UPDATE: Bush admin covered up McCain’s objections to sleep deprivation to provide legal cover for the practice
The Bush administration “misrepresented” Sen. John McCain’s views on torture in order to create a legal justification for the use of sleep deprivation on terrorist suspects, Time magazine reported Monday.
A newly declassified memo from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, written in 2007, states: “Several Members of Congress, including the full memberships of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and Senator McCain, were briefed by General Michael Hayden, Director of the CIA, on the six techniques that we discuss herein. … In those classified and private conversations, none of the Members expressed the view that the CIA detention and interrogation program should be stopped, or that the techniques at issue were inappropriate.”
But “contrary to those claims, the Arizona Republican repeatedly raised objections in private meetings, including one with Hayden, about the use of sleep deprivation as an interrogation technique,” Time reports.
“Senator McCain clearly made the case that he was opposed to unduly coercive techniques, especially when used in combination or taken too far — including sleep deprivation,” Brooke Buchanan, a spokeswoman for McCain, told the magazine.
The news that McCain objected to the use of sleep deprivation “call[s] into question the legal conclusions that allowed harsh interrogation in late 2007,” Time reports, because under the Fifth Amendment, a punishment cannot be constitutional if it “shocks the conscience.”
Thus, if some members of Congress had expressed reservations about sleep deprivation, “the technique would have been illegal under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which applied constitutional standards to the treatment of CIA detainees,” Time reported.
“One thing is clear,” writes blogger Emptywheel at Firedoglake. “Someone at the CIA is still lying about its torture briefings to Congress.”
ORIGINAL STORY FOLLOWS BELOW
Sen. John McCain disagrees with former Vice President Dick Cheney’s claim that enhanced interrogation techniques helped keep the country safe.
“I think the interrogations were in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the convention against torture that we ratified under President Reagan,” McCain told CBS’ Bob Schieffer Sunday.
“I think these interrogations, once publicized, helped al Qaeda recruit. I got that from an al Qaeda operative in a prison camp in Iraq… I think that the ability of us to work with our allies was harmed. And I believe that information, according go the FBI and others, could have been gained through other methods,” said McCain.
McCain disagreed with Attorney General Holder’s decision to probe interrogation techniques that went beyond legal recommendations, saying he agreed with President Barack Obama that the country needs to “look forward,” not back.
“But the damage that [enhanced interrogation] did to America’s image in the world is something we’re still on the way to repairing,” added McCain. “This is an ideological struggle, as well as a physical one.”
Video of Sen. McCain’s appearance on Face the Nation follows below.
WILL: TRUTH COMMISSION NEEDED
Conservative columnist George Will has added his voice to those who are calling for a truth commission to investigate the use of enhanced interrogation techiniques.
“We ought to have a commission [as] Fred Hiatt in The Washington Post suggests this morning,” said Will.
“Khalid Sheikh Mohamed was reticent,” Will said. “He was waterboarded 183 times and became loquacious. Did that have something to do with that? And was he useful? Because whether or not these techniques are immoral, or how immoral they are, surely depends on whether they worked.”
Video at source
Monday, August 31, 2009
Cheney Says Cooperation With CIA Probe "Will Depend"
8/30/2009
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Vice President Dick Cheney said he might refuse to speak with a prosecutor investigating suspected CIA prisoner abuses, a probe he branded as political and bad for national security.
Cheney has been one of the fiercest critics of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's decision last week to name a new special prosecutor to look deeper into harsh interrogations of captured terrorism suspects during the Bush administration.
Asked whether he would talk to prosecutor John Durham if eventually sought out, Cheney told "Fox News Sunday": "It will depend on the circumstances and what I think their activities are really involved in. I've been very outspoken in my views on this matter."
The cases under investigation include a mock execution, use of a power drill to scare a prisoner and the waterboarding of accused September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times.
"I'm very proud of what we did in terms of defending the nation for the past eight years, successfully," Cheney said in a recorded interview. "And it won't take a prosecutor to find out what I think. I've already expressed those views."
Cheney said he did not know at the time which methods were used in specific cases but defended the interrogators, saying "the enhanced interrogation techniques were absolutely essential in saving thousands of American lives."
The decision to name a prosecutor could create political headaches for President Barack Obama and distract lawmakers from his drive to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system.
On Sunday, Republic lawmakers renewed their concerns about the investigation while one of Obama's key allies sought to distance the president from Holder's decision.
Democratic Senator John Kerry said he believed "there's a little bit of a tension between the White House itself and the lawyers and the Justice Department.
"And in a sense, that's good, that's appropriate, because it shows that we have an attorney general who is not pursuing a political agenda but who is doing what he believes the law requires him to do," Kerry told ABC's "This Week."
Prominent Republicans including Senator John McCain, a former presidential candidate and torture survivor during the Vietnam War, said they were concerned about the investigation's impact on morale at the CIA.
A Washington Post report on Sunday cited former intelligence officials saying CIA morale was sagging.
"I worry about the morale and effectiveness of the CIA," McCain told CBS's "Face the Nation." "I worry about this thing getting out of control and us harming our ability to carry on the struggle that we're in with radical Islamic extremism."
Senator Diane Feinstein, a Democrat who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she understood Holder's decision but questioned why he did not wait for her committee to finish a bipartisan investigation.
"I think the timing of this is not very good. The intelligence committee has under way now a total look at the interrogation and detention techniques used for all of the high-value detainee," Feinstein told CBS.
__________________
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Vice President Dick Cheney said he might refuse to speak with a prosecutor investigating suspected CIA prisoner abuses, a probe he branded as political and bad for national security.
Cheney has been one of the fiercest critics of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's decision last week to name a new special prosecutor to look deeper into harsh interrogations of captured terrorism suspects during the Bush administration.
Asked whether he would talk to prosecutor John Durham if eventually sought out, Cheney told "Fox News Sunday": "It will depend on the circumstances and what I think their activities are really involved in. I've been very outspoken in my views on this matter."
The cases under investigation include a mock execution, use of a power drill to scare a prisoner and the waterboarding of accused September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times.
"I'm very proud of what we did in terms of defending the nation for the past eight years, successfully," Cheney said in a recorded interview. "And it won't take a prosecutor to find out what I think. I've already expressed those views."
Cheney said he did not know at the time which methods were used in specific cases but defended the interrogators, saying "the enhanced interrogation techniques were absolutely essential in saving thousands of American lives."
The decision to name a prosecutor could create political headaches for President Barack Obama and distract lawmakers from his drive to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system.
On Sunday, Republic lawmakers renewed their concerns about the investigation while one of Obama's key allies sought to distance the president from Holder's decision.
Democratic Senator John Kerry said he believed "there's a little bit of a tension between the White House itself and the lawyers and the Justice Department.
"And in a sense, that's good, that's appropriate, because it shows that we have an attorney general who is not pursuing a political agenda but who is doing what he believes the law requires him to do," Kerry told ABC's "This Week."
Prominent Republicans including Senator John McCain, a former presidential candidate and torture survivor during the Vietnam War, said they were concerned about the investigation's impact on morale at the CIA.
A Washington Post report on Sunday cited former intelligence officials saying CIA morale was sagging.
"I worry about the morale and effectiveness of the CIA," McCain told CBS's "Face the Nation." "I worry about this thing getting out of control and us harming our ability to carry on the struggle that we're in with radical Islamic extremism."
Senator Diane Feinstein, a Democrat who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she understood Holder's decision but questioned why he did not wait for her committee to finish a bipartisan investigation.
"I think the timing of this is not very good. The intelligence committee has under way now a total look at the interrogation and detention techniques used for all of the high-value detainee," Feinstein told CBS.
__________________
Sunday, August 30, 2009
US plans for ‘imperial’ presence in Pakistan
By Karamatullah K. Ghori
Sunday, 30 Aug, 2009 | 02:55 PM PST |
Pardon the Pakistani news media going gaga over Washington’s plans to beef up, extraordinarily, its diplomatic presence in Pakistan. The plans are staggering and stupendous, for want of more descriptive adjectives. But they are, for the record, just geared to Washington’s diplomatic stake in Pakistan, lest the Pakistanis routinely clobbered in the ‘civilised western world’ for their outbursts of emotions over supposedly petty little things.
‘The Americans are coming, and coming big,’ according to media pundits in Pakistan. And none should blame them for going over the top because the figures being bandied about are, to say the very least, flabbergasting.
What’s on the drawing boards in Washington and Islamabad are the blue prints for vastly increasing the number of American personnel manning one of the most important diplomatic presence in the 21st century for the Americans in Pakistan. Apparently, Washington feels that its battery of 750 men and women stocking the American Embassy in Islamabad is far too inadequate to cope with the job on their hands. They need to be given a big injection to inflate their muscles. The magic potion said to be brewing would add at least another thousand people on what’s being described as a ‘war footing.’ That would take US diplomatic presence in Islamabad way above the current largest American diplomatic mission in Beijing, China; the number there stands at a paltry 1450.
The US Congress agrees with the mandarins at the State Department and has allocated 940 million dollars for the embassy in Islamabad and a number of American consulates, particularly those in Karachi and Peshawar. The fortress-like new consulate on Karachi’s Arabian Sea is spread over six acres of prime land, given to them at a throw-away price, of course. What are friends for, after all, and the Americans, don’t forget, have powerful friends in very high places in Pakistan.
(Meanwhile, US ambassador Anne Patterson, reacting to media reports, has said that the number of Marines in the new embassy would be less than 20. They would be accommodated in a bomb-proof facility. At present the embassy has 250 regular staff, 200 visiting American staff and 1,000 local personnel. Another 500 would be added in next three years.)
The government of Pakistan is obviously chipping into these plans with a magnanimity that our ruling elite is so well-known for, as far as their overseas ‘friends’ are concerned. They may be tight-fisted and niggardly to their own people but for minders and mentors from the world beyond Pakistan, sky is the limit.
Little wonder, therefore, that a huge parcel of 18 acres of prime land in Islamabad’s exclusive diplomatic enclave has been ‘sold’ to the American Embassy for just one billion rupees, a fraction of its market worth. What is 18 acres between friends; peanuts when you think of how magnanimously Pervez Musharraf presented the whole of Pakistan to his American mentors over just a phone call from Colin Powell. It was a friendly transaction between two soldiers.
So the fortress in Islamabad, when built, will dwarf the mini-fortress of Karachi. It will be a city in its own right, a typical American enclave on Pakistan’s soil, with its own residential colony for the staff and all the requisite paraphernalia of entertainment and security to convey the American sense in spades to its denizens.
But wait. The Pakistani pundits have nothing to grudge the Americans their plans to replicate their America on a little patch of Pakistan. What worries them is what’s at the core of these huge plans of expansion, and what kind of people are coming in droves to Karachi, Islamabad and Peshawar with the obvious intent to cover all the bases in Pakistan.
Pakistan can’t seem to get rid of its perennial problem of being hyphenated with this or that of its neighbours in Washington’s esteem. It was India until not too long ago when American relations with India were taken to another, high, pedestal, with Pakistan left in a limbo to search its own station in American evaluation.
For a moment Pakistan thought it had jettisoned, for good, its hyphenated syndrome. But that feeling didn’t last long. The US is immersed deep into its Afghan adventure and Pakistan is back in its role of a key, front-line, ally. Hence Pakistan can’t be separated from Afghanistan; hence it must play out to the hilt its role of a soldier in a forward trench whose mission is to pull Washington’s chestnut out of the Afghan fire.
It doesn’t matter how Pakistan got involved in the Bush war on terror, or how Musharraf succumbed to the pressure. The ground reality, no matter how tart or unpalatable to a lot of Pakistanis, is that Pakistan is up to its eyeballs into America’s war and must pay the price of the follies of its rulers, past and present.
The US drew a seminal lesson from its involvement in World War II and that’s that America can best be protected, if not insulated from the outside world, by drawing its lines of defence in far off lands, in places wherever a threat to US security or its quest for global dominance may occur and must be pre-empted with maximum force.
The American wars in Korea and Vietnam were triggered by this policy of offence-being-the-best-defence. George W. Bush, an ardent practitioner of Pax Americana couldn’t be more articulate than coining the shibboleth of ‘taking the war to the enemy.’ The invasion of Afghanistan, on the heels of 9/11 was justified on this premise, besides being a prop to Bush’s dream of an imperial America holding the world in its thrall.
Barack Obama may be poles-apart from Bush on so many other things but shares his perception of fighting the enemy on its terrain. Add to it his own vision of winning the war in Afghanistan at any cost. So no price is too high once you commit yourself to achieving a goal; and Obama has his heart set on ferreting out victory of any sort in Afghanistan after having lost the one in Iraq.
But wars can’t be won cheap. They require elaborate logistics. Pakistan has become a cockpit of conflict and chaos spawned by its involvement in the Afghan imbroglio. So Pakistan must be primed to deliver according to Washington’s expectations. Logistics must be so arranged as to deal with Pakistan’s chaotic and turbulent scenario according to Washington’s master-plan for the area.
The logistics involve the building of fortresses bristling with hi-tech gadgetry that keeps the troublesome Pakistanis, or the Pakistani Taliban and their ilk, at a safe distance. That’s an essential tool of 21st century imperialistic reach. In the olden days of imperialism they used to occupy whole countries and convert them into colonies. Technological sophistication and advancement has offered better alternatives, dispensing with the archaic practice of outright colonies to intimidate the locals. Hence the logic and imperative for modern-day fortresses like the ones springing up from one end of Pakistan to another.
Those who have followed the American adventure in Iraq know what havoc mercenary American defence contractors wreaked there. Blackwater was a principal mercenary outfit to which the State Department outsourced its obligations in Iraq. Its gung-ho mercenaries raped and murdered Iraqis at will to such an extent that even the supine government of Noori Al-Maliki was forced to impel Washington to pull Blackwater’s notorious murderers out of Iraq.
The same Blackwater is now getting ready to replicate its Iraqi tactics in Pakistan and some of its operatives are already believed to be in action in Peshawar and its environs. The word has gone out that the Americans are keen to buy Peshawar’s lone 5-star hotel in order to accommodate the likes of Blackwater in luxury for special operations within Pakistan and beyond, in Afghanistan, of course.
The State Department has obviously drawn no lessons from its skewed Iraqi operations and seems willing to retry them in Pakistan. One shudders to think of the fallout of a lethal confrontation between the rogues of Blackwater, running berserk across the troubled North West Frontier Region just as they did in Iraq, and the trigger-happy Pakistani Taliban to whom these provocative aliens would be like red rag to an enraged bull.
The US is a global power charged with a self-anointed mission to fight wherever necessary to keep the terrorists away from its shores. Its history of such messianic adventures not only justifies war by any means but also sanctifies its actions. The question troubling the Pakistani minds is why should their rulers be so blind to this deadly game being played out on the Pakistani turf?
Sunday, 30 Aug, 2009 | 02:55 PM PST |
Pardon the Pakistani news media going gaga over Washington’s plans to beef up, extraordinarily, its diplomatic presence in Pakistan. The plans are staggering and stupendous, for want of more descriptive adjectives. But they are, for the record, just geared to Washington’s diplomatic stake in Pakistan, lest the Pakistanis routinely clobbered in the ‘civilised western world’ for their outbursts of emotions over supposedly petty little things.
‘The Americans are coming, and coming big,’ according to media pundits in Pakistan. And none should blame them for going over the top because the figures being bandied about are, to say the very least, flabbergasting.
What’s on the drawing boards in Washington and Islamabad are the blue prints for vastly increasing the number of American personnel manning one of the most important diplomatic presence in the 21st century for the Americans in Pakistan. Apparently, Washington feels that its battery of 750 men and women stocking the American Embassy in Islamabad is far too inadequate to cope with the job on their hands. They need to be given a big injection to inflate their muscles. The magic potion said to be brewing would add at least another thousand people on what’s being described as a ‘war footing.’ That would take US diplomatic presence in Islamabad way above the current largest American diplomatic mission in Beijing, China; the number there stands at a paltry 1450.
The US Congress agrees with the mandarins at the State Department and has allocated 940 million dollars for the embassy in Islamabad and a number of American consulates, particularly those in Karachi and Peshawar. The fortress-like new consulate on Karachi’s Arabian Sea is spread over six acres of prime land, given to them at a throw-away price, of course. What are friends for, after all, and the Americans, don’t forget, have powerful friends in very high places in Pakistan.
(Meanwhile, US ambassador Anne Patterson, reacting to media reports, has said that the number of Marines in the new embassy would be less than 20. They would be accommodated in a bomb-proof facility. At present the embassy has 250 regular staff, 200 visiting American staff and 1,000 local personnel. Another 500 would be added in next three years.)
The government of Pakistan is obviously chipping into these plans with a magnanimity that our ruling elite is so well-known for, as far as their overseas ‘friends’ are concerned. They may be tight-fisted and niggardly to their own people but for minders and mentors from the world beyond Pakistan, sky is the limit.
Little wonder, therefore, that a huge parcel of 18 acres of prime land in Islamabad’s exclusive diplomatic enclave has been ‘sold’ to the American Embassy for just one billion rupees, a fraction of its market worth. What is 18 acres between friends; peanuts when you think of how magnanimously Pervez Musharraf presented the whole of Pakistan to his American mentors over just a phone call from Colin Powell. It was a friendly transaction between two soldiers.
So the fortress in Islamabad, when built, will dwarf the mini-fortress of Karachi. It will be a city in its own right, a typical American enclave on Pakistan’s soil, with its own residential colony for the staff and all the requisite paraphernalia of entertainment and security to convey the American sense in spades to its denizens.
But wait. The Pakistani pundits have nothing to grudge the Americans their plans to replicate their America on a little patch of Pakistan. What worries them is what’s at the core of these huge plans of expansion, and what kind of people are coming in droves to Karachi, Islamabad and Peshawar with the obvious intent to cover all the bases in Pakistan.
Pakistan can’t seem to get rid of its perennial problem of being hyphenated with this or that of its neighbours in Washington’s esteem. It was India until not too long ago when American relations with India were taken to another, high, pedestal, with Pakistan left in a limbo to search its own station in American evaluation.
For a moment Pakistan thought it had jettisoned, for good, its hyphenated syndrome. But that feeling didn’t last long. The US is immersed deep into its Afghan adventure and Pakistan is back in its role of a key, front-line, ally. Hence Pakistan can’t be separated from Afghanistan; hence it must play out to the hilt its role of a soldier in a forward trench whose mission is to pull Washington’s chestnut out of the Afghan fire.
It doesn’t matter how Pakistan got involved in the Bush war on terror, or how Musharraf succumbed to the pressure. The ground reality, no matter how tart or unpalatable to a lot of Pakistanis, is that Pakistan is up to its eyeballs into America’s war and must pay the price of the follies of its rulers, past and present.
The US drew a seminal lesson from its involvement in World War II and that’s that America can best be protected, if not insulated from the outside world, by drawing its lines of defence in far off lands, in places wherever a threat to US security or its quest for global dominance may occur and must be pre-empted with maximum force.
The American wars in Korea and Vietnam were triggered by this policy of offence-being-the-best-defence. George W. Bush, an ardent practitioner of Pax Americana couldn’t be more articulate than coining the shibboleth of ‘taking the war to the enemy.’ The invasion of Afghanistan, on the heels of 9/11 was justified on this premise, besides being a prop to Bush’s dream of an imperial America holding the world in its thrall.
Barack Obama may be poles-apart from Bush on so many other things but shares his perception of fighting the enemy on its terrain. Add to it his own vision of winning the war in Afghanistan at any cost. So no price is too high once you commit yourself to achieving a goal; and Obama has his heart set on ferreting out victory of any sort in Afghanistan after having lost the one in Iraq.
But wars can’t be won cheap. They require elaborate logistics. Pakistan has become a cockpit of conflict and chaos spawned by its involvement in the Afghan imbroglio. So Pakistan must be primed to deliver according to Washington’s expectations. Logistics must be so arranged as to deal with Pakistan’s chaotic and turbulent scenario according to Washington’s master-plan for the area.
The logistics involve the building of fortresses bristling with hi-tech gadgetry that keeps the troublesome Pakistanis, or the Pakistani Taliban and their ilk, at a safe distance. That’s an essential tool of 21st century imperialistic reach. In the olden days of imperialism they used to occupy whole countries and convert them into colonies. Technological sophistication and advancement has offered better alternatives, dispensing with the archaic practice of outright colonies to intimidate the locals. Hence the logic and imperative for modern-day fortresses like the ones springing up from one end of Pakistan to another.
Those who have followed the American adventure in Iraq know what havoc mercenary American defence contractors wreaked there. Blackwater was a principal mercenary outfit to which the State Department outsourced its obligations in Iraq. Its gung-ho mercenaries raped and murdered Iraqis at will to such an extent that even the supine government of Noori Al-Maliki was forced to impel Washington to pull Blackwater’s notorious murderers out of Iraq.
The same Blackwater is now getting ready to replicate its Iraqi tactics in Pakistan and some of its operatives are already believed to be in action in Peshawar and its environs. The word has gone out that the Americans are keen to buy Peshawar’s lone 5-star hotel in order to accommodate the likes of Blackwater in luxury for special operations within Pakistan and beyond, in Afghanistan, of course.
The State Department has obviously drawn no lessons from its skewed Iraqi operations and seems willing to retry them in Pakistan. One shudders to think of the fallout of a lethal confrontation between the rogues of Blackwater, running berserk across the troubled North West Frontier Region just as they did in Iraq, and the trigger-happy Pakistani Taliban to whom these provocative aliens would be like red rag to an enraged bull.
The US is a global power charged with a self-anointed mission to fight wherever necessary to keep the terrorists away from its shores. Its history of such messianic adventures not only justifies war by any means but also sanctifies its actions. The question troubling the Pakistani minds is why should their rulers be so blind to this deadly game being played out on the Pakistani turf?
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Army judge: 9/11 lawyers can't see CIA 'black sites'
8/25/2009
WASHINGTON -- A military judge says defense lawyers for an alleged Sept. 11 plotter held at Guantánamo don't need to inspect secret CIA overseas prisons to determine whether the accused al Qaeda terrorist is competent to stand trial.
Judge Stephen Henley, an Army colonel, ruled Monday that the so-called black sites have likely changed enough since 2006 that an inspection would be of no use to Ramzi Bin al Shibh's Pentagon-appointed defense lawyers.
President George W. Bush ordered Bin al Shibh and 13 other so-called high-value detainees transferred to the U.S. Navy base in Cuba from clandestine CIA custody in September 2006.
Henley issued the ruling the same day the Justice Department announced it was expanding a career prosecutor's exploration of whether some CIA agents committed crimes during interrogations at their secret prisons.
Henley also set Sept. 22 for pretrial hearings on the competency question of whether Bin al Shibh, 37, a Yemeni and alleged al Qaeda lieutenant, and Saudi Mustafa al Hawsawi, 41, an alleged 9/11 financier, are each competent to defend himself at any upcoming conspiracy trial.
The Pentagon seeks the death penalty for the two men, as well as three others, notably alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. All five are held in a segregated prison camp at Guantánamo for former CIA captives.
President Barack Obama has ordered a Cabinet-level task force to decide whether the men accused of orchestrating the Sept. 11 hijackings that killed nearly 3,000 in New York, at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania should by tried by the military or in civilian court.
"Assuming that any facilities used to detain the accused prior to September 2006 still exist, the physical plant and on-site conditions are not likely to be those which existed at the time of the accused's detention and an inspection of the scene now would serve little purpose to document the facility which existed at that time," Henley ruled Monday.
He noted that, for the purposes of competency, an on-site inspection would have little "evidentiary value" since military defense lawyers have inspected his current prison facilities and in light of "the prosecution's apparent concession the accused [Bin al Shibh] suffers from a delusional disorder-persecutory type."
Henley also wrote in an Aug. 20 ruling that he does not expect to decide whether Bin al Shibh and Hawsawi are competent to face trial following the Sept. 22-25 competency hearing at Guantánamo.
He said he would not rule until after the presidential task force decides how to try the accused. Also, he said he may want more evidence.
Henley also ruled just days after The New York Times reported that the Justice Department is investigating whether three military defense lawyers for Guantánamo detainees showed their clients photographs of possible CIA interrogators, and whether doing that may have been illegal.
Justice spokesman Dean Boyd declined Tuesday to comment on whether the investigation was still on going.
WASHINGTON -- A military judge says defense lawyers for an alleged Sept. 11 plotter held at Guantánamo don't need to inspect secret CIA overseas prisons to determine whether the accused al Qaeda terrorist is competent to stand trial.
Judge Stephen Henley, an Army colonel, ruled Monday that the so-called black sites have likely changed enough since 2006 that an inspection would be of no use to Ramzi Bin al Shibh's Pentagon-appointed defense lawyers.
President George W. Bush ordered Bin al Shibh and 13 other so-called high-value detainees transferred to the U.S. Navy base in Cuba from clandestine CIA custody in September 2006.
Henley issued the ruling the same day the Justice Department announced it was expanding a career prosecutor's exploration of whether some CIA agents committed crimes during interrogations at their secret prisons.
Henley also set Sept. 22 for pretrial hearings on the competency question of whether Bin al Shibh, 37, a Yemeni and alleged al Qaeda lieutenant, and Saudi Mustafa al Hawsawi, 41, an alleged 9/11 financier, are each competent to defend himself at any upcoming conspiracy trial.
The Pentagon seeks the death penalty for the two men, as well as three others, notably alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. All five are held in a segregated prison camp at Guantánamo for former CIA captives.
President Barack Obama has ordered a Cabinet-level task force to decide whether the men accused of orchestrating the Sept. 11 hijackings that killed nearly 3,000 in New York, at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania should by tried by the military or in civilian court.
"Assuming that any facilities used to detain the accused prior to September 2006 still exist, the physical plant and on-site conditions are not likely to be those which existed at the time of the accused's detention and an inspection of the scene now would serve little purpose to document the facility which existed at that time," Henley ruled Monday.
He noted that, for the purposes of competency, an on-site inspection would have little "evidentiary value" since military defense lawyers have inspected his current prison facilities and in light of "the prosecution's apparent concession the accused [Bin al Shibh] suffers from a delusional disorder-persecutory type."
Henley also wrote in an Aug. 20 ruling that he does not expect to decide whether Bin al Shibh and Hawsawi are competent to face trial following the Sept. 22-25 competency hearing at Guantánamo.
He said he would not rule until after the presidential task force decides how to try the accused. Also, he said he may want more evidence.
Henley also ruled just days after The New York Times reported that the Justice Department is investigating whether three military defense lawyers for Guantánamo detainees showed their clients photographs of possible CIA interrogators, and whether doing that may have been illegal.
Justice spokesman Dean Boyd declined Tuesday to comment on whether the investigation was still on going.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Inhumane' CIA terror tactics spur criminal probe
By DEVLIN BARRETT and PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writers Devlin Barrett And Pamela Hess, Associated Press Writers –
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration launched a criminal probe Monday into "unauthorized ... inhumane" interrogations of terror suspects during President George W. Bush's war on terrorism, spurred by newly declassified revelations of CIA tactics including threats to kill one suspect's children and to force another to watch his mother sexually assaulted.
At the same time, President Barack Obama ordered changes in future questioning of detainees, bringing in other agencies besides the CIA under direction of the FBI and supervised by his own national security adviser. The administration pledged questioning would be controlled by the Army Field Manual, with strict rules on tactics, and said the White House would keep its hands off the professional investigators doing the work.
Despite the announcement of the criminal investigation, several Obama spokesmen declared anew — as the president has repeatedly — that on the subject of detainee interrogation he "wants to look forward, not back" at Bush tactics. They took pains to say decisions on any prosecutions would be up to Attorney General Eric Holder, not the White House.
Monday's five-year-old report by the CIA's inspector general, released under a federal court's orders, described harsh tactics used by interrogators on terror suspects after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Seeking information about possible further attacks, interrogators threatened one detainee with a gun and a power drill and tried to frighten another with a mock execution of another prisoner.
Attorney General Holder said he had chosen a veteran prosecutor to determine whether any CIA officers or contractors should face criminal charges for crossing the line on rough but permissible tactics.
Obama has said interrogators would not face charges if they followed legal guidelines, but the report by the CIA's inspector general said they went too far — even beyond what was authorized under Justice Department legal memos that have since been withdrawn and discredited. The report also suggested some questioners knew they were crossing a line.
"Ten years from now we're going to be sorry we're doing this (but) it has to be done," one unidentified CIA officer was quoted as saying, predicting the questioners would someday have to appear in court to answer for such tactics.
The report concluded the CIA used "unauthorized, improvised, inhumane" practices in questioning "high-value" terror suspects.
Monday's documents represent the largest single release of information about the Bush administration's once-secret system of capturing terrorism suspects and interrogating them in overseas prisons.
White House officials said they plan to continue the controversial practice of rendition of suspects to foreign countries, though they said that in future cases they would more carefully check to make sure such suspects are not tortured.
In one instance cited in the new documents, Abd al-Nashiri, the man accused of being behind the 2000 USS Cole bombing, was hooded, handcuffed and threatened with an unloaded gun and a power drill. The unidentified interrogator also threatened Nashiri's mother and family, implying they would be sexually abused in front of him, according to the report.
Other interrogators told alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, "if anything else happens in the United States, 'We're going to kill your children,'" one veteran officer said in the report.
Death threats violate anti-torture laws. The interrogator denied making a direct threat.
In another instance, an interrogator pinched the carotid artery of a detainee until he started to pass out, then shook him awake. He did this three times. The interrogator said he had never been taught how to conduct detainee questioning.
Top Republican senators said they were troubled by the decision to begin a new investigation, which they said could weaken U.S. intelligence efforts. Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said the revelations showed the Bush administration went down a "dark road of excusing torture."
Investigators credited the detention-and-interrogation program for developing intelligence that prevented multiple attacks against Americans. One CIA operative interviewed for the report said the program thwarted al-Qaida plots to attack the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan, derail trains, blow up gas stations and cut the suspension line of a bridge.
"In this regard, there is no doubt that the program has been effective," investigators wrote, backing an argument by former Vice President Dick Cheney and others that the program saved lives.
But the inspector general said it was unclear whether so-called "enhanced interrogation" tactics contributed to that success. Those tactics include waterboarding, a simulated drowning technique that the Obama administration says is torture. Measuring the success of such interrogation is "a more subjective process and not without some concern," the report said.
The report describes at least one mock execution, which would also violate U.S. anti-torture laws. To terrify one detainee, interrogators pretended to execute the prisoner in a nearby room. A senior officer said it was a transparent ruse that yielded no benefit.
As the report was released, Attorney General Holder appointed prosecutor John Durham to open a preliminary investigation into the claims of abuse. Durham is already investigating the destruction of CIA interrogation videos and now will examine whether CIA officers or contractors broke laws in the handling of suspects.
The administration also announced Monday that all U.S. interrogators will follow the rules for detainees laid out by the Army Field Manual. The manual, last updated in September 2006, prohibits forcing detainees to be naked, threatening them with military dogs, exposing them to extreme heat or cold, conducting mock executions, depriving them of food, water, or medical care, and waterboarding.
Formation of the new interrogation unit for "high-value" detainees does not mean the CIA is out of the business of questioning terror suspects, deputy White House press secretary Bill Burton told reporters covering the vacationing president on Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts.
Burton said the unit will include "all these different elements under one group" and will be located at the FBI headquarters in Washington.
The structure of the new unit the White House is creating would be significantly broader than under the Bush administration, when the CIA had the lead and sometimes exclusive role in questioning al-Qaida suspects.
Obama campaigned vigorously against Bush administration interrogation practices in his successful run for the presidency. He has said more recently he didn't particularly favor prosecuting officials in connection with instances of prisoner abuse.
Burton said Holder "ultimately is going to make the decisions."
CIA Director Leon Panetta said in an e-mail message to agency employees Monday that he intended "to stand up for those officers who did what their country asked and who followed the legal guidance they were given. That is the president's position, too," he said.
Panetta said some CIA officers have been disciplined for going beyond the methods approved for interrogations by the Bush-era Justice Department. Just one CIA employee — contractor David Passaro_ has been prosecuted for detainee abuse.
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration launched a criminal probe Monday into "unauthorized ... inhumane" interrogations of terror suspects during President George W. Bush's war on terrorism, spurred by newly declassified revelations of CIA tactics including threats to kill one suspect's children and to force another to watch his mother sexually assaulted.
At the same time, President Barack Obama ordered changes in future questioning of detainees, bringing in other agencies besides the CIA under direction of the FBI and supervised by his own national security adviser. The administration pledged questioning would be controlled by the Army Field Manual, with strict rules on tactics, and said the White House would keep its hands off the professional investigators doing the work.
Despite the announcement of the criminal investigation, several Obama spokesmen declared anew — as the president has repeatedly — that on the subject of detainee interrogation he "wants to look forward, not back" at Bush tactics. They took pains to say decisions on any prosecutions would be up to Attorney General Eric Holder, not the White House.
Monday's five-year-old report by the CIA's inspector general, released under a federal court's orders, described harsh tactics used by interrogators on terror suspects after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Seeking information about possible further attacks, interrogators threatened one detainee with a gun and a power drill and tried to frighten another with a mock execution of another prisoner.
Attorney General Holder said he had chosen a veteran prosecutor to determine whether any CIA officers or contractors should face criminal charges for crossing the line on rough but permissible tactics.
Obama has said interrogators would not face charges if they followed legal guidelines, but the report by the CIA's inspector general said they went too far — even beyond what was authorized under Justice Department legal memos that have since been withdrawn and discredited. The report also suggested some questioners knew they were crossing a line.
"Ten years from now we're going to be sorry we're doing this (but) it has to be done," one unidentified CIA officer was quoted as saying, predicting the questioners would someday have to appear in court to answer for such tactics.
The report concluded the CIA used "unauthorized, improvised, inhumane" practices in questioning "high-value" terror suspects.
Monday's documents represent the largest single release of information about the Bush administration's once-secret system of capturing terrorism suspects and interrogating them in overseas prisons.
White House officials said they plan to continue the controversial practice of rendition of suspects to foreign countries, though they said that in future cases they would more carefully check to make sure such suspects are not tortured.
In one instance cited in the new documents, Abd al-Nashiri, the man accused of being behind the 2000 USS Cole bombing, was hooded, handcuffed and threatened with an unloaded gun and a power drill. The unidentified interrogator also threatened Nashiri's mother and family, implying they would be sexually abused in front of him, according to the report.
Other interrogators told alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, "if anything else happens in the United States, 'We're going to kill your children,'" one veteran officer said in the report.
Death threats violate anti-torture laws. The interrogator denied making a direct threat.
In another instance, an interrogator pinched the carotid artery of a detainee until he started to pass out, then shook him awake. He did this three times. The interrogator said he had never been taught how to conduct detainee questioning.
Top Republican senators said they were troubled by the decision to begin a new investigation, which they said could weaken U.S. intelligence efforts. Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said the revelations showed the Bush administration went down a "dark road of excusing torture."
Investigators credited the detention-and-interrogation program for developing intelligence that prevented multiple attacks against Americans. One CIA operative interviewed for the report said the program thwarted al-Qaida plots to attack the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan, derail trains, blow up gas stations and cut the suspension line of a bridge.
"In this regard, there is no doubt that the program has been effective," investigators wrote, backing an argument by former Vice President Dick Cheney and others that the program saved lives.
But the inspector general said it was unclear whether so-called "enhanced interrogation" tactics contributed to that success. Those tactics include waterboarding, a simulated drowning technique that the Obama administration says is torture. Measuring the success of such interrogation is "a more subjective process and not without some concern," the report said.
The report describes at least one mock execution, which would also violate U.S. anti-torture laws. To terrify one detainee, interrogators pretended to execute the prisoner in a nearby room. A senior officer said it was a transparent ruse that yielded no benefit.
As the report was released, Attorney General Holder appointed prosecutor John Durham to open a preliminary investigation into the claims of abuse. Durham is already investigating the destruction of CIA interrogation videos and now will examine whether CIA officers or contractors broke laws in the handling of suspects.
The administration also announced Monday that all U.S. interrogators will follow the rules for detainees laid out by the Army Field Manual. The manual, last updated in September 2006, prohibits forcing detainees to be naked, threatening them with military dogs, exposing them to extreme heat or cold, conducting mock executions, depriving them of food, water, or medical care, and waterboarding.
Formation of the new interrogation unit for "high-value" detainees does not mean the CIA is out of the business of questioning terror suspects, deputy White House press secretary Bill Burton told reporters covering the vacationing president on Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts.
Burton said the unit will include "all these different elements under one group" and will be located at the FBI headquarters in Washington.
The structure of the new unit the White House is creating would be significantly broader than under the Bush administration, when the CIA had the lead and sometimes exclusive role in questioning al-Qaida suspects.
Obama campaigned vigorously against Bush administration interrogation practices in his successful run for the presidency. He has said more recently he didn't particularly favor prosecuting officials in connection with instances of prisoner abuse.
Burton said Holder "ultimately is going to make the decisions."
CIA Director Leon Panetta said in an e-mail message to agency employees Monday that he intended "to stand up for those officers who did what their country asked and who followed the legal guidance they were given. That is the president's position, too," he said.
Panetta said some CIA officers have been disciplined for going beyond the methods approved for interrogations by the Bush-era Justice Department. Just one CIA employee — contractor David Passaro_ has been prosecuted for detainee abuse.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Marines ignore Afghan opium so as not to upset locals
Associated Press
Published: Wednesday May 7, 2008
GARMSER, Afghanistan — The Marines of Bravo Company's 1st Platoon sleep beside a grove of poppies. Troops in the 2nd Platoon playfully swat at the heavy opium bulbs while walking through the fields. Afghan laborers scraping the plant's gooey resin smile and wave.
Last week, the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit moved into southern Helmand province, the world's largest opium poppy-growing region, and now find themselves surrounded by green fields of the illegal plants that produce the main ingredient of heroin.
The Taliban, whose fighters are exchanging daily fire with the Marines in Garmser, derives up to $100 million a year from the poppy harvest by taxing farmers and charging safe passage fees — money that will buy weapons for use against U.S., NATO and Afghan troops.
Yet the Marines are not destroying the plants. In fact, they are reassuring villagers the poppies won't be touched. American commanders say the Marines would only alienate people and drive them to take up arms if they eliminated the impoverished Afghans' only source of income.
Many Marines in the field are scratching their heads over the situation.
"It's kind of weird. We're coming over here to fight the Taliban. We see this. We know it's bad. But at the same time we know it's the only way locals can make money," said 1st Lt. Adam Lynch, 27, of Barnstable, Mass.
The Marines' battalion commander, Lt. Col. Anthony Henderson, said in an interview Tuesday that the poppy crop "will come and go" and that his troops can't focus on it when Taliban fighters around Garmser are "terrorizing the people."
"I think by focusing on the Taliban, the poppies will go away," said Henderson, a 41-year-old from Washington, D.C. He said once the militant fighters are forced out, the Afghan government can move in and offer alternatives.
An expert on Afghanistan's drug trade, Barnett Rubin, complained that the Marines are being put in such a situation by a "one-dimensional" military policy that fails to integrate political and economic considerations into long-range planning.
"All we hear is, not enough troops, send more troops," said Rubin, a professor at New York University. "Then you send in troops with no capacity for assistance, no capacity for development, no capacity for aid, no capacity for governance."
Most of the 33,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan operate in the east, where the poppy problem is not as great. But the 2,400-strong 24th Marines, have taken the field in this southern growing region during harvest season.
In the poppy fields 100 feet from the 2nd Platoon's headquarters, three Afghan brothers scraped opium resin over the weekend. The youngest, 23-year-old Sardar, said his family would earn little money from the harvest.
"We receive money from the shopkeepers, then they will sell it," said Sardar, who was afraid to give his last name. "We don't have enough money to buy flour for our families. The smugglers make the money," added Sardar, who worked alongside his 11-year-old son just 20 yards from a Marine guard post, its guns pointed across the field.
Afghanistan supplies some 93 percent of the world's opium used to make heroin, and the Taliban militants earn up to $100 million from the drug trade, the United Nations estimates. The export value of this harvest was $4 billion — more than a third of the country's combined gross domestic product.
Though they aren't eradicating poppies, the Marines presence could still have a positive effect. Henderson said the drug supply lines have been disrupted at a crucial point in the harvest. And Marine commanders are debating staying in Garmser longer than originally planned.
Second Lt. Mark Greenlief, 24, a Monmouth, Ill., native who commands the 2nd Platoon, said he originally wanted to make a helicopter landing zone in Sardar's field. "But as you can see that would ruin their poppy field, and we didn't want to ruin their livelihood."
Sardar "basically said, 'This is my livelihood, I have to do what I can to protect that,'" said Greenlief. "I told him we're not here to eradicate."
The Taliban told Garmser residents that the Marines were moving in to eradicate, hoping to encourage the villagers to rise up against the Americans, said 2nd Lt. Brandon Barrett, 25, of Marion, Ind., commander of the 1st Platoon.
In the next field over from Sardar's, Khan Mohammad, an Afghan born in Helmand province who lives in Pakistan and came to work the fields, said he makes only $2 a day. He said the work is dangerous now that Taliban militants are shooting at the U.S. positions.
"We're stuck in the middle," he said. "If we go over there those guys will fire at us. If we come here, we're in danger, too, but we have to work," said the 54-year-old Mohammad, who supports a family of 10.
An even older laborer, his back bent by years of work, came over and told the small gathering of Afghans, Marines and journalists that the laborers had to get back to work "or the boss will get mad at us."
Staff Sgt. Jeremy Stover, whose platoon is sleeping beside a poppy crop planted in the interior courtyard of a mud-walled compound, said the Marines' mission is to get rid of the "bad guys," and "the locals aren't the bad guys."
"Poppy fields in Afghanistan are the cornfields of Ohio," said Stover, 28, of Marion, Ohio. "When we got here they were asking us if it's OK to harvest poppy and we said, 'Yeah, just don't use an AK-47.'"
Published: Wednesday May 7, 2008
GARMSER, Afghanistan — The Marines of Bravo Company's 1st Platoon sleep beside a grove of poppies. Troops in the 2nd Platoon playfully swat at the heavy opium bulbs while walking through the fields. Afghan laborers scraping the plant's gooey resin smile and wave.
Last week, the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit moved into southern Helmand province, the world's largest opium poppy-growing region, and now find themselves surrounded by green fields of the illegal plants that produce the main ingredient of heroin.
The Taliban, whose fighters are exchanging daily fire with the Marines in Garmser, derives up to $100 million a year from the poppy harvest by taxing farmers and charging safe passage fees — money that will buy weapons for use against U.S., NATO and Afghan troops.
Yet the Marines are not destroying the plants. In fact, they are reassuring villagers the poppies won't be touched. American commanders say the Marines would only alienate people and drive them to take up arms if they eliminated the impoverished Afghans' only source of income.
Many Marines in the field are scratching their heads over the situation.
"It's kind of weird. We're coming over here to fight the Taliban. We see this. We know it's bad. But at the same time we know it's the only way locals can make money," said 1st Lt. Adam Lynch, 27, of Barnstable, Mass.
The Marines' battalion commander, Lt. Col. Anthony Henderson, said in an interview Tuesday that the poppy crop "will come and go" and that his troops can't focus on it when Taliban fighters around Garmser are "terrorizing the people."
"I think by focusing on the Taliban, the poppies will go away," said Henderson, a 41-year-old from Washington, D.C. He said once the militant fighters are forced out, the Afghan government can move in and offer alternatives.
An expert on Afghanistan's drug trade, Barnett Rubin, complained that the Marines are being put in such a situation by a "one-dimensional" military policy that fails to integrate political and economic considerations into long-range planning.
"All we hear is, not enough troops, send more troops," said Rubin, a professor at New York University. "Then you send in troops with no capacity for assistance, no capacity for development, no capacity for aid, no capacity for governance."
Most of the 33,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan operate in the east, where the poppy problem is not as great. But the 2,400-strong 24th Marines, have taken the field in this southern growing region during harvest season.
In the poppy fields 100 feet from the 2nd Platoon's headquarters, three Afghan brothers scraped opium resin over the weekend. The youngest, 23-year-old Sardar, said his family would earn little money from the harvest.
"We receive money from the shopkeepers, then they will sell it," said Sardar, who was afraid to give his last name. "We don't have enough money to buy flour for our families. The smugglers make the money," added Sardar, who worked alongside his 11-year-old son just 20 yards from a Marine guard post, its guns pointed across the field.
Afghanistan supplies some 93 percent of the world's opium used to make heroin, and the Taliban militants earn up to $100 million from the drug trade, the United Nations estimates. The export value of this harvest was $4 billion — more than a third of the country's combined gross domestic product.
Though they aren't eradicating poppies, the Marines presence could still have a positive effect. Henderson said the drug supply lines have been disrupted at a crucial point in the harvest. And Marine commanders are debating staying in Garmser longer than originally planned.
Second Lt. Mark Greenlief, 24, a Monmouth, Ill., native who commands the 2nd Platoon, said he originally wanted to make a helicopter landing zone in Sardar's field. "But as you can see that would ruin their poppy field, and we didn't want to ruin their livelihood."
Sardar "basically said, 'This is my livelihood, I have to do what I can to protect that,'" said Greenlief. "I told him we're not here to eradicate."
The Taliban told Garmser residents that the Marines were moving in to eradicate, hoping to encourage the villagers to rise up against the Americans, said 2nd Lt. Brandon Barrett, 25, of Marion, Ind., commander of the 1st Platoon.
In the next field over from Sardar's, Khan Mohammad, an Afghan born in Helmand province who lives in Pakistan and came to work the fields, said he makes only $2 a day. He said the work is dangerous now that Taliban militants are shooting at the U.S. positions.
"We're stuck in the middle," he said. "If we go over there those guys will fire at us. If we come here, we're in danger, too, but we have to work," said the 54-year-old Mohammad, who supports a family of 10.
An even older laborer, his back bent by years of work, came over and told the small gathering of Afghans, Marines and journalists that the laborers had to get back to work "or the boss will get mad at us."
Staff Sgt. Jeremy Stover, whose platoon is sleeping beside a poppy crop planted in the interior courtyard of a mud-walled compound, said the Marines' mission is to get rid of the "bad guys," and "the locals aren't the bad guys."
"Poppy fields in Afghanistan are the cornfields of Ohio," said Stover, 28, of Marion, Ohio. "When we got here they were asking us if it's OK to harvest poppy and we said, 'Yeah, just don't use an AK-47.'"
Friday, August 21, 2009
Ridge says he was pressured to raise terror alert
Ridge says he was pressured to raise terror alert
In book, ex-Homeland Security chief hints Bush aides wanted to sway vote
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3250127..._news-security/
updated 9:55 p.m. ET, Thurs., Aug 20, 2009
WASHINGTON - Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge claims in a new book that he was pressured by other members of President George W. Bush's Cabinet to raise the nation's terror alert level just before the 2004 presidential election.
Ridge says he objected to raising the security level despite the urgings of former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, according to a publicity release from Ridge's publisher. He said the episode convinced him to follow through with his plans to leave the administration; he resigned on Nov. 30, 2004.
Bush's former homeland security adviser, Frances Townsend, said Thursday that politics never played a role in determining alert levels.
Two tapes were released by al-Qaida in the weeks leading up to the election — one by terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and the other by a man calling himself "Azzam the American." Terrorism experts suspected that "Azzam the American" was Adam Gadahn, a 26-year-old Californian whom the FBI had been urgently seeking.
Townsend said the videotapes contained "very graphic" and "threatening" messages.
Townsend said that anytime there was a discussion of changing the alert level, she first spoke with Ridge and then, if necessary, called a meeting of the Homeland Security council comprising the secretaries of defense and homeland security, the attorney general and CIA and FBI directors. The group then made a recommendation to the president about whether the color-coded threat level should be raised.
"Never were politics ever discussed in this context in my presence," she said.
Asked if there was any reason for Ridge to have felt pressured, Townsend said: "He was certainly not pressured. And, by the way, he didn't object when it was raised and he certainly didn't object when it wasn't raised."
'Security or politics'?
Ridge's publicist, Joe Rinaldi, said Ridge was out of town and was not doing interviews until his book, "The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege ... and How We Can Be Safe Again," is released on Sept. 1.
Ridge writes in the book that the bin Laden tape alone did not justify a change in the nation’s security threat level but describes “a vigorous, some might say dramatic, discussion” on Oct. 30 to do so.
“There was absolutely no support for that position within our department. None,” he writes. “I wondered, ‘Is this about security or politics?’ Post-election analysis demonstrated a significant increase in the president’s approval rating in the days after the raising of the threat level.”
Rumsfeld, in a statement issued late Thursday by his spokesman Keith Urbahn, dismissed the allegations.
"We have no idea what Tom Ridge's book actually says. The storyline advanced by his publisher seemingly to sell copies of the book is nonsense," the statement said.
In 2004, Ridge explained why he didn't feel the terror alert should be raised. "We don't have to go to (code level) orange to take action in response either to these tapes or just general action to improve security around the country," he said then.
In 2005, months after he resigned, Ridge said his agency has been the most reluctant to raise the alert level. "There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?'" he said during a panel discussion in May 2005. But his book appears to be the first time he publicly attributes some of the pressure to politics.
The Homeland Security Department, which Ridge was the first person to lead, faced criticism in 2004 from Democrats who alleged that raising the alert level was designed to boost support for the Bush administration during an election year.
Ridge, a former Republican congressman and governor of Pennsylvania, was widely named as a potential running mate to John McCain in 2008 before the GOP candidate choice Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
In book, ex-Homeland Security chief hints Bush aides wanted to sway vote
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3250127..._news-security/
updated 9:55 p.m. ET, Thurs., Aug 20, 2009
WASHINGTON - Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge claims in a new book that he was pressured by other members of President George W. Bush's Cabinet to raise the nation's terror alert level just before the 2004 presidential election.
Ridge says he objected to raising the security level despite the urgings of former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, according to a publicity release from Ridge's publisher. He said the episode convinced him to follow through with his plans to leave the administration; he resigned on Nov. 30, 2004.
Bush's former homeland security adviser, Frances Townsend, said Thursday that politics never played a role in determining alert levels.
Two tapes were released by al-Qaida in the weeks leading up to the election — one by terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and the other by a man calling himself "Azzam the American." Terrorism experts suspected that "Azzam the American" was Adam Gadahn, a 26-year-old Californian whom the FBI had been urgently seeking.
Townsend said the videotapes contained "very graphic" and "threatening" messages.
Townsend said that anytime there was a discussion of changing the alert level, she first spoke with Ridge and then, if necessary, called a meeting of the Homeland Security council comprising the secretaries of defense and homeland security, the attorney general and CIA and FBI directors. The group then made a recommendation to the president about whether the color-coded threat level should be raised.
"Never were politics ever discussed in this context in my presence," she said.
Asked if there was any reason for Ridge to have felt pressured, Townsend said: "He was certainly not pressured. And, by the way, he didn't object when it was raised and he certainly didn't object when it wasn't raised."
'Security or politics'?
Ridge's publicist, Joe Rinaldi, said Ridge was out of town and was not doing interviews until his book, "The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege ... and How We Can Be Safe Again," is released on Sept. 1.
Ridge writes in the book that the bin Laden tape alone did not justify a change in the nation’s security threat level but describes “a vigorous, some might say dramatic, discussion” on Oct. 30 to do so.
“There was absolutely no support for that position within our department. None,” he writes. “I wondered, ‘Is this about security or politics?’ Post-election analysis demonstrated a significant increase in the president’s approval rating in the days after the raising of the threat level.”
Rumsfeld, in a statement issued late Thursday by his spokesman Keith Urbahn, dismissed the allegations.
"We have no idea what Tom Ridge's book actually says. The storyline advanced by his publisher seemingly to sell copies of the book is nonsense," the statement said.
In 2004, Ridge explained why he didn't feel the terror alert should be raised. "We don't have to go to (code level) orange to take action in response either to these tapes or just general action to improve security around the country," he said then.
In 2005, months after he resigned, Ridge said his agency has been the most reluctant to raise the alert level. "There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?'" he said during a panel discussion in May 2005. But his book appears to be the first time he publicly attributes some of the pressure to politics.
The Homeland Security Department, which Ridge was the first person to lead, faced criticism in 2004 from Democrats who alleged that raising the alert level was designed to boost support for the Bush administration during an election year.
Ridge, a former Republican congressman and governor of Pennsylvania, was widely named as a potential running mate to John McCain in 2008 before the GOP candidate choice Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
US Troops to Return to Iraq Despite Barack Obama’s Withdrawal Plan
by Oliver August
8/20/2009
The US military plans to send thousands of American soldiers back to the oil-rich north of Iraq to prevent a civil war between Arabs and Kurds.
President Obama told veterans at a convention in Phoenix that, for America, the Iraq war is going to end. (Alex Brandon)
The emergency move, which partially reverses a recent drawing- down, is the first major sign that President Obama's withdrawal plan may not work. He wants all US combat troops out of Iraq within 12 months.
Kurdish and Arab leaders have agreed in principle to allowing US soldiers into unsettled areas around Mosul and Kirkuk, according to General Ray Odierno, the top US military commander in Iraq. The troops will form joint units with Iraqi counterparts to subdue what has become the most volatile part of the country.
Many leaders in the region disagree about where the border should run between their territories and how oil revenues should be shared. "We have al-Qaeda exploiting this fissure that you're seeing between the Arabs and the Kurds, and what we're trying to do is close that fissure, that seam," General Odierno said.
Despite the developments in Iraq President Obama told a group of US veterans in Phoenix yesterday that he will stick to his plan.
"As we move forward, the Iraqi people must know that the United States will keep its commitments," he said. "And the American people must know that we will move forward with our strategy. For America, the Iraq war will end."
The veterans did not applaud this line in his speech but he was given a warmer reception when he pledged to reform the procurement process so that troops have the best equipment possible.
There was laughter at his example of military waste - a billion- dollar helicopter that would allow the President to cook during a nuclear war: "If the United States is under nuclear attack, the last thing on my mind will be whipping up a snack," he said.
More than 100 people have been killed in mixed Arab-Kurdish areas this month, including car bombings that have destroyed villages near Mosul. Inside the city, armed men killed two policemen and wounded one civilian at a checkpoint yesterday.
"I'm still very confident in the overall security here," General Odierno said. "Unfortunately they're killing a lot of innocent civilians."
In yet another sign of how unstable the region is, the authorities have cancelled a census to determine the division of land and oil. It was feared that it would inflame tensions by revealing which side had the better chance of winning a referendum.
Ali Baban, the Planning Minister, said: "After hearing the fears, concerns and reservations of political groups in Kirkuk and Ninevah, we decided to slow down the process and the census has been postponed indefinitely."
The deployment of the US protection force will start in Ninevah province, which includes Mosul, and extend to Kirkuk. General Odierno discussed the plan, which appears necessary in military terms but unpopular with voters, with officials from Iraq and the Kurdish region on Sunday.
Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister, is trying to win re-election in January on the back of a programme of security improvements.
Under the plans drawn up by the US, control of the unstable areas would return to the Arab and Kurdish forces. The emergency move, however, has the potential to change the dynamic of the US withdrawal and it will almost certainly require a rewriting of a bilateral security agreement made by the Iraqi Government and President Bush last year.
8/20/2009
The US military plans to send thousands of American soldiers back to the oil-rich north of Iraq to prevent a civil war between Arabs and Kurds.
President Obama told veterans at a convention in Phoenix that, for America, the Iraq war is going to end. (Alex Brandon)
The emergency move, which partially reverses a recent drawing- down, is the first major sign that President Obama's withdrawal plan may not work. He wants all US combat troops out of Iraq within 12 months.
Kurdish and Arab leaders have agreed in principle to allowing US soldiers into unsettled areas around Mosul and Kirkuk, according to General Ray Odierno, the top US military commander in Iraq. The troops will form joint units with Iraqi counterparts to subdue what has become the most volatile part of the country.
Many leaders in the region disagree about where the border should run between their territories and how oil revenues should be shared. "We have al-Qaeda exploiting this fissure that you're seeing between the Arabs and the Kurds, and what we're trying to do is close that fissure, that seam," General Odierno said.
Despite the developments in Iraq President Obama told a group of US veterans in Phoenix yesterday that he will stick to his plan.
"As we move forward, the Iraqi people must know that the United States will keep its commitments," he said. "And the American people must know that we will move forward with our strategy. For America, the Iraq war will end."
The veterans did not applaud this line in his speech but he was given a warmer reception when he pledged to reform the procurement process so that troops have the best equipment possible.
There was laughter at his example of military waste - a billion- dollar helicopter that would allow the President to cook during a nuclear war: "If the United States is under nuclear attack, the last thing on my mind will be whipping up a snack," he said.
More than 100 people have been killed in mixed Arab-Kurdish areas this month, including car bombings that have destroyed villages near Mosul. Inside the city, armed men killed two policemen and wounded one civilian at a checkpoint yesterday.
"I'm still very confident in the overall security here," General Odierno said. "Unfortunately they're killing a lot of innocent civilians."
In yet another sign of how unstable the region is, the authorities have cancelled a census to determine the division of land and oil. It was feared that it would inflame tensions by revealing which side had the better chance of winning a referendum.
Ali Baban, the Planning Minister, said: "After hearing the fears, concerns and reservations of political groups in Kirkuk and Ninevah, we decided to slow down the process and the census has been postponed indefinitely."
The deployment of the US protection force will start in Ninevah province, which includes Mosul, and extend to Kirkuk. General Odierno discussed the plan, which appears necessary in military terms but unpopular with voters, with officials from Iraq and the Kurdish region on Sunday.
Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister, is trying to win re-election in January on the back of a programme of security improvements.
Under the plans drawn up by the US, control of the unstable areas would return to the Arab and Kurdish forces. The emergency move, however, has the potential to change the dynamic of the US withdrawal and it will almost certainly require a rewriting of a bilateral security agreement made by the Iraqi Government and President Bush last year.
Scalia Says There’s Nothing Unconstitutional About Executing The Innocent
8/19/2009
Almost two decades ago, Troy Anthony Davis was convicted of murder and sentenced to die. Since then, seven of the witnesses against him have recanted their testimony, and some have even implicated Sylvester “Redd” Coles, a witness who testified that Davis was the shooter. In light of the very real evidence that Davis could be innocent of the crime that placed him on death row, the Supreme Court today invoked a rarely used procedure giving Davis an opportunity to challenge his conviction. Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, however, Justice Antonin Scalia criticized his colleagues for thinking that mere innocence is grounds to overturn a conviction:
This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.
So in Justice Scalia’s world, the law has no problem with sending an innocent man to die. One wonders why we even bother to have a Constitution.
Almost two decades ago, Troy Anthony Davis was convicted of murder and sentenced to die. Since then, seven of the witnesses against him have recanted their testimony, and some have even implicated Sylvester “Redd” Coles, a witness who testified that Davis was the shooter. In light of the very real evidence that Davis could be innocent of the crime that placed him on death row, the Supreme Court today invoked a rarely used procedure giving Davis an opportunity to challenge his conviction. Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, however, Justice Antonin Scalia criticized his colleagues for thinking that mere innocence is grounds to overturn a conviction:
This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.
So in Justice Scalia’s world, the law has no problem with sending an innocent man to die. One wonders why we even bother to have a Constitution.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Pandemic Vaccination - Why You Should Be Concerned
by Dr. A. True Ott
As the summer of 2009 winds down, the debate over "pandemic" vaccinations in the nation's "public" schools is beginning to ramp up.
According to the Associated Press, hundreds of public schools are "heeding the government's call to set up flu clinics in the fall, preparing for what could be the most WIDESPREAD SCHOOL VACCINATIONS since the days of polio."
Yet, despite all of the "hype" and fear-mongering, a few very important questions remain unanswered, and concerned citizens are still being left in the dark. Some basic questions should be very simple ones for Washington to answer. Who is paying for these millions of experimental vaccines? Is this yet another government "bailout program" this time to enrich Big Pharma?
The single biggest question that this writer personally asked of HHS Secretary Sebelius two months ago in an "open letter" is simply: "WHAT ARE THE INGREDIENTS OF THE VACCINES?" Can Americans be 100% guaranteed that toxic squalene (an oil-in-water adjuvant) and live viruses will not be part of the ingredient list, since on July 13, the World Health Organization approved these substances to be included in the vaccines?
Again, I would ask Ms. Sebelius: "Please give us an INDEPENDENT analysis of the contents of the various 'vaccines' before asking us to roll up our sleeves and take the shots ESPECIALLY our precious children." All we are asking for, Secretary Sebelius, is INFORMED CONSENT; instead, you consistently appear to be demanding blind, robotic TRUST as you IGNORE these basic questions.
Typically, when someone is afraid to give full and honest disclosure, it is because they have something to hide. What is the government hiding?
I would respectfully remind Secretary Sebelius that her own FDA, as well as the FTC, is the watchdog over consumer products and their safety. Various Truth in Labeling laws provide for the COMPLETE and ACCURATE listing of product ingredients on the labels. Thanks to these laws, this author can receive full disclosure of the chemicals and preservatives in a bag of Cheetos, and thus, I can make an informed decision to purchase and consume the product or abstain from the same as the case may be. Nobody is forcing me, to buy and eat a bag of Cheetos. Yet, the CDC and the federal government's "health and human services" division do not seem inclined to apply these same basic consumer-protection laws to the pandemic flu vaccines. Again one must ask, "Why is this?"
Furthermore, if my bag of Cheetos happens to have some toxic mold growing in the product, which makes me deadly ill --- I have the basic right to sue the company for damages. Not so with these vaccines. Not only do we the people not know what specific chemicals and viruses are being shot directly into our bloodstreams, but again according to an Associated Press article, the vaccine companies have been given blanket immunity from lawsuits. This of course leads us to ask yet another question, "If the vaccines are so safe, why does Big Pharma need such sweeping lawsuit protections in place?"
THE EMEA PROVIDES DISCLOSURE
Over the weekend, a gentleman in Belgium sent a very interesting e-mail. He had finally succeeded in getting a document from the European Medicines Agency (EMEA -the European Union's equivalent of America's FDA) that listed the basic ingredients in the primary "pandemic flu" vaccine being purchased for Europe GlaxoSmithKline's (GSK) PANDEMRIX vaccine. This EMEA Document is very, very revealing.
The vaccine consists of:
Active Substance: Pandemic influenza vaccine (H5N1) (split virion, inactivated, adjuvanted) A/VietNam/1194/2004 NIBRG-14.
Clearly, this is BIRD FLU vaccine, with the isolated antigen being the VietNam killer bird flu virus that has exhibited such a high mortality rate amongst victims in that country. The problem is, according to the WHO, the pandemic flu threatening Europe and the world is not a BIRD FLU (H5N1) virus at all, but is a "Novel" Swine Flu (H1N1) virus. How is it possible that such a specific BIRD FLU VACCINE would give any immune protection to a "Novel" Swine Flu "pandemic" virus?
It would seem that GSK is trying to unload stockpiles of its "Avian Pandemic Flu" vaccine by disguising it as a generic "Pandemic" vaccine under the name "PANDEMRIX"!! Why is the EMEA allowing this to happen? Will the FDA follow the EMEA's lead and allow "Pandemrix" bird flu viruses to be shot into millions of school children in America? Or will it be only Novartis or Novavax vaccines allowed in America? When will Americans be given FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE LABELING, and the COMPANIES UNDER CONTRACT??
Notice also that GSK's "Pandemrix" circular declares that the virus included in the vaccine has been "adjuvanted" but it doesn't disclose the specific adjuvant used. It is very likely "oil-in-water" adjuvant, aka squalene but this is not fully disclosed.
A very real concern of virologists worldwide is that the relatively benign "Novel" Swine Pandemic Flu threatening the world today, could turn into a much more dangerous killer if it somehow were able to blend with a known high-morbidity-producing virus, such as the VietNam strain of H5N1. It would appear that injecting millions of people with PANDREMIX "adjuvanted" H5N1 Bird Flu viruses could indeed create the 'Perfect Storm' as far as a pandemic is concerned.
This Organized Lunacy must end, and it must end Now!
As the summer of 2009 winds down, the debate over "pandemic" vaccinations in the nation's "public" schools is beginning to ramp up.
According to the Associated Press, hundreds of public schools are "heeding the government's call to set up flu clinics in the fall, preparing for what could be the most WIDESPREAD SCHOOL VACCINATIONS since the days of polio."
Yet, despite all of the "hype" and fear-mongering, a few very important questions remain unanswered, and concerned citizens are still being left in the dark. Some basic questions should be very simple ones for Washington to answer. Who is paying for these millions of experimental vaccines? Is this yet another government "bailout program" this time to enrich Big Pharma?
The single biggest question that this writer personally asked of HHS Secretary Sebelius two months ago in an "open letter" is simply: "WHAT ARE THE INGREDIENTS OF THE VACCINES?" Can Americans be 100% guaranteed that toxic squalene (an oil-in-water adjuvant) and live viruses will not be part of the ingredient list, since on July 13, the World Health Organization approved these substances to be included in the vaccines?
Again, I would ask Ms. Sebelius: "Please give us an INDEPENDENT analysis of the contents of the various 'vaccines' before asking us to roll up our sleeves and take the shots ESPECIALLY our precious children." All we are asking for, Secretary Sebelius, is INFORMED CONSENT; instead, you consistently appear to be demanding blind, robotic TRUST as you IGNORE these basic questions.
Typically, when someone is afraid to give full and honest disclosure, it is because they have something to hide. What is the government hiding?
I would respectfully remind Secretary Sebelius that her own FDA, as well as the FTC, is the watchdog over consumer products and their safety. Various Truth in Labeling laws provide for the COMPLETE and ACCURATE listing of product ingredients on the labels. Thanks to these laws, this author can receive full disclosure of the chemicals and preservatives in a bag of Cheetos, and thus, I can make an informed decision to purchase and consume the product or abstain from the same as the case may be. Nobody is forcing me, to buy and eat a bag of Cheetos. Yet, the CDC and the federal government's "health and human services" division do not seem inclined to apply these same basic consumer-protection laws to the pandemic flu vaccines. Again one must ask, "Why is this?"
Furthermore, if my bag of Cheetos happens to have some toxic mold growing in the product, which makes me deadly ill --- I have the basic right to sue the company for damages. Not so with these vaccines. Not only do we the people not know what specific chemicals and viruses are being shot directly into our bloodstreams, but again according to an Associated Press article, the vaccine companies have been given blanket immunity from lawsuits. This of course leads us to ask yet another question, "If the vaccines are so safe, why does Big Pharma need such sweeping lawsuit protections in place?"
THE EMEA PROVIDES DISCLOSURE
Over the weekend, a gentleman in Belgium sent a very interesting e-mail. He had finally succeeded in getting a document from the European Medicines Agency (EMEA -the European Union's equivalent of America's FDA) that listed the basic ingredients in the primary "pandemic flu" vaccine being purchased for Europe GlaxoSmithKline's (GSK) PANDEMRIX vaccine. This EMEA Document is very, very revealing.
The vaccine consists of:
Active Substance: Pandemic influenza vaccine (H5N1) (split virion, inactivated, adjuvanted) A/VietNam/1194/2004 NIBRG-14.
Clearly, this is BIRD FLU vaccine, with the isolated antigen being the VietNam killer bird flu virus that has exhibited such a high mortality rate amongst victims in that country. The problem is, according to the WHO, the pandemic flu threatening Europe and the world is not a BIRD FLU (H5N1) virus at all, but is a "Novel" Swine Flu (H1N1) virus. How is it possible that such a specific BIRD FLU VACCINE would give any immune protection to a "Novel" Swine Flu "pandemic" virus?
It would seem that GSK is trying to unload stockpiles of its "Avian Pandemic Flu" vaccine by disguising it as a generic "Pandemic" vaccine under the name "PANDEMRIX"!! Why is the EMEA allowing this to happen? Will the FDA follow the EMEA's lead and allow "Pandemrix" bird flu viruses to be shot into millions of school children in America? Or will it be only Novartis or Novavax vaccines allowed in America? When will Americans be given FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE LABELING, and the COMPANIES UNDER CONTRACT??
Notice also that GSK's "Pandemrix" circular declares that the virus included in the vaccine has been "adjuvanted" but it doesn't disclose the specific adjuvant used. It is very likely "oil-in-water" adjuvant, aka squalene but this is not fully disclosed.
A very real concern of virologists worldwide is that the relatively benign "Novel" Swine Pandemic Flu threatening the world today, could turn into a much more dangerous killer if it somehow were able to blend with a known high-morbidity-producing virus, such as the VietNam strain of H5N1. It would appear that injecting millions of people with PANDREMIX "adjuvanted" H5N1 Bird Flu viruses could indeed create the 'Perfect Storm' as far as a pandemic is concerned.
This Organized Lunacy must end, and it must end Now!
Monday, August 17, 2009
The Pentagon Wants Authority to Post Almost 400,000 Military Personnel in U.S.
8/17/2009
The Pentagon has approached Congress to grant the Secretary of Defense the authority to post almost 400,000 military personnel throughout the United States in times of emergency or a major disaster.
This request has already occasioned a dispute with the nation’s governors. And it raises the prospect of U.S. military personnel patrolling the streets of the United States, in conflict with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
In June, the U.S. Northern Command distributed a “Congressional Fact Sheet” entitled “Legislative Proposal for Activation of Federal Reserve Forces for Disasters.” That proposal would amend current law, thereby “authorizing the Secretary of Defense to order any unit or member of the Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Navy Reserve, and the Marine Corps Reserve, to active duty for a major disaster or emergency.”
Taken together, these reserve units would amount to “more than 379,000 military personnel in thousands of communities across the United States,” explained
Paul Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America’s Security Affairs, in a letter to the National Governors Association, dated July 20.
The governors were not happy about this proposal, since they want to maintain control of their own National Guard forces, as well as military personnel acting in a domestic capacity in their states.
“We are concerned that the legislative proposal you discuss in your letter would invite confusion on critical command and control issues,” Governor James H. Douglas of Vermont and Governor Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the president and vice president of the governors’ association, wrote in a letter back to Stockton on August 7. The governors asserted that they “must have tactical control over all . . . active duty and reserve military forces engaged in domestic operations within the governor’s state or territory.”
According to Pentagon public affairs officer Lt. Col. Almarah K. Belk, Stockton has not responded formally to the governors but understands their concerns.
“There is a rub there,” she said. “If the Secretary calls up the reserve personnel to provide support in a state and retains command and control of those forces, the governors are concerned about if I have command and control of the Guard, how do we ensure unity of effort and everyone is communicating and not running over each other.”
Belk said Stockton is addressing this problem. “That is exactly what Dr. Stockton is working out right now with the governors and DHS and the National Guard,” she said. “He’s bringing all the stakeholders together.”
Belk said the legislative change is necessary in the aftermath of a “catastrophic natural disaster, not beyond that,” and she referred to Katrina, among other events.
But NorthCom’s Congressional fact sheet refers not just to a “major disaster” but also to “emergencies.” And it says, “Those terms are defined in section 5122 of title 42, U.S. Code.”
That section gives the President the sole discretion to designate an event as an “emergency” or a “major disaster.” Both are “in the determination of the President” alone.
That section also defines “major disaster” by citing plenty of specifics: “hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought,” as well as “fire, flood, or explosion.”
But the definition of “emergency” is vague: “Emergency means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States.”
Currently, the President can call up the Reserves only in an emergency involving “a use or threatened use of a weapon of mass destruction” or “a terrorist attack or threatened terrorist attack in the United States that results, or could result, in significant loss of life or property,” according to Title 10, Chapter 1209, Section 12304, of the U.S. Code. In fact, Section 12304 explicitly prohibits the President from calling up the Reserves for any other “natural or manmade disaster, accident, or catastrophe.”
So the new proposed legislation would greatly expand the President’s power to call up the Reserves in a disaster or an emergency and would extend that power to the Secretary of Defense. (There are other circumstances, such as repelling invasions or rebellions or enforcing federal authority, where the President already has the authority to call up the Reserves.)
The ACLU is alarmed by the proposed legislation. Mike German, the ACLU’s national security policy counsel, expressed amazement “that the military would propose such a broad set of authorities and potentially undermine a 100-year-old prohibition against the military in domestic law enforcement with no public debate and seemingly little understanding of the threat to democracy.”
At the moment, says Pentagon spokesperson Belk, the legislation does not have a sponsor in the House or the Senate.
The Pentagon has approached Congress to grant the Secretary of Defense the authority to post almost 400,000 military personnel throughout the United States in times of emergency or a major disaster.
This request has already occasioned a dispute with the nation’s governors. And it raises the prospect of U.S. military personnel patrolling the streets of the United States, in conflict with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
In June, the U.S. Northern Command distributed a “Congressional Fact Sheet” entitled “Legislative Proposal for Activation of Federal Reserve Forces for Disasters.” That proposal would amend current law, thereby “authorizing the Secretary of Defense to order any unit or member of the Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Navy Reserve, and the Marine Corps Reserve, to active duty for a major disaster or emergency.”
Taken together, these reserve units would amount to “more than 379,000 military personnel in thousands of communities across the United States,” explained
Paul Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America’s Security Affairs, in a letter to the National Governors Association, dated July 20.
The governors were not happy about this proposal, since they want to maintain control of their own National Guard forces, as well as military personnel acting in a domestic capacity in their states.
“We are concerned that the legislative proposal you discuss in your letter would invite confusion on critical command and control issues,” Governor James H. Douglas of Vermont and Governor Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the president and vice president of the governors’ association, wrote in a letter back to Stockton on August 7. The governors asserted that they “must have tactical control over all . . . active duty and reserve military forces engaged in domestic operations within the governor’s state or territory.”
According to Pentagon public affairs officer Lt. Col. Almarah K. Belk, Stockton has not responded formally to the governors but understands their concerns.
“There is a rub there,” she said. “If the Secretary calls up the reserve personnel to provide support in a state and retains command and control of those forces, the governors are concerned about if I have command and control of the Guard, how do we ensure unity of effort and everyone is communicating and not running over each other.”
Belk said Stockton is addressing this problem. “That is exactly what Dr. Stockton is working out right now with the governors and DHS and the National Guard,” she said. “He’s bringing all the stakeholders together.”
Belk said the legislative change is necessary in the aftermath of a “catastrophic natural disaster, not beyond that,” and she referred to Katrina, among other events.
But NorthCom’s Congressional fact sheet refers not just to a “major disaster” but also to “emergencies.” And it says, “Those terms are defined in section 5122 of title 42, U.S. Code.”
That section gives the President the sole discretion to designate an event as an “emergency” or a “major disaster.” Both are “in the determination of the President” alone.
That section also defines “major disaster” by citing plenty of specifics: “hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought,” as well as “fire, flood, or explosion.”
But the definition of “emergency” is vague: “Emergency means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States.”
Currently, the President can call up the Reserves only in an emergency involving “a use or threatened use of a weapon of mass destruction” or “a terrorist attack or threatened terrorist attack in the United States that results, or could result, in significant loss of life or property,” according to Title 10, Chapter 1209, Section 12304, of the U.S. Code. In fact, Section 12304 explicitly prohibits the President from calling up the Reserves for any other “natural or manmade disaster, accident, or catastrophe.”
So the new proposed legislation would greatly expand the President’s power to call up the Reserves in a disaster or an emergency and would extend that power to the Secretary of Defense. (There are other circumstances, such as repelling invasions or rebellions or enforcing federal authority, where the President already has the authority to call up the Reserves.)
The ACLU is alarmed by the proposed legislation. Mike German, the ACLU’s national security policy counsel, expressed amazement “that the military would propose such a broad set of authorities and potentially undermine a 100-year-old prohibition against the military in domestic law enforcement with no public debate and seemingly little understanding of the threat to democracy.”
At the moment, says Pentagon spokesperson Belk, the legislation does not have a sponsor in the House or the Senate.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Concentration of wealth in hands of rich greatest on record
By Daniel Tencer
The wealthiest 10 percent of Americans now have a larger share of total income than they ever have in records going back nearly a century — an even larger amount than during the Roaring Twenties, the last time the US saw such similar disparities in wealth.
In recent years, the fact that differences between rich and poor are the greatest they’ve been since the Great Depression has become a popular talking point among liberal-leaning economists.
But an updated study (PDF) from University of California-Berkeley economist Emanuel Saez shows that, in 2007, the wealth disparity grew to its highest number on record, based on US tax data going back to 1917.
According to Saez’s study, which Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman drew attention to at his New York Times blog, the top 10 percent of earners in America now receive nearly 50 percent of all the income earned in the United States, a higher percentage than they did during the 1920s.
“After decades of stability in the post-war period, the top decile share has increased dramatically over the last twenty-five years and has now regained its pre-war level,” Saez writes. “Indeed, the top decile share in 2007 is equal to 49.7 percent, a level higher than any other year since [records began in] 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of stock market bubble in the ‘roaring’ 1920s.”
By comparison, during most of the 1970s the top 10 percent earned around 33 percent of all the income earned in the United States.
The contrast is even starker for the super-rich. The top 0.01 percent of earners in the US are now taking home six percent of all the income, higher than the 1920s peak of five percent, and a whopping six-fold increase since the start of the Reagan administration, when the top 0.01 percent earned one percent of all the income.
There is no consensus among economists on whether large disparities in income lead to economic disruption, but it is hard to ignore the correlation between rising income inequality and the onset of economic crisis. The last time the US saw similar differences in income was in 1928 and 1929, just before the start of the Great Depression.
Saez also broke the numbers down by administration, and found that while the wealthiest few saw their incomes rise as quickly during the Bush years as they did during the Clinton years, the same was not true for the rest of the population.
Saez suggests that the economic growth seen on paper during the Bush years was little more than an illusion for the vast majority of Americans, who saw their income grow much more slowly in the 2002-2007 period than they did during the Clinton years.
During both expansions, the incomes of the top 1 percent grew extremely quickly at an annual rate over 10.3 and 10.1 percent respectively. However, while the bottom 99 percent of incomes grew at a solid pace of 2.7 percent per year from 1993–2000, these incomes grew only 1.3 percent per year from 2002–2007. As a result, in the economic expansion of 2002-2007, the top 1 percent captured two thirds of income growth.
Those results may help explain the disconnect between the economic experiences of the public and the solid macroeconomic growth posted by the US economy since 2002. Those results may also help explain why the dramatic growth in top incomes during the Clinton administration did not generate much public outcry while there has been an extraordinary level of attention to top incomes in the press and in the public debate over the last two years.
Saez, who this spring won the prestigious John Bates Clark Medal for economists under 40, links this disparity to the Bush tax cuts, noting that “top income tax rates went up in 1993 during the Clinton administration (and hence a larger share of the gains made by top incomes was redistributed) while top income tax rates went down in 2001 during the Bush administration.”
TWO MORE RECESSIONS?
The economic crisis that has taken hold over the past year isn’t over, and the world could in fact see two more recessions before the crisis is finally over, says the chief economist of Germany’s influential Deutsche Bank.
Norbert Walter told CNBC that investors are worried about the health of the US dollar, and many countries are facing difficult financial problems because of overspending by governments on bailouts and stimulus. Those things combined could push the world economy downwards not once but two more times in the near future, he said.
“I believe that the rescue packages brought on have been so costly for so many governments that the exit from this fiscal policy will be very painful, very painful indeed,” he said. “Some of us are already talking about a W-shaped recovery. I’d probably talk about a triple-U-shaped recovery because there are so many stumbling blocks here to get out of this.”
“The world is in trouble,” Walter told CNBC.
The wealthiest 10 percent of Americans now have a larger share of total income than they ever have in records going back nearly a century — an even larger amount than during the Roaring Twenties, the last time the US saw such similar disparities in wealth.
In recent years, the fact that differences between rich and poor are the greatest they’ve been since the Great Depression has become a popular talking point among liberal-leaning economists.
But an updated study (PDF) from University of California-Berkeley economist Emanuel Saez shows that, in 2007, the wealth disparity grew to its highest number on record, based on US tax data going back to 1917.
According to Saez’s study, which Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman drew attention to at his New York Times blog, the top 10 percent of earners in America now receive nearly 50 percent of all the income earned in the United States, a higher percentage than they did during the 1920s.
“After decades of stability in the post-war period, the top decile share has increased dramatically over the last twenty-five years and has now regained its pre-war level,” Saez writes. “Indeed, the top decile share in 2007 is equal to 49.7 percent, a level higher than any other year since [records began in] 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of stock market bubble in the ‘roaring’ 1920s.”
By comparison, during most of the 1970s the top 10 percent earned around 33 percent of all the income earned in the United States.
The contrast is even starker for the super-rich. The top 0.01 percent of earners in the US are now taking home six percent of all the income, higher than the 1920s peak of five percent, and a whopping six-fold increase since the start of the Reagan administration, when the top 0.01 percent earned one percent of all the income.
There is no consensus among economists on whether large disparities in income lead to economic disruption, but it is hard to ignore the correlation between rising income inequality and the onset of economic crisis. The last time the US saw similar differences in income was in 1928 and 1929, just before the start of the Great Depression.
Saez also broke the numbers down by administration, and found that while the wealthiest few saw their incomes rise as quickly during the Bush years as they did during the Clinton years, the same was not true for the rest of the population.
Saez suggests that the economic growth seen on paper during the Bush years was little more than an illusion for the vast majority of Americans, who saw their income grow much more slowly in the 2002-2007 period than they did during the Clinton years.
During both expansions, the incomes of the top 1 percent grew extremely quickly at an annual rate over 10.3 and 10.1 percent respectively. However, while the bottom 99 percent of incomes grew at a solid pace of 2.7 percent per year from 1993–2000, these incomes grew only 1.3 percent per year from 2002–2007. As a result, in the economic expansion of 2002-2007, the top 1 percent captured two thirds of income growth.
Those results may help explain the disconnect between the economic experiences of the public and the solid macroeconomic growth posted by the US economy since 2002. Those results may also help explain why the dramatic growth in top incomes during the Clinton administration did not generate much public outcry while there has been an extraordinary level of attention to top incomes in the press and in the public debate over the last two years.
Saez, who this spring won the prestigious John Bates Clark Medal for economists under 40, links this disparity to the Bush tax cuts, noting that “top income tax rates went up in 1993 during the Clinton administration (and hence a larger share of the gains made by top incomes was redistributed) while top income tax rates went down in 2001 during the Bush administration.”
TWO MORE RECESSIONS?
The economic crisis that has taken hold over the past year isn’t over, and the world could in fact see two more recessions before the crisis is finally over, says the chief economist of Germany’s influential Deutsche Bank.
Norbert Walter told CNBC that investors are worried about the health of the US dollar, and many countries are facing difficult financial problems because of overspending by governments on bailouts and stimulus. Those things combined could push the world economy downwards not once but two more times in the near future, he said.
“I believe that the rescue packages brought on have been so costly for so many governments that the exit from this fiscal policy will be very painful, very painful indeed,” he said. “Some of us are already talking about a W-shaped recovery. I’d probably talk about a triple-U-shaped recovery because there are so many stumbling blocks here to get out of this.”
“The world is in trouble,” Walter told CNBC.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Clerk shoots down 9/11 initiative
By Will Glovinsky
The petition for a ballot initiative that would create a second subpoena-powered 9/11 Commission was rejected by the City Clerk on July 24. Out of the more than 50,000 signatures submitted on June 24 by New York City Coalition for Accountability Now, the Clerk’s Office certified only 26,003 signatures — almost 4,000 signatures shy of the 30,000 necessary to compel the City Council to vote on whether the measure should be put before voters this November.
Last week the New York Supreme Court ordered an independent referee to review the 24,664 signatures invalidated by the City Clerk, and NYC CAN now has until Aug. 21 to compile a list of disputed signatures that will be presented to the referee. All signatories of the petition must be listed as registered voters in the April 2009 New York City Board of Elections database.
Ted Walter, executive director of NYC CAN, said that the coalition’s reviewers were finding errors — or legitimate signatures — among the Clerk’s rejected names.
“We’re getting to be optimistic that we can reach the 30,000 mark,” he said.
If the 30,000-signature threshold is reached, the Council will vote on the measure, although a thumbs-down vote can be overridden by the certification of an additional 15,000 signatures. NYC CAN also expects a challenge from the city over the legality of the petition, which would create an independent commission with the mandate to seek indictments where appropriate.
NYC CAN spokesperson Kyle Hence said that the city’s legal qualms with the petition included protocols for the appointment of commission officers, the funding of the commission and the broader question of whether New York City has the authority to investigate aspects of the attack that fall beyond its municipal jurisdiction.
Hence explained that there was little legal precedent to point to in defense of the proposed commission’s broad scope.
“What we’re proposing is unprecedented,” Hence said. “We’re looking to create a quasi-public commission with subpoena power.”
The original bipartisan 9/11 Commission, chaired by former Gover-nors Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, closed in August 2004 after publishing a best-selling report that gave recommendations for protecting the nation from further acts of terrorism, and criticized the C.I.A. and F.B.I. for not serving Presidents Clinton and Bush as ably as possible. The report did not hold any person or agency responsible for allowing the attacks to occur.
The petition for a ballot initiative that would create a second subpoena-powered 9/11 Commission was rejected by the City Clerk on July 24. Out of the more than 50,000 signatures submitted on June 24 by New York City Coalition for Accountability Now, the Clerk’s Office certified only 26,003 signatures — almost 4,000 signatures shy of the 30,000 necessary to compel the City Council to vote on whether the measure should be put before voters this November.
Last week the New York Supreme Court ordered an independent referee to review the 24,664 signatures invalidated by the City Clerk, and NYC CAN now has until Aug. 21 to compile a list of disputed signatures that will be presented to the referee. All signatories of the petition must be listed as registered voters in the April 2009 New York City Board of Elections database.
Ted Walter, executive director of NYC CAN, said that the coalition’s reviewers were finding errors — or legitimate signatures — among the Clerk’s rejected names.
“We’re getting to be optimistic that we can reach the 30,000 mark,” he said.
If the 30,000-signature threshold is reached, the Council will vote on the measure, although a thumbs-down vote can be overridden by the certification of an additional 15,000 signatures. NYC CAN also expects a challenge from the city over the legality of the petition, which would create an independent commission with the mandate to seek indictments where appropriate.
NYC CAN spokesperson Kyle Hence said that the city’s legal qualms with the petition included protocols for the appointment of commission officers, the funding of the commission and the broader question of whether New York City has the authority to investigate aspects of the attack that fall beyond its municipal jurisdiction.
Hence explained that there was little legal precedent to point to in defense of the proposed commission’s broad scope.
“What we’re proposing is unprecedented,” Hence said. “We’re looking to create a quasi-public commission with subpoena power.”
The original bipartisan 9/11 Commission, chaired by former Gover-nors Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, closed in August 2004 after publishing a best-selling report that gave recommendations for protecting the nation from further acts of terrorism, and criticized the C.I.A. and F.B.I. for not serving Presidents Clinton and Bush as ably as possible. The report did not hold any person or agency responsible for allowing the attacks to occur.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Perseids: What They Are, How to Watch the Meteors, More
Anne Minard
for National Geographic News
August 12, 2009
The Perseid meteor shower peaks this week, and in the Northern Hemisphere the Perseids may be the best—or at least most convenient—meteor-watching event of the year (see Perseids pictures). So what's it all about?
What're Perseids? What's a Meteor Shower?
Like all meteor showers, the Perseids are set in motion when a comet leaves behind a trail of rocky debris, or meteoroids, as the icy orbiter circles the sun (comet facts).
Each year, Earth passes through the debris of comet Swift-Tuttle. The meteoroids get incinerated in our atmosphere, and the heated air makes the showy streaks we see as meteors, or shooting stars.
Because Swift-Tuttle's shooting stars appear to streak outward from a point near the constellation Perseus, we call them the Perseids.
Perseids' Double Discovery
Within a few days of each other, U.S. astronomers Lewis Swift and Horace Parnell Tuttle separately discovered comet Swift-Tuttle during the U.S. Civil War in 1862.
The Perseid parent's next appearance was in 1992. With its roughly 130-year orbit, comet Swift-Tuttle is expected again in 2125.
(Related: "Comet Swarm Delivered Earth's Oceans?")
Meteor? Meteorite? Meteoroid?
When we see the Perseids streaking through the sky, we call them meteors. But the terms can get tricky.
Meteoroids are pieces of rock and ice in outer space. It's when the meteoroids enter Earth's atmosphere and burn up—as many Perseids did last night and will continue to this week—that they become meteors.
If a meteor survives and ends up on the ground, it's rechristened a meteorite. But don't bother starting a Perseid-meteorite search party.
"Since Perseids are ice with a little dust mixed in, they never make it to the ground," said Bill Cooke, a meteoroid expert for NASA in Huntsville, Alabama.
Perseids-Viewing Tonight
The greatest concentration of Perseid meteors will hit Earth's atmosphere this afternoon, when they should be largely invisible in North America. But tonight should be just as good a show as last night (Perseids picture from 2008).
To watch, pack a blanket, bug spray, and snacks, then lie on your back away from city lights, with a view of as much of the sky as possible. The best viewing hours should be whenever skies are clear and whenever the moon isn't present. For example, the U.S. East Coast should have moonless skies between about 10:45 p.m. and 1 a.m. (check your local moonrise and moonset times).
Look for the shooting stars to streak out from the northeast to points across the sky, especially at and after midnight
for National Geographic News
August 12, 2009
The Perseid meteor shower peaks this week, and in the Northern Hemisphere the Perseids may be the best—or at least most convenient—meteor-watching event of the year (see Perseids pictures). So what's it all about?
What're Perseids? What's a Meteor Shower?
Like all meteor showers, the Perseids are set in motion when a comet leaves behind a trail of rocky debris, or meteoroids, as the icy orbiter circles the sun (comet facts).
Each year, Earth passes through the debris of comet Swift-Tuttle. The meteoroids get incinerated in our atmosphere, and the heated air makes the showy streaks we see as meteors, or shooting stars.
Because Swift-Tuttle's shooting stars appear to streak outward from a point near the constellation Perseus, we call them the Perseids.
Perseids' Double Discovery
Within a few days of each other, U.S. astronomers Lewis Swift and Horace Parnell Tuttle separately discovered comet Swift-Tuttle during the U.S. Civil War in 1862.
The Perseid parent's next appearance was in 1992. With its roughly 130-year orbit, comet Swift-Tuttle is expected again in 2125.
(Related: "Comet Swarm Delivered Earth's Oceans?")
Meteor? Meteorite? Meteoroid?
When we see the Perseids streaking through the sky, we call them meteors. But the terms can get tricky.
Meteoroids are pieces of rock and ice in outer space. It's when the meteoroids enter Earth's atmosphere and burn up—as many Perseids did last night and will continue to this week—that they become meteors.
If a meteor survives and ends up on the ground, it's rechristened a meteorite. But don't bother starting a Perseid-meteorite search party.
"Since Perseids are ice with a little dust mixed in, they never make it to the ground," said Bill Cooke, a meteoroid expert for NASA in Huntsville, Alabama.
Perseids-Viewing Tonight
The greatest concentration of Perseid meteors will hit Earth's atmosphere this afternoon, when they should be largely invisible in North America. But tonight should be just as good a show as last night (Perseids picture from 2008).
To watch, pack a blanket, bug spray, and snacks, then lie on your back away from city lights, with a view of as much of the sky as possible. The best viewing hours should be whenever skies are clear and whenever the moon isn't present. For example, the U.S. East Coast should have moonless skies between about 10:45 p.m. and 1 a.m. (check your local moonrise and moonset times).
Look for the shooting stars to streak out from the northeast to points across the sky, especially at and after midnight
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Video: Cop bodyslams knife-wielding elderly woman, nearly causing 'riot'
On the night of August 1, at a Whitehall, Ohio Walmart, Virginia Dodson could not remember why she was sitting alone in a car. Coming to grips with her enclosed environment, it donned on her that she did not know how to unbuckle her seat belt either. Panic began to take hold.
Her solution was to scrounge up a steak knife and cut through the straps, eventually finding her way into the confusing world of the parking lot. It was not long before the police were called.
Virginia, an 84-year-old African American, has Alzheimer's disease. Like many other sufferers, the responsibility for her care fell to her adult child. Her daughter, however, was inside the store.
It was only a short matter of time before the police were called.
As she wandered the parking lot calling her daughter's name, she was approached by a white, female officer who clearly ordered her to drop the weapon. She did not.
What happened next was captured on video and uploaded that same night to YouTube by user "mainetaine187," who says on camera as the scene escalates, "We gotta get real footage of this shit, haha!"
A witness to the scene, one Tomya Beatty, quoted by the local NBC affiliate station, said: "She didn’t even ask her to drop the knife. The woman told her when the cop came charging at her. She said, 'I’m not going to cut you. I’m not going to cut you.' She was just calling her daughter’s name out."
While the video contradicts Beatty's statement that the officer said nothing about the knife, the use of force against an obviously frail woman is apparent. As the video progresses, a noisy scene develops around the officers as the confused old woman lays on the ground, bleeding.
Beatty, again quoted by NBC, said, "There was about to be a riot in front of Walmart..."
Another alleged witness, YouTube user "MisssBoo76," wrote that the woman was "swinging a knife at people, when the police arrived she wouldn't drop the knife so the police officer took her down, the lady also assulted [sic] a kid by hitting him which sparked the crowd of people outside anyway..."
During the video, a male police officer can be heard shouting at the crowd: "We're not gonna hurt her! Step back!" Moments later, an unseen male asks, "What would you do if someone slammed your mother to the ground?"
The narrator adds: "Officer Fullerton of the Whitehall Police Department." He picked up a phone and called someone, then continued: "Yeah, I'm out here... sitting here watching these police beat up an 80-year-old old lady, man. Yeah, you know this is going on the news tonight, bro. I got the news footage."
"Dotson’s daughter said her mother needed stitches to close the wounds and her hand may have been broken," added NBC4i.
Police declined to press charges against the woman, who was released back into her daughter's custody.
"What's got me is that since it's obvious the female officer (proving that its not a gender-based issue) was strong enough to take her down with ease, why not just grab the knife from her instead?" asked San Francisco Chronicle blogger zennie62.
He continued: "To me, police officers are supposed to be trained to be super people in judgment not just strength. Yes, I know that what they do is dangerous, but the job doesn't have to be a thankless one. Somewhere along the way, deep in our long term backslide in education spending and the decline of leisure time we produced a society of people impatient to study a situation then react in a non-violent way."
The man responsible for this even becoming news, YouTube user mainetaine187, opines, "I think excessive force was used."
But, he concludes, "U be the judge....."
-- Stephen C. Webster
VIDEO AT SOURCE
Her solution was to scrounge up a steak knife and cut through the straps, eventually finding her way into the confusing world of the parking lot. It was not long before the police were called.
Virginia, an 84-year-old African American, has Alzheimer's disease. Like many other sufferers, the responsibility for her care fell to her adult child. Her daughter, however, was inside the store.
It was only a short matter of time before the police were called.
As she wandered the parking lot calling her daughter's name, she was approached by a white, female officer who clearly ordered her to drop the weapon. She did not.
What happened next was captured on video and uploaded that same night to YouTube by user "mainetaine187," who says on camera as the scene escalates, "We gotta get real footage of this shit, haha!"
A witness to the scene, one Tomya Beatty, quoted by the local NBC affiliate station, said: "She didn’t even ask her to drop the knife. The woman told her when the cop came charging at her. She said, 'I’m not going to cut you. I’m not going to cut you.' She was just calling her daughter’s name out."
While the video contradicts Beatty's statement that the officer said nothing about the knife, the use of force against an obviously frail woman is apparent. As the video progresses, a noisy scene develops around the officers as the confused old woman lays on the ground, bleeding.
Beatty, again quoted by NBC, said, "There was about to be a riot in front of Walmart..."
Another alleged witness, YouTube user "MisssBoo76," wrote that the woman was "swinging a knife at people, when the police arrived she wouldn't drop the knife so the police officer took her down, the lady also assulted [sic] a kid by hitting him which sparked the crowd of people outside anyway..."
During the video, a male police officer can be heard shouting at the crowd: "We're not gonna hurt her! Step back!" Moments later, an unseen male asks, "What would you do if someone slammed your mother to the ground?"
The narrator adds: "Officer Fullerton of the Whitehall Police Department." He picked up a phone and called someone, then continued: "Yeah, I'm out here... sitting here watching these police beat up an 80-year-old old lady, man. Yeah, you know this is going on the news tonight, bro. I got the news footage."
"Dotson’s daughter said her mother needed stitches to close the wounds and her hand may have been broken," added NBC4i.
Police declined to press charges against the woman, who was released back into her daughter's custody.
"What's got me is that since it's obvious the female officer (proving that its not a gender-based issue) was strong enough to take her down with ease, why not just grab the knife from her instead?" asked San Francisco Chronicle blogger zennie62.
He continued: "To me, police officers are supposed to be trained to be super people in judgment not just strength. Yes, I know that what they do is dangerous, but the job doesn't have to be a thankless one. Somewhere along the way, deep in our long term backslide in education spending and the decline of leisure time we produced a society of people impatient to study a situation then react in a non-violent way."
The man responsible for this even becoming news, YouTube user mainetaine187, opines, "I think excessive force was used."
But, he concludes, "U be the judge....."
-- Stephen C. Webster
VIDEO AT SOURCE
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Rise of CIA's deadly drones in war on Taliban
Unmanned planes have become key to taking fight behind militant lines but are blamed for civilian deaths
Peter Walker
guardian.co.uk, Friday 7 August 2009 09.07 BST
The missiles believed to have killed Baitullah Mehsud, the Pakistani Taliban chief, were fired from the skies above the country's South Waziristan region. But their target and trajectory were almost certainly chosen thousands of miles away at a US military base.
Mehsud is thought to have been targeted by an unmanned aerial vehicle, or UAV, better known as a drone – an increasingly common and controversial feature of modern warfare.
In Afghanistan and Pakistan in particular, missile-armed drones operated by the US air force and the CIA have hunted for suspected al-Qaida and Taliban militants in the vast tribal regions adjoining the two countries.
They began flying shortly before the 9/11 attacks on secretive missions to hunt down Osama bin Laden and have been used with ever greater frequency since 2001.
The Predator and Reaper drones built by General Atomics have 20-metre wingspans and distinctive V-shaped tails. They can stay in the air for more than 30 hours at a time. The planes are launched from local airfields but controlled via satellite by crews at US air bases, most commonly the Creech facility in Nevada.
Some are used purely for surveillance but many are fitted with Hellfire missiles or bombs. Controllers use video images from the drones, and often intelligence from the ground, to select targets and fire.
The US military and CIA regard the drones as invaluable because of their long range and the way they can attack specific buildings even deep within Taliban-dominated areas. But critics say they are too prone to mistakes, adding to the civilian death toll.
According to reports, the US has recently begun passing some of the data its drones acquire to Pakistani officials but is resisting requests from the country for its own unmanned planes.
The UK has a small number of drones, while Israel used its own to help select bombing targets during its attacks on Gaza last year.
Peter Walker
guardian.co.uk, Friday 7 August 2009 09.07 BST
The missiles believed to have killed Baitullah Mehsud, the Pakistani Taliban chief, were fired from the skies above the country's South Waziristan region. But their target and trajectory were almost certainly chosen thousands of miles away at a US military base.
Mehsud is thought to have been targeted by an unmanned aerial vehicle, or UAV, better known as a drone – an increasingly common and controversial feature of modern warfare.
In Afghanistan and Pakistan in particular, missile-armed drones operated by the US air force and the CIA have hunted for suspected al-Qaida and Taliban militants in the vast tribal regions adjoining the two countries.
They began flying shortly before the 9/11 attacks on secretive missions to hunt down Osama bin Laden and have been used with ever greater frequency since 2001.
The Predator and Reaper drones built by General Atomics have 20-metre wingspans and distinctive V-shaped tails. They can stay in the air for more than 30 hours at a time. The planes are launched from local airfields but controlled via satellite by crews at US air bases, most commonly the Creech facility in Nevada.
Some are used purely for surveillance but many are fitted with Hellfire missiles or bombs. Controllers use video images from the drones, and often intelligence from the ground, to select targets and fire.
The US military and CIA regard the drones as invaluable because of their long range and the way they can attack specific buildings even deep within Taliban-dominated areas. But critics say they are too prone to mistakes, adding to the civilian death toll.
According to reports, the US has recently begun passing some of the data its drones acquire to Pakistani officials but is resisting requests from the country for its own unmanned planes.
The UK has a small number of drones, while Israel used its own to help select bombing targets during its attacks on Gaza last year.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Blackwater Founder Implicated in Murder
By Jeremy Scahill
August 4, 2009
A former Blackwater employee and an ex-US Marine who has worked as a security operative for the company have made a series of explosive allegations in sworn statements filed on August 3 in federal court in Virginia. The two men claim that the company's owner, Erik Prince, may have murdered or facilitated the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal authorities investigating the company. The former employee also alleges that Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe," and that Prince's companies "encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life."
In their testimony, both men also allege that Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq. One of the men alleges that Prince turned a profit by transporting "illegal" or "unlawful" weapons into the country on Prince's private planes. They also charge that Prince and other Blackwater executives destroyed incriminating videos, emails and other documents and have intentionally deceived the US State Department and other federal agencies. The identities of the two individuals were sealed out of concerns for their safety.
These allegations, and a series of other charges, are contained in sworn affidavits, given under penalty of perjury, filed late at night on August 3 in the Eastern District of Virginia as part of a seventy-page motion by lawyers for Iraqi civilians suing Blackwater for alleged war crimes and other misconduct. Susan Burke, a private attorney working in conjunction with the Center for Constitutional Rights, is suing Blackwater in five separate civil cases filed in the Washington, DC, area. They were recently consolidated before Judge T.S. Ellis III of the Eastern District of Virginia for pretrial motions. Burke filed the August 3 motion in response to Blackwater's motion to dismiss the case. Blackwater asserts that Prince and the company are innocent of any wrongdoing and that they were professionally performing their duties on behalf of their employer, the US State Department.
The former employee, identified in the court documents as "John Doe #2," is a former member of Blackwater's management team, according to a source close to the case. Doe #2 alleges in a sworn declaration that, based on information provided to him by former colleagues, "it appears that Mr. Prince and his employees murdered, or had murdered, one or more persons who have provided information, or who were planning to provide information, to the federal authorities about the ongoing criminal conduct." John Doe #2 says he worked at Blackwater for four years; his identity is concealed in the sworn declaration because he "fear[s] violence against me in retaliation for submitting this Declaration." He also alleges, "On several occasions after my departure from Mr. Prince's employ, Mr. Prince's management has personally threatened me with death and violence."
In a separate sworn statement, the former US marine who worked for Blackwater in Iraq alleges that he has "learned from my Blackwater colleagues and former colleagues that one or more persons who have provided information, or who were planning to provide information about Erik Prince and Blackwater have been killed in suspicious circumstances." Identified as "John Doe #1," he says he "joined Blackwater and deployed to Iraq to guard State Department and other American government personnel." It is not clear if Doe #1 is still working with the company as he states he is "scheduled to deploy in the immediate future to Iraq." Like Doe #2, he states that he fears "violence" against him for "submitting this Declaration." No further details on the alleged murder(s) are provided.
"Mr. Prince feared, and continues to fear, that the federal authorities will detect and prosecute his various criminal deeds," states Doe #2. "On more than one occasion, Mr. Prince and his top managers gave orders to destroy emails and other documents. Many incriminating videotapes, documents and emails have been shredded and destroyed."
The Nation cannot independently verify the identities of the two individuals, their roles at Blackwater or what motivated them to provide sworn testimony in these civil cases. Both individuals state that they have previously cooperated with federal prosecutors conducting a criminal inquiry into Blackwater.
"It's a pending investigation, so we cannot comment on any matters in front of a Grand Jury or if a Grand Jury even exists on these matters," John Roth, the spokesperson for the US Attorney's office in the District of Columbia, told The Nation. "It would be a crime if we did that." Asked specifically about whether there is a criminal investigation into Prince regarding the murder allegations and other charges, Roth said: "We would not be able to comment on what we are or are not doing in regards to any possible investigation involving an uncharged individual."
The Nation repeatedly attempted to contact spokespeople for Prince or his companies at numerous email addresses and telephone numbers. When a company representative was reached by phone and asked to comment, she said, "Unfortunately no one can help you in that area." The representative then said that she would pass along The Nation's request. As this article goes to press, no company representative has responded further to The Nation.
Doe #2 states in the declaration that he has also provided the information contained in his statement "in grand jury proceedings convened by the United States Department of Justice." Federal prosecutors convened a grand jury in the aftermath of the September 16, 2007, Nisour Square shootings in Baghdad, which left seventeen Iraqis dead. Five Blackwater employees are awaiting trial on several manslaughter charges and a sixth, Jeremy Ridgeway, has already pleaded guilty to manslaughter and attempting to commit manslaughter and is cooperating with prosecutors. It is not clear whether Doe #2 testified in front of the Nisour Square grand jury or in front of a separate grand jury.
The two declarations are each five pages long and contain a series of devastating allegations concerning Erik Prince and his network of companies, which now operate under the banner of Xe Services LLC. Among those leveled by Doe #2 is that Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe":
To that end, Mr. Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the Crusades.
Mr. Prince operated his companies in a manner that encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life. For example, Mr. Prince's executives would openly speak about going over to Iraq to "lay Hajiis out on cardboard." Going to Iraq to shoot and kill Iraqis was viewed as a sport or game. Mr. Prince's employees openly and consistently used racist and derogatory terms for Iraqis and other Arabs, such as "ragheads" or "hajiis."
Among the additional allegations made by Doe #1 is that "Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq." He states that he personally witnessed weapons being "pulled out" from dog food bags. Doe #2 alleges that "Prince and his employees arranged for the weapons to be polywrapped and smuggled into Iraq on Mr. Prince's private planes, which operated under the name Presidential Airlines," adding that Prince "generated substantial revenues from participating in the illegal arms trade."
Doe #2 states: "Using his various companies, [Prince] procured and distributed various weapons, including unlawful weapons such as sawed off semi-automatic machine guns with silencers, through unlawful channels of distribution." Blackwater "was not abiding by the terms of the contract with the State Department and was deceiving the State Department," according to Doe #1.
This is not the first time an allegation has surfaced that Blackwater used dog food bags to smuggle weapons into Iraq. ABC News's Brian Ross reported in November 2008 that a "federal grand jury in North Carolina is investigating allegations the controversial private security firm Blackwater illegally shipped assault weapons and silencers to Iraq, hidden in large sacks of dog food." Another former Blackwater employee has also confirmed this information to The Nation.
Both individuals allege that Prince and Blackwater deployed individuals to Iraq who, in the words of Doe #1, "were not properly vetted and cleared by the State Department." Doe #2 adds that "Prince ignored the advice and pleas from certain employees, who sought to stop the unnecessary killing of innocent Iraqis." Doe #2 further states that some Blackwater officials overseas refused to deploy "unfit men" and sent them back to the US. Among the reasons cited by Doe #2 were "the men making statements about wanting to deploy to Iraq to 'kill ragheads' or achieve 'kills' or 'body counts,'" as well as "excessive drinking" and "steroid use." However, when the men returned to the US, according to Doe #2, "Prince and his executives would send them back to be deployed in Iraq with an express instruction to the concerned employees located overseas that they needed to 'stop costing the company money.'"
Doe #2 also says Prince "repeatedly ignored the assessments done by mental health professionals, and instead terminated those mental health professionals who were not willing to endorse deployments of unfit men." He says Prince and then-company president Gary Jackson "hid from Department of State the fact that they were deploying men to Iraq over the objections of mental health professionals and security professionals in the field," saying they "knew the men being deployed were not suitable candidates for carrying lethal weaponry, but did not care because deployments meant more money."
Doe #1 states that "Blackwater knew that certain of its personnel intentionally used excessive and unjustified deadly force, and in some instances used unauthorized weapons, to kill or seriously injure innocent Iraqi civilians." He concludes, "Blackwater did nothing to stop this misconduct." Doe #1 states that he "personally observed multiple incidents of Blackwater personnel intentionally using unnecessary, excessive and unjustified deadly force." He then cites several specific examples of Blackwater personnel firing at civilians, killing or "seriously" wounding them, and then failing to report the incidents to the State Department.
Doe #1 also alleges that "all of these incidents of excessive force were initially videotaped and voice recorded," but that "Immediately after the day concluded, we would watch the video in a session called a 'hot wash.' Immediately after the hotwashing, the video was erased to prevent anyone other than Blackwater personnel seeing what had actually occurred." Blackwater, he says, "did not provide the video to the State Department."
Doe #2 expands on the issue of unconventional weapons, alleging Prince "made available to his employees in Iraq various weapons not authorized by the United States contracting authorities, such as hand grenades and hand grenade launchers. Mr. Prince's employees repeatedly used this illegal weaponry in Iraq, unnecessarily killing scores of innocent Iraqis." Specifically, he alleges that Prince "obtained illegal ammunition from an American company called LeMas. This company sold ammunition designed to explode after penetrating within the human body. Mr. Prince's employees repeatedly used this illegal ammunition in Iraq to inflict maximum damage on Iraqis."
Blackwater has gone through an intricate rebranding process in the twelve years it has been in business, changing its name and logo several times. Prince also has created more than a dozen affiliate companies, some of which are registered offshore and whose operations are shrouded in secrecy. According to Doe #2, "Prince created and operated this web of companies in order to obscure wrongdoing, fraud and other crimes."
"For example, Mr. Prince transferred funds from one company (Blackwater) to another (Greystone) whenever necessary to avoid detection of his money laundering and tax evasion schemes." He added: "Mr. Prince contributed his personal wealth to fund the operations of the Prince companies whenever he deemed such funding necessary. Likewise, Mr. Prince took funds out of the Prince companies and placed the funds in his personal accounts at will."
Briefed on the substance of these allegations by The Nation, Congressman Dennis Kucinich replied, "If these allegations are true, Blackwater has been a criminal enterprise defrauding taxpayers and murdering innocent civilians." Kucinich is on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and has been investigating Prince and Blackwater since 2004.
"Blackwater is a law unto itself, both internationally and domestically. The question is why they operated with impunity. In addition to Blackwater, we should be questioning their patrons in the previous administration who funded and employed this organization. Blackwater wouldn't exist without federal patronage; these allegations should be thoroughly investigated," Kucinich said.
A hearing before Judge Ellis in the civil cases against Blackwater is scheduled for August 7.
August 4, 2009
A former Blackwater employee and an ex-US Marine who has worked as a security operative for the company have made a series of explosive allegations in sworn statements filed on August 3 in federal court in Virginia. The two men claim that the company's owner, Erik Prince, may have murdered or facilitated the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal authorities investigating the company. The former employee also alleges that Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe," and that Prince's companies "encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life."
In their testimony, both men also allege that Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq. One of the men alleges that Prince turned a profit by transporting "illegal" or "unlawful" weapons into the country on Prince's private planes. They also charge that Prince and other Blackwater executives destroyed incriminating videos, emails and other documents and have intentionally deceived the US State Department and other federal agencies. The identities of the two individuals were sealed out of concerns for their safety.
These allegations, and a series of other charges, are contained in sworn affidavits, given under penalty of perjury, filed late at night on August 3 in the Eastern District of Virginia as part of a seventy-page motion by lawyers for Iraqi civilians suing Blackwater for alleged war crimes and other misconduct. Susan Burke, a private attorney working in conjunction with the Center for Constitutional Rights, is suing Blackwater in five separate civil cases filed in the Washington, DC, area. They were recently consolidated before Judge T.S. Ellis III of the Eastern District of Virginia for pretrial motions. Burke filed the August 3 motion in response to Blackwater's motion to dismiss the case. Blackwater asserts that Prince and the company are innocent of any wrongdoing and that they were professionally performing their duties on behalf of their employer, the US State Department.
The former employee, identified in the court documents as "John Doe #2," is a former member of Blackwater's management team, according to a source close to the case. Doe #2 alleges in a sworn declaration that, based on information provided to him by former colleagues, "it appears that Mr. Prince and his employees murdered, or had murdered, one or more persons who have provided information, or who were planning to provide information, to the federal authorities about the ongoing criminal conduct." John Doe #2 says he worked at Blackwater for four years; his identity is concealed in the sworn declaration because he "fear[s] violence against me in retaliation for submitting this Declaration." He also alleges, "On several occasions after my departure from Mr. Prince's employ, Mr. Prince's management has personally threatened me with death and violence."
In a separate sworn statement, the former US marine who worked for Blackwater in Iraq alleges that he has "learned from my Blackwater colleagues and former colleagues that one or more persons who have provided information, or who were planning to provide information about Erik Prince and Blackwater have been killed in suspicious circumstances." Identified as "John Doe #1," he says he "joined Blackwater and deployed to Iraq to guard State Department and other American government personnel." It is not clear if Doe #1 is still working with the company as he states he is "scheduled to deploy in the immediate future to Iraq." Like Doe #2, he states that he fears "violence" against him for "submitting this Declaration." No further details on the alleged murder(s) are provided.
"Mr. Prince feared, and continues to fear, that the federal authorities will detect and prosecute his various criminal deeds," states Doe #2. "On more than one occasion, Mr. Prince and his top managers gave orders to destroy emails and other documents. Many incriminating videotapes, documents and emails have been shredded and destroyed."
The Nation cannot independently verify the identities of the two individuals, their roles at Blackwater or what motivated them to provide sworn testimony in these civil cases. Both individuals state that they have previously cooperated with federal prosecutors conducting a criminal inquiry into Blackwater.
"It's a pending investigation, so we cannot comment on any matters in front of a Grand Jury or if a Grand Jury even exists on these matters," John Roth, the spokesperson for the US Attorney's office in the District of Columbia, told The Nation. "It would be a crime if we did that." Asked specifically about whether there is a criminal investigation into Prince regarding the murder allegations and other charges, Roth said: "We would not be able to comment on what we are or are not doing in regards to any possible investigation involving an uncharged individual."
The Nation repeatedly attempted to contact spokespeople for Prince or his companies at numerous email addresses and telephone numbers. When a company representative was reached by phone and asked to comment, she said, "Unfortunately no one can help you in that area." The representative then said that she would pass along The Nation's request. As this article goes to press, no company representative has responded further to The Nation.
Doe #2 states in the declaration that he has also provided the information contained in his statement "in grand jury proceedings convened by the United States Department of Justice." Federal prosecutors convened a grand jury in the aftermath of the September 16, 2007, Nisour Square shootings in Baghdad, which left seventeen Iraqis dead. Five Blackwater employees are awaiting trial on several manslaughter charges and a sixth, Jeremy Ridgeway, has already pleaded guilty to manslaughter and attempting to commit manslaughter and is cooperating with prosecutors. It is not clear whether Doe #2 testified in front of the Nisour Square grand jury or in front of a separate grand jury.
The two declarations are each five pages long and contain a series of devastating allegations concerning Erik Prince and his network of companies, which now operate under the banner of Xe Services LLC. Among those leveled by Doe #2 is that Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe":
To that end, Mr. Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the Crusades.
Mr. Prince operated his companies in a manner that encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life. For example, Mr. Prince's executives would openly speak about going over to Iraq to "lay Hajiis out on cardboard." Going to Iraq to shoot and kill Iraqis was viewed as a sport or game. Mr. Prince's employees openly and consistently used racist and derogatory terms for Iraqis and other Arabs, such as "ragheads" or "hajiis."
Among the additional allegations made by Doe #1 is that "Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq." He states that he personally witnessed weapons being "pulled out" from dog food bags. Doe #2 alleges that "Prince and his employees arranged for the weapons to be polywrapped and smuggled into Iraq on Mr. Prince's private planes, which operated under the name Presidential Airlines," adding that Prince "generated substantial revenues from participating in the illegal arms trade."
Doe #2 states: "Using his various companies, [Prince] procured and distributed various weapons, including unlawful weapons such as sawed off semi-automatic machine guns with silencers, through unlawful channels of distribution." Blackwater "was not abiding by the terms of the contract with the State Department and was deceiving the State Department," according to Doe #1.
This is not the first time an allegation has surfaced that Blackwater used dog food bags to smuggle weapons into Iraq. ABC News's Brian Ross reported in November 2008 that a "federal grand jury in North Carolina is investigating allegations the controversial private security firm Blackwater illegally shipped assault weapons and silencers to Iraq, hidden in large sacks of dog food." Another former Blackwater employee has also confirmed this information to The Nation.
Both individuals allege that Prince and Blackwater deployed individuals to Iraq who, in the words of Doe #1, "were not properly vetted and cleared by the State Department." Doe #2 adds that "Prince ignored the advice and pleas from certain employees, who sought to stop the unnecessary killing of innocent Iraqis." Doe #2 further states that some Blackwater officials overseas refused to deploy "unfit men" and sent them back to the US. Among the reasons cited by Doe #2 were "the men making statements about wanting to deploy to Iraq to 'kill ragheads' or achieve 'kills' or 'body counts,'" as well as "excessive drinking" and "steroid use." However, when the men returned to the US, according to Doe #2, "Prince and his executives would send them back to be deployed in Iraq with an express instruction to the concerned employees located overseas that they needed to 'stop costing the company money.'"
Doe #2 also says Prince "repeatedly ignored the assessments done by mental health professionals, and instead terminated those mental health professionals who were not willing to endorse deployments of unfit men." He says Prince and then-company president Gary Jackson "hid from Department of State the fact that they were deploying men to Iraq over the objections of mental health professionals and security professionals in the field," saying they "knew the men being deployed were not suitable candidates for carrying lethal weaponry, but did not care because deployments meant more money."
Doe #1 states that "Blackwater knew that certain of its personnel intentionally used excessive and unjustified deadly force, and in some instances used unauthorized weapons, to kill or seriously injure innocent Iraqi civilians." He concludes, "Blackwater did nothing to stop this misconduct." Doe #1 states that he "personally observed multiple incidents of Blackwater personnel intentionally using unnecessary, excessive and unjustified deadly force." He then cites several specific examples of Blackwater personnel firing at civilians, killing or "seriously" wounding them, and then failing to report the incidents to the State Department.
Doe #1 also alleges that "all of these incidents of excessive force were initially videotaped and voice recorded," but that "Immediately after the day concluded, we would watch the video in a session called a 'hot wash.' Immediately after the hotwashing, the video was erased to prevent anyone other than Blackwater personnel seeing what had actually occurred." Blackwater, he says, "did not provide the video to the State Department."
Doe #2 expands on the issue of unconventional weapons, alleging Prince "made available to his employees in Iraq various weapons not authorized by the United States contracting authorities, such as hand grenades and hand grenade launchers. Mr. Prince's employees repeatedly used this illegal weaponry in Iraq, unnecessarily killing scores of innocent Iraqis." Specifically, he alleges that Prince "obtained illegal ammunition from an American company called LeMas. This company sold ammunition designed to explode after penetrating within the human body. Mr. Prince's employees repeatedly used this illegal ammunition in Iraq to inflict maximum damage on Iraqis."
Blackwater has gone through an intricate rebranding process in the twelve years it has been in business, changing its name and logo several times. Prince also has created more than a dozen affiliate companies, some of which are registered offshore and whose operations are shrouded in secrecy. According to Doe #2, "Prince created and operated this web of companies in order to obscure wrongdoing, fraud and other crimes."
"For example, Mr. Prince transferred funds from one company (Blackwater) to another (Greystone) whenever necessary to avoid detection of his money laundering and tax evasion schemes." He added: "Mr. Prince contributed his personal wealth to fund the operations of the Prince companies whenever he deemed such funding necessary. Likewise, Mr. Prince took funds out of the Prince companies and placed the funds in his personal accounts at will."
Briefed on the substance of these allegations by The Nation, Congressman Dennis Kucinich replied, "If these allegations are true, Blackwater has been a criminal enterprise defrauding taxpayers and murdering innocent civilians." Kucinich is on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and has been investigating Prince and Blackwater since 2004.
"Blackwater is a law unto itself, both internationally and domestically. The question is why they operated with impunity. In addition to Blackwater, we should be questioning their patrons in the previous administration who funded and employed this organization. Blackwater wouldn't exist without federal patronage; these allegations should be thoroughly investigated," Kucinich said.
A hearing before Judge Ellis in the civil cases against Blackwater is scheduled for August 7.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Whistleblower: Bin Laden was US proxy until 9/11
BY MURIEL KANE
Published: July 31, 2009
In an interview last month with blogger Brad Friedman, whistleblower Sibel Edmonds dropped a bombshell when a caller asked a question about 9/11.
The former FBI translator carefully replied, “I have information about things that our government has lied to us about. I know. For example, to say that since the fall of the Soviet Union we ceased all of our intimate relationship with Bin Laden and the Taliban - those things can be proven as lies, very easily, based on the information they classified in my case, because we did carry very intimate relationship with these people, and it involves Central Asia, all the way up to September 11.”
Australian blogger Luke Ryland has now filled in more details of the Central Asian operations to which Edmonds was referring, quoting Edmonds as saying on other occasions that al Qaeda and the Taliban were used by the US as proxies in “a decade-long illegal, covert operation in Central Asia by a small group in the US intent on furthering the oil industry and the Military Industrial Complex.”
Turkey acted as the primary intermediary in this operation, with assistance from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The intention was, on one hand, to avoid creating a direct confrontation with China and Russia and, on the other, to prevent popular resistance to US influence by appealing to Central Asian aspirations for an Islamic and-Turkic resurgence.
Ryland also points out that Uighurs from the western Chinese province of Xinjiang were receiving training from al Qaeda in Afghanistan before 2001, with the expectation that they might serve as guerrilla forces in the event of US conflict with China. Edmonds has recently stated that “our fingerprint is all over” recent Uighur unrest within China.
There are certain factors, touched on lightly by Ryland in this article, which provide further support for Edmonds’ shocking allegations. One is what is sometimes known as the “Bernard Lewis Project,” an effort first espoused thirty years ago by Middle East scholar and Neocon guru Bernard Lewis to pursue “the fragmentation and balkanization of Iran along regional, ethnic and linguistic lines.”
Although this plan involves several different ethnic groups within Iran, including Arabs, Kurds, and Baluchis, its most ambitious component involves the use of pan-Turkic (or pan-Turanian) nationalism to shift power in the Middle East away from both Iran and the Arab states and towards Turkey, a US ally which is linguistically and ethnically close to the oil-rich states of Central Asia. Pan-Turanism often has fascist affinities, which makes its encouragement particularly problematic.
Another anomaly of US policy in the region has to do with the heroin trade. The US is known to have supported drug-trafficking Islamic terrorists in many countries of the region, including Chechnya, Kosovo, and Bosnia. It has also been allied with governments in Central Asia which has been strongly linked to the drug trade, such as Uzbekistan.
The extent of al Qaeda’s role in the Afghan heroin trade is a matter of dispute, but as Ryland suggests, there is no question that al Qaeda was supporting many of the same drug-trafficking groups as the US — a situation in sharp contrast with the usual assumption that the United States and al Qaeda were deadly enemies even prior to 9/11.
Edmonds latest remarks appear intended to draw fresh attention to these anomalies, as well as the role played by Enron and other Western oil companies and weapons suppliers in Central Asia in the 1990s.
Published: July 31, 2009
In an interview last month with blogger Brad Friedman, whistleblower Sibel Edmonds dropped a bombshell when a caller asked a question about 9/11.
The former FBI translator carefully replied, “I have information about things that our government has lied to us about. I know. For example, to say that since the fall of the Soviet Union we ceased all of our intimate relationship with Bin Laden and the Taliban - those things can be proven as lies, very easily, based on the information they classified in my case, because we did carry very intimate relationship with these people, and it involves Central Asia, all the way up to September 11.”
Australian blogger Luke Ryland has now filled in more details of the Central Asian operations to which Edmonds was referring, quoting Edmonds as saying on other occasions that al Qaeda and the Taliban were used by the US as proxies in “a decade-long illegal, covert operation in Central Asia by a small group in the US intent on furthering the oil industry and the Military Industrial Complex.”
Turkey acted as the primary intermediary in this operation, with assistance from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The intention was, on one hand, to avoid creating a direct confrontation with China and Russia and, on the other, to prevent popular resistance to US influence by appealing to Central Asian aspirations for an Islamic and-Turkic resurgence.
Ryland also points out that Uighurs from the western Chinese province of Xinjiang were receiving training from al Qaeda in Afghanistan before 2001, with the expectation that they might serve as guerrilla forces in the event of US conflict with China. Edmonds has recently stated that “our fingerprint is all over” recent Uighur unrest within China.
There are certain factors, touched on lightly by Ryland in this article, which provide further support for Edmonds’ shocking allegations. One is what is sometimes known as the “Bernard Lewis Project,” an effort first espoused thirty years ago by Middle East scholar and Neocon guru Bernard Lewis to pursue “the fragmentation and balkanization of Iran along regional, ethnic and linguistic lines.”
Although this plan involves several different ethnic groups within Iran, including Arabs, Kurds, and Baluchis, its most ambitious component involves the use of pan-Turkic (or pan-Turanian) nationalism to shift power in the Middle East away from both Iran and the Arab states and towards Turkey, a US ally which is linguistically and ethnically close to the oil-rich states of Central Asia. Pan-Turanism often has fascist affinities, which makes its encouragement particularly problematic.
Another anomaly of US policy in the region has to do with the heroin trade. The US is known to have supported drug-trafficking Islamic terrorists in many countries of the region, including Chechnya, Kosovo, and Bosnia. It has also been allied with governments in Central Asia which has been strongly linked to the drug trade, such as Uzbekistan.
The extent of al Qaeda’s role in the Afghan heroin trade is a matter of dispute, but as Ryland suggests, there is no question that al Qaeda was supporting many of the same drug-trafficking groups as the US — a situation in sharp contrast with the usual assumption that the United States and al Qaeda were deadly enemies even prior to 9/11.
Edmonds latest remarks appear intended to draw fresh attention to these anomalies, as well as the role played by Enron and other Western oil companies and weapons suppliers in Central Asia in the 1990s.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
