the eleven men have been charged with anything.

Major Shavers’ protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the detainees’ allegations of torture and abuse are supported by a July 29, 2004 report by an FBI agent regarding his observations at Guantanamo.

According to the agent, detainees were chained to the floor in the fetal position without food or water and were usually left in their own urine and excrement for 24 hours or more; detainees were subjected to extreme heat and cold, on one occasion causing one detainee to literally rip the hair from his head; and at least one detainee was chained to the floor in an “unbearably hot" cell and subjected to extremely loud rap music for more than a day. In a report dated July 12, 2004, another FBI agent observed treatment "that was not only aggressive, but personally very upsetting.” Likewise, in a report dated December 5, 2003, an FBI agent reported Department of Defense interrogators posing as FBI agents while torturing inmates at Guantanamo. According to the agent, the use of torture “produced no intelligence of a threat neutralization nature” and “destroyed any chance of prosecuting” the detainees. The agent noted that if a tortured detainee were ever released from Guantanamo and his story made public, “DOD interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done by the ‘FBI’ interrogators.” Talk about cute.

Speaking of Guantanamo, on February 4, 2005, six United Nations human rights experts, including Bassiouni, issued a statement of “continued concern” regarding U.S. treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. In their statement, the six experts described recent U.S. efforts (at the behest of the U.S. Supreme Court) to bring practices at Guantanamo into compliance with both U.S. and international law as “insufficient to dispel the serious concerns.” The “serious concerns” include: the questionable legal basis for the continued detention of prisoners more than 18 months after the end of the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq; the uncertainty regarding the remaining duration of the prisoners' detention; the unknown number of detainees at Guantanamo, creating an environment conducive to the unacknowledged transfer of inmates to other unknown, usually secret, detention facilities; and the fact that most detainees still have no access to legal counsel and are still not presented with evidence providing the basis for their detention.

In the meantime, Alberto Gonzales, the White House's solicitor of the “torture memos,” was confirmed as Attorney General. He was confirmed despite the revelation during the confirmation hearings that he and the White House exempted the CIA and other non-military personnel from prohibitions against torture. Indeed, at the White House's behest, in December congressional leaders abandoned a measure that would have imposed new restrictions on the use of “extreme interrogation measures” by intelligence officers at the CIA and elsewhere. Similarly, Michael Chertoff, the White House's nominee for Secretary of Homeland Security, reportedly advised the CIA on the legality of coercive interrogation methods. As reported by the New York Times, Chertoff apparently advised CIA officials that they would not be prosecuted for making a detainee believe he was about to drown. While Chertoff denies such reports, he cannot deny that as a federal judge he held that an individual who was beaten with canes, kicked in the face, forced to confess to crimes and renounce his political affiliation to escape death was not tortured. Like Gonzales, Chertoff is sure to be confirmed.

Thus, in America, the self-declared protector of the rule of law, at least as far as torture is concerned, the beat (or beatings) goes on. Ain't it cute.

Ending Tyranny Through Hypocrisy

2005-02-04T09:39:00.000-07:00

In his inauguration speech this past week, President Bush referred repeatedly to America's policy of and dedication to ending tyranny and oppression through the promotion of freedom and liberty. Sounds nice. If only it were true.

According to President Bush, the United States will not ignore those living under oppression, nor excuse their oppressors. The United States (the corporate-governmental institution), however, has ignored the oppressed and excused the oppressors. It continues to do so even today.

Take Iraq, for example. Despite knowing that Iraq sponsored groups on the State Department's terrorist list, in 1982 the Regan administration removed Iraq from the state terrorism sponsorship list. As a result, Iraq became eligible for U.S. dual-use and military technology. By the end of 1983, the U.S. became aware of Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran and recognized that Iraq could use civilian helicopters to deploy such weapons. With that knowledge in hand, in 1983 the U.S. approved the sale of 60 Hughes and 10 Bell helicopters to Iraq. In 1988, Iraq used U.S. helicopters to spray chemical weapons on Kurds in Halabja. Up until the day before Iraq invaded Kuwait, the U.S. continued to approve millions of dollars of dual-use advanced technology sales to Iraq.

Only after Iraq became the focus of U.S. ire did the U.S. feign disgust and horror at Iraq's use of chemical weapons, particularly on its own people. Only after the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 and found no weapons of mass destruction did it condemn Iraq's oppressive regime.

Israel is another fine example. The wanton killings of Israeli citizens by Palestinian terrorists is widely reported. Equally horrific, though far less publicized, is the fact that in 2003 alone the Israeli army killed approximately 600 Palestinians, including more than 100 children. As reported by Amnesty International, most of those deaths were the result of reckless shooting, shelling, and bombing by Israeli forces in residential areas. Approximately 90 Palestinians were killed in extrajudicial executions, including more than 50 uninvolved bystanders, 9 of whom were children. Moreover, Israeli soldiers continue to use Palestinians as "human shields" during military operations.

Despite these acts of oppression and tyranny, and despite concerns of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, Israel continues to be the primary recipient of U.S. military aid.

Indeed, even members of President Bush's much-lauded "Coalition of the Willing" are guilty of oppression and tyranny. Amnesty International reports that in 2003, Uzbekistan detained at least 6,000 political prisoners, including women, holding them in cruel and inhuman conditions. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on torture reported on a visit to Uzbekistan in 2002 where he received numerous testimonies of systematic torture and abusive treatment. The Special Rapporteur concluded that torture and ill-treatment were condoned by Uzbek authorities.

Following the lead of the U.S., Pakistan in 2003 arbitrarily detained more than 500 people and handed them over to U.S. authorities as suspected members of al-Qaida or the Taliban. Hundreds more people were arrested and deported, all in furtherance of the U.S.-led "war on terrorism." Moreover, at least 631 Pakistani women and girls were murdered in "honor killings" in just the first 8 months of 2003.

Egypt has detained thousands of suspected supporters of banned Islamist groups without charge or trial. Many of the detainees have been held for years. In the first 6 months of 2003, Egypt arrested and detained hundreds of people, including lawyers, journalists, members of parliament, students, and academics for demonstrating against the invasion of Iraq. Some were held for several weeks in "administrative detention" (i.e., without charge), and many alleged being tortured and abused. Amnesty International described torture in Egypt as systematic and employed in detention facilities throughout the country. Several people have died in Egyptian custody under circumstances suggesting torture or abuse.

Of course, the most direct evidence of U.S. hypocrisy about ending tyranny and fostering freedom are the actions of the U.S. itself.

Removing the Rose-Colored Glasses

2005-02-02T09:52:00.000-07:00

Today, February 2, 2005, President Bush is to address the American people and inform them on the State of the Union. It is widely assumed, and even advertised by the White House, that Bush will devote much of his speech to the alleged success of the alleged elections in Iraq. Bush is expected to use the recent elections as justification for his decision to invade Iraq. A classic case of the ends justifying the means.

If the past few days are any indication, the American public and news media will swallow Bush's claims hook, line, and sinker. Little in the way of critical analysis has occurred or is likely to occur in the mainstream media regarding the elections in Iraq or the repercussions thereof. If such an analysis were undertaken, the picture from Iraq would be far less rosy.

What no one from Washington or the fawning American news media is acknowledging is that Iraqis did not risk their lives to legitimize the U.S. invasion and occupation of their country; they risked life and limb to end the occupation and rid Iraq of U.S. presence. Of course, that will never happen. Bush is not refusing to provide a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq not simply because it "plays into the enemy's hands," as claimed by Dan Barlett. Bush refuses to do so because the U.S. has no real intention of leaving Iraq. There are already four permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq with more being built. One does not build permanent military bases for a temporary occupation.

Further evidence of U.S. intent to remain in Iraq indefinitely was reported by Antonia Juhasz of Foreign Policy in Focus, the current interim Iraqi Finance Minister, Abdel Mahdi, told the National Press Club on December 22, 2004, that Iraq intends to amend its oil laws to allow complete privatization of Iraq's oil industry. Not coincidentally, Adbel Mahdi ran in the elections on the ticket of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution (SCIR), the leading Shiite political party in Iraq and considered the front-runner in the elections. The SCIR belongs to the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) party, a large tent created to consolidate the Shiite vote. As such, the UIA includes the Iraqi National Council (INC). The INC is led by Ahmed Chalabi, the source of much of the false information used by the Bush administration to justify its invasion of Iraq in the first place. The UIA garnered the endorsement, so to speak, of the Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani who issued a fatwa instructing Shiites to vote or burn in hell.

Connecting the dots, Ms. Juhasz sets out the following reasonable and rather compelling scenario: the Bush administration struck a deal the SCIR, guaranteeing SCIR's political power in exchange for Iraqi oil. As explained by Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies, Bush & Co. could strike such a deal because the U.S.-imposed Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) remains the law in Iraq regardless of the recent elections. The TAL cannot be amended without a super-majority of the newly-elected Iraqi National Assembly plus a unanimous agreement by the presidency council. The likelihood of either requirement being fulfilled is near zero given the range of constituencies which must be satisfied (not to mention the animosity between the Kurds and the Shia, the two factions likely to garner the most power from the elections).

All of this naturally leads to questions regarding the legitimacy of the elections in Iraq. Sure, everyone by now has heard that Iraq's Sunni population, who largely boycotted the elections, have declared the elections illegitimate. They may have a point. As explained by Ms. Bennis, the Iraqi elections were illegitimate as they were held under conditions of a hostile foreign military occupation, in violation of the Hague Convention of 1907, to which the U.S. is a signatory. The Hague Convention prohibits an occupying power from instituting any permanent changes to the government of the occupied territory. Despite such prohibitions, the elections in Iraq were conducted pursuant to an electoral law and overseen by an electoral commission created and imposed by the U.S., an occupying power. The elections took place under such violent circumstances that voters could not learn the names of candidates and were subjected to shoot-to-kill curfews.

According to criteria identified by the U.S.-based Carter Center (founded by former President Jimmy Carter and with experience monitoring elections world-wide for more than a decade), the Iraqi elections were illegitimate. According to the Carter Center, the criteria for legitimate elections include voters' ability to vote in a free and secure environment, candidates' ability to have access to voters for campaigning, a freely chosen and independent election commission, and voters' ability to vote free of fear and intimidation. The elections in Iraq failed to meet any of these criteria.

But hey, none of this matters because Bush and his cronies have declared the elections a success and Iraq is now a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. Who would dare to challenge such a declaration? Apparently, at least in the U.S., virtually no one.

Why We Know Rice is Lying

2005-01-20T09:49:00.000-07:00

Today the confirmation hearings began for Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice. With no doubt about her ultimate confirmation, the hearings could not be expected to result in much of anything interesting. It was a given that Rice would be questioned regarding the invasion of Iraq and, specifically, the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. Such questions were indeed asked with Democrats feigning conviction and doing their best to perpetuate the myth that there is some meaningful distinction between Democrats and Republicans. I say feigned conviction since any "tough" questions asked by Democrats are sure to be immediately followed by the abject acquiescence to President Bush's appointment of Dr. Rice.

Nevertheless, there was an exchange during the hearings that will surely make it to the highlight reels of the evening news (minus any analysis, of course). As reported by Reuters, there was a "heated" exchange between Dr. Rice and California Senator Barbara Boxer. Sen. Boxer accused Dr. Rice that she and the Administration sent U.S. troops into Iraq "because of weapons of mass destruction." Then, admonishing Dr. Rice that it was "too soon" to "rewrite history," Sen. Boxer accused Dr. Rice of changing the mission in Iraq when no WMD were found. (An aside: note that Sen. Boxer did not condemn outright the prospect of rewriting history. Rather, Sen. Boxer merely opposes the premature rewriting of history. All things in good time.)

In response, Dr. Rice declared that "it wasn't just weapons of mass destruction." Indeed, according to Dr. Rice's testimony, the U.S. invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein supported terrorism, attacked Kuwait and Israel, and need to be deposed in light of the realities of a post-September 11 world. Then, the piece de resistance: Dr. Rice asked that Sen. Boxer "refrain from impugning [Rice's] integrity" or from implying that Dr. Rice "take[s] the truth lightly."

Perish the thought.

On January 23, 2003, the New York Times published a column by Dr. Rice entitled "Why We Know Iraq is Lying." In that column, Dr. Rice laid out the case for war against Iraq. The focus of Dr. Rice's column was exclusively Iraq's alleged failure to voluntarily disarm in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. Dr. Rice hammered away at Iraq's failure to provide inspectors with unimpeded and unrestricted access to weapons facilities, as well as Iraq's "high-level commitment to maintain and conceal its weapons." Again and again, Dr. Rice discussed the many and various ways Iraq had failed to rid itself of WMD.

In a press briefing on February 24, 2003, Dr. Rice talked only about Resolution 1441 and Iraq's material breach thereof. Dr. Rice explained that 1441 provided the U.S. with all the authorization necessary to invade Iraq and force it to disarm itself of its WMD. Likewise in an interview with ZDF German Television on July 13, 2003. So too in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN Late Edition, also on July 13, 2003.

No mention of supporting terrorism. Nothing about attacks on Kuwait and Israel. (Certainly nothing about Israel's unprovoked attack on Iraq.)

So, what are we to make of all this? Did Saddam's alleged support of terrorism contribute to the decision to invade Iraq? Possibly. What about his invasion of Kuwait and launching of missiles into Israel? Perhaps. The truth is, there may have been a litany of reasons why Dr. Rice and the Bush Administration believed it was necessary to invade Iraq - shoring-up American military presence in the Middle East, perpetuating American hegemony, ensuring American access to the world's second-largest oil reserves, etc. However, these were not the reasons presented to the American public by Dr. Rice or the Administration. The presented reason for invading Iraq was the threat posed to the United States by Saddam's alleged possession of WMD - Saddam Hussein was a "grave and gathering threat" to the United States because he possessed WMD.

This conclusion is borne out by the results of a survey released on January 16, 2003 by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. According to that survey, seventy percent of Americans opposed going to war with Iraq if U.N. inspectors failed to uncover weapons programs. Likewise, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll from March 22-23, 2003 showed that a majority of those polled believed war with Iraq was justified only if WMD were found.

In sum, regardless of Dr. Rice's alleged regard for the truth, she and the rest of the Bush Administration sold the Iraq war to the American people on the basis of WMD. Oh yeah. There was that thing about Iraq's connection to 9/11. By now, however, only Dick Cheney clings to that outright lie.

Condi need not worry - neither the Senate nor the news media will further impugn her unassailable integrity. She'll be rubber-stamped as the new Secretary of State where she will continue her refusal to take the truth lightly.

Narrowing the Divide

2005-01-13T09:37:00.000-07:00

Everyone is familiar with California's "three strikes" law. Get three criminal convictions, go to prison for life. With little fanfare, the White House was recently outed on its "no strikes" policy. As reported on January 3, 2005, the White House is preparing to end the "indefinite" incarceration of some "unlawful enemy combatants." Good news you say? Sorry. It now plans to hold them permanently. To that end, the Pentagon has built a new 100-cell prison, dubbed "Camp 5," on Guantanamo Bay. It also plans to ask Congress for $25 million to construct "Camp 6," with an additional 200 beds.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman described Camps 5 and 6 as the "evolutionary" solution to a "long-term" problem of the United States' global war on terror: what to do with those detainees who will never appear before any form of tribunal due to a lack of evidence. Camp 6 would be specifically for those detainees the government believes have no further intelligence to be extracted. The detainees won't have it so bad - Camp 6 will be modeled after U.S. prisons and the detainees will be allowed to "socialize." So what that they'll never again see the light of day.

In short, the United States intends to permanently imprison individuals. Those individuals will never receive even minimal due process - not out of concerns for national security - but, according to the government, because there is insufficient evidence to warrant imprisonment.

When asked about the White House's new "long-term" plans, Scott McClellan characteristically avoided providing a straight answer, preferring to distinguish a "prison" from a "detention facility." Instead, he trotted out the White House mantra of "a different kind of war" against an enemy "unlike any we have ever seen before," with "no regard for the rule of law."

Kettle, please meet Pot.

This is nothing new, of course. The White House, since the inception of its never-to-end war on terror, has consistently ignored the law while simultaneously decrying the enemy as lawless. The White House, until very recently, considered the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and considered only trauma akin to "organ failure" to be within the definition of torture. At the same time it (rightfully) condemns the beheadings in Iraq as barbarous without the slightest acknowledgment that torture and executions fall within the same continuum of evil.

At that same press conference, Mr. McClellan further distinguished "us" from "them" by pointing out that "they have no regard for innocent civilians." If only the White House and Pentagon had such regard. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, civilian casualties have far out-paced those of combatants. Granted, those casualties can be attributed, in part, to the nature of the conflicts themselves - close quarters, urban warfare, non-uniformed enemies, etc. However, such civilian casualties can be (theoretically) justified only if one believes that invading Afghanistan and Iraq were necessary measures. If, on the other hand, the invasions were not necessary ....

Assuming the United States was justified in invading both sovereign nations and bombing them into oblivion (Shock and Awe, anyone?), where is the regard for innocent civilians? When presented with evidence of civilian casualties, the United States shrugs its shoulders, mumbles something about regrettable accidents, and then moves on. Accepting as true the White House's post facto basis for invading both countries - to liberate the subjects of despots and tyrants - one would think it would take every possible measure to ensure it did not kill the recipients of its beneficence.

Additionally, how many times may one commit a regrettable accident before the act is no longer considered accidental? Once? Twice? Hundreds of times? When does a regrettable accident become indifference? If one indifferently kills innocent civilians, does one really have any regard for their deaths?

Then again, one must break some eggs to make an omelette. What are the deaths of a relatively few innocent civilians when compared to "saving" entire nations? One can almost hear terrorists offering the same justification for their actions.