An Intray
Monday, December 13, 2004
Amazon.com: Books: The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11
Amazon.com: Books: The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11
...
"Life is short, and the list of conspiracy theories is long," says this author. So, why does he ask us to spend time on yet another far-out tale?
...
a. Prior to the attacks, key alleged hijackers were protected from FBI field investigations, by FBI headquaters.
b. All hijacked plane passenger lists, are five passengers short of the official count, and contain no Arabic names.
c. The fires caused by planes on the upper floors of the twin towers effectively burned out, before the towers fell.
d. FDNY personnel escaping the WTC north tower, reported explosions going off as the tower collapsed.
e. The 40 story WTC building 7 collaped exactly like the twin towers without ever being struck by a plane.
f. All steel from the WTC collapses was hurriedly shipped out of the country without the usual investigations.
g. The FAA destroyed vital 9/11 tape recordings, instead of using this information in the usual investigations.
h. On 9/11/2001, federal agencies including FAA, NORAD, and FEMA, were running hijack simulations including some where planes strike buildings.
i. After 9/11, the Bush administration publicly stated that prior to the attacks, it had felt no need to guard against the threat of planes used as missiles.
j. The technology that will make it possible to use cell phones on commercial airliners, won't be available until 2006.
k. The 'war on terror' decreases U.S. constitutional liberties, but increases terrorist activity.
- Why did WTC 7 fall (in 10 seconds, into its own footprint) ?
- Why does the Pentagon hole not fit the "Boeing" at all?
- Why no airport security cam shots of the hijackers (except the highly ambiguous supposed shot of "Atta"?
- How could these incompetent boxcutter "pilots" have pulled it off?
...
"I was sitting outside the classroom [at Booker Elementary School] waiting to go in . . . I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, 'there's one terrible pilot.'" (Reported by CNN on December 4, 2001.)
Mr. Griffin points out "that the pictures reportedly seen by Bush could not have been 'those accidentally filmed by French documentary-makers Jules and Gedeon Nauder,' because 'their video was not released until thirteen hours later.'" Mr. Griffin suggests that what President Bush claimed to have seen [the first airplane striking the North Tower of the WTC] must "have been secret images transmitted to him without delay in the secure communications room that was installed in the elementary school in preparation for his visit."
Amazon.com: Books: The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11
...
"Life is short, and the list of conspiracy theories is long," says this author. So, why does he ask us to spend time on yet another far-out tale?
...
a. Prior to the attacks, key alleged hijackers were protected from FBI field investigations, by FBI headquaters.
b. All hijacked plane passenger lists, are five passengers short of the official count, and contain no Arabic names.
c. The fires caused by planes on the upper floors of the twin towers effectively burned out, before the towers fell.
d. FDNY personnel escaping the WTC north tower, reported explosions going off as the tower collapsed.
e. The 40 story WTC building 7 collaped exactly like the twin towers without ever being struck by a plane.
f. All steel from the WTC collapses was hurriedly shipped out of the country without the usual investigations.
g. The FAA destroyed vital 9/11 tape recordings, instead of using this information in the usual investigations.
h. On 9/11/2001, federal agencies including FAA, NORAD, and FEMA, were running hijack simulations including some where planes strike buildings.
i. After 9/11, the Bush administration publicly stated that prior to the attacks, it had felt no need to guard against the threat of planes used as missiles.
j. The technology that will make it possible to use cell phones on commercial airliners, won't be available until 2006.
k. The 'war on terror' decreases U.S. constitutional liberties, but increases terrorist activity.
- Why did WTC 7 fall (in 10 seconds, into its own footprint) ?
- Why does the Pentagon hole not fit the "Boeing" at all?
- Why no airport security cam shots of the hijackers (except the highly ambiguous supposed shot of "Atta"?
- How could these incompetent boxcutter "pilots" have pulled it off?
...
"I was sitting outside the classroom [at Booker Elementary School] waiting to go in . . . I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, 'there's one terrible pilot.'" (Reported by CNN on December 4, 2001.)
Mr. Griffin points out "that the pictures reportedly seen by Bush could not have been 'those accidentally filmed by French documentary-makers Jules and Gedeon Nauder,' because 'their video was not released until thirteen hours later.'" Mr. Griffin suggests that what President Bush claimed to have seen [the first airplane striking the North Tower of the WTC] must "have been secret images transmitted to him without delay in the secure communications room that was installed in the elementary school in preparation for his visit."
www.septembereleventh.org: news article
www.septembereleventh.org: news article: " Theologian Asks the Hard Questions About 9/11 |
by Douglas Todd | Vancouver Sun | Saturday, Dec 11, 2004 | Link to Original
...
So why did this soft-spoken professor from the high-ranking Methodist-rooted School of Theology at Claremont, Calif., feel it necessary to risk his hard-earned reputation as a religion scholar to write one of the most incredible -- in all senses of the word -- political books of 2004?
Because no one else in mainstream America seemed prepared to do it...
The result? Griffin's book, The New Pearl Harbour: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 (Interlink Publishing, $22.50) has already sold an astonishing 80,000 copies.
...
Griffin's book is titled The New Pearl Harbor for two reasons. One, because that's what Bush wrote in his diary on the evening of Sept. 11: "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today." But also because members of the Bush administration in 2000 helped author the document, Project for the New American Century, which opined it would be difficult to galvanize Americans to support military expansion in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere unless a "new Pearl Harbor" occurred.
Here are a few of the questions Griffin looks into:
* Why did the Bush administration say it didn't anticipate the Sept. 11 attacks when the CIA and FBI had repeatedly told it al-Qaida was planning to hijack planes and fly them into U.S. targets, including the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?
* Why were standard procedures that could have prevented the tragedy not followed when the four hijacked planes went off course, including immediately sending up jet fighters to shoot down passenger planes that fail to obey orders?
* Why has there been no physical evidence a jet plane crashed into the Pentagon? Independent onlookers say they saw a missile fly into the building. Video evidence shot by a nearby gas station's security cameras was confiscated by government officials.
* Why did Bush, despite knowing about first one, then two, World Trade Center crashes, delay his response to them for up to 30 minutes and instead continue to read a children's book? Why was he not whisked away by his security agents, who are trained to believe he's a logical target of terrorists?
* Who made tens of millions of dollars by betting on the stock market in the weeks before Sept. 11 that shares in the two airlines that owned the hijacked planes were about to plummet?
www.septembereleventh.org: news article: " Theologian Asks the Hard Questions About 9/11 |
by Douglas Todd | Vancouver Sun | Saturday, Dec 11, 2004 | Link to Original
...
So why did this soft-spoken professor from the high-ranking Methodist-rooted School of Theology at Claremont, Calif., feel it necessary to risk his hard-earned reputation as a religion scholar to write one of the most incredible -- in all senses of the word -- political books of 2004?
Because no one else in mainstream America seemed prepared to do it...
The result? Griffin's book, The New Pearl Harbour: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 (Interlink Publishing, $22.50) has already sold an astonishing 80,000 copies.
...
Griffin's book is titled The New Pearl Harbor for two reasons. One, because that's what Bush wrote in his diary on the evening of Sept. 11: "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today." But also because members of the Bush administration in 2000 helped author the document, Project for the New American Century, which opined it would be difficult to galvanize Americans to support military expansion in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere unless a "new Pearl Harbor" occurred.
Here are a few of the questions Griffin looks into:
* Why did the Bush administration say it didn't anticipate the Sept. 11 attacks when the CIA and FBI had repeatedly told it al-Qaida was planning to hijack planes and fly them into U.S. targets, including the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?
* Why were standard procedures that could have prevented the tragedy not followed when the four hijacked planes went off course, including immediately sending up jet fighters to shoot down passenger planes that fail to obey orders?
* Why has there been no physical evidence a jet plane crashed into the Pentagon? Independent onlookers say they saw a missile fly into the building. Video evidence shot by a nearby gas station's security cameras was confiscated by government officials.
* Why did Bush, despite knowing about first one, then two, World Trade Center crashes, delay his response to them for up to 30 minutes and instead continue to read a children's book? Why was he not whisked away by his security agents, who are trained to believe he's a logical target of terrorists?
* Who made tens of millions of dollars by betting on the stock market in the weeks before Sept. 11 that shares in the two airlines that owned the hijacked planes were about to plummet?
Monday, May 17, 2004
Military lawyers advised prisoner protection: "marginalized" by political appointees [neo-con] Douglas Feith; Boykin [God tapes] involved ...
Terrorism & Security | csmonitor.com: "May 17, 2004, updated 12:00 p.m. | Military lawyers advised Pentagon two years ago to protect prisoners | But JAGs say Pentagon political appointees had a harsher agenda. | by Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
ABC News reports that lawyers from the military's Judge Advocate General's Corps, or JAG, had been advising the Pentagon for two years before the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison to ensure protection for prisoners. But the military lawyers say that political appointees in the Defense Department ignored their warnings, thus setting the stage for the abuse scandal that has undermined the US's standing in the Middle East, and much of the rest of the world.
ABC quotes several JAG sources as saying that the Pentagon had formed a "Tiger Team" of Army JAG officers after 9/11 to help create rules for military tribunals, but it was soon disbanded and taken over by political appointees. The JAG officers attributed the move to their insistence on greater rights and protections for the prisoners than what the Pentagon's political appointees wanted to give. The JAG officers said in particular they have been "marginalized" by Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy, and William Haynes II, the Pentagon's general counsel, who has been nominated for a judgeship on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Mr. Feith, however, told ABC that there were no tensions with the JAG officers.
...
The situation changed in the summer of 2003, Newsweek reports, when Rumsfeld, desperate to find a way to get more information out of detainees in Iraq, OK'ed the use of the new "interrogation" techniques in Iraq, although the war was clearly covered by the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld allegedly authorized his deputy Stephen Cambone, the under secretary of defense for intelligence, to send Gen. Geoffrey Miller, then commander of the US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Iraq to implement the "system" he had used to get information from detainees at Gitmo. Mr. Cambone used his assistant, Gen. Gen. William (Jerry) Boykin, to arrange the trip with Gen. Miller. Miller's trip seems to have set in motion the conditions that lead to the abuse at the prison, according to the Newsweek report. ...
Terrorism & Security | csmonitor.com: "May 17, 2004, updated 12:00 p.m. | Military lawyers advised Pentagon two years ago to protect prisoners | But JAGs say Pentagon political appointees had a harsher agenda. | by Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
ABC News reports that lawyers from the military's Judge Advocate General's Corps, or JAG, had been advising the Pentagon for two years before the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison to ensure protection for prisoners. But the military lawyers say that political appointees in the Defense Department ignored their warnings, thus setting the stage for the abuse scandal that has undermined the US's standing in the Middle East, and much of the rest of the world.
ABC quotes several JAG sources as saying that the Pentagon had formed a "Tiger Team" of Army JAG officers after 9/11 to help create rules for military tribunals, but it was soon disbanded and taken over by political appointees. The JAG officers attributed the move to their insistence on greater rights and protections for the prisoners than what the Pentagon's political appointees wanted to give. The JAG officers said in particular they have been "marginalized" by Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy, and William Haynes II, the Pentagon's general counsel, who has been nominated for a judgeship on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Mr. Feith, however, told ABC that there were no tensions with the JAG officers.
...
The situation changed in the summer of 2003, Newsweek reports, when Rumsfeld, desperate to find a way to get more information out of detainees in Iraq, OK'ed the use of the new "interrogation" techniques in Iraq, although the war was clearly covered by the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld allegedly authorized his deputy Stephen Cambone, the under secretary of defense for intelligence, to send Gen. Geoffrey Miller, then commander of the US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Iraq to implement the "system" he had used to get information from detainees at Gitmo. Mr. Cambone used his assistant, Gen. Gen. William (Jerry) Boykin, to arrange the trip with Gen. Miller. Miller's trip seems to have set in motion the conditions that lead to the abuse at the prison, according to the Newsweek report. ...
United States now symbolizes racism, mistreatment, and oppression in the Muslim world -- America has permanently wasted its capital
t r u t h o u t - Jean-Marcel Bouguereau | "Blood and Faith": By Jean-Marcel Bouguereau | Le Nouvel Observateur | Friday 14 May 2004
A little more than ten years ago, former Johnson administration expert, Samuel Huntington, published his famous 'Clash of Civilizations'. To crudely summarize, in it he defended the idea that the Soviet Union's fall and the end of ideological confrontations, would herald the time for a cultural confrontation, notably between the West on one side, valorizing human rights, freedom, rule of law, and economic liberalism, and rival civilizations, notably Islam, on the other side. His conclusion: 'blood and faith: that's what people identify with, that's what they fight and die for.' A declaration to which Al-Zarqaoui, the presumed head of al-Qaeda in Iraq and the man who personally decapitated Nicholas Berg, could subscribe. Everything is happening as though, with his war in Iraq, Georges W. Bush had himself also wanted to put this thesis into practice by playing at pyromaniac firemen. Donald Rumsfeld's surprise visit yesterday to Baghdad did not succeed in putting out the fire. According to a poll commissioned by the American Paul Bremer, 80% of Iraqis don't trust the Provisional Authority and a little more disapprove of the presence of occupation troops.
Worse, by regarding their enemies as sub-humans, the Americans have transformed themselves into savages, thereby giving rationalizations in the same blow for the Islamists' dramatic savagery. The war of civilizations is certainly there in this bestiality, this barbarity exposed for all to see, in the decapitation video, in the photos of dismembered corpses, or of tortures inflicted on prisoners. The United States, which meant to bring freedom and democracy to Iraqis, now symbolizes racism, mistreatment, and oppression in the Muslim world. America, which after September 11 aroused the support and the sympathy of the world, has permanently wasted its capital. The head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who accompanied Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad, had acknowledged to a Senate Committee the day before that his army could only be defeated, given that there is, according to him, no "way to win." ...
t r u t h o u t - Jean-Marcel Bouguereau | "Blood and Faith": By Jean-Marcel Bouguereau | Le Nouvel Observateur | Friday 14 May 2004
A little more than ten years ago, former Johnson administration expert, Samuel Huntington, published his famous 'Clash of Civilizations'. To crudely summarize, in it he defended the idea that the Soviet Union's fall and the end of ideological confrontations, would herald the time for a cultural confrontation, notably between the West on one side, valorizing human rights, freedom, rule of law, and economic liberalism, and rival civilizations, notably Islam, on the other side. His conclusion: 'blood and faith: that's what people identify with, that's what they fight and die for.' A declaration to which Al-Zarqaoui, the presumed head of al-Qaeda in Iraq and the man who personally decapitated Nicholas Berg, could subscribe. Everything is happening as though, with his war in Iraq, Georges W. Bush had himself also wanted to put this thesis into practice by playing at pyromaniac firemen. Donald Rumsfeld's surprise visit yesterday to Baghdad did not succeed in putting out the fire. According to a poll commissioned by the American Paul Bremer, 80% of Iraqis don't trust the Provisional Authority and a little more disapprove of the presence of occupation troops.
Worse, by regarding their enemies as sub-humans, the Americans have transformed themselves into savages, thereby giving rationalizations in the same blow for the Islamists' dramatic savagery. The war of civilizations is certainly there in this bestiality, this barbarity exposed for all to see, in the decapitation video, in the photos of dismembered corpses, or of tortures inflicted on prisoners. The United States, which meant to bring freedom and democracy to Iraqis, now symbolizes racism, mistreatment, and oppression in the Muslim world. America, which after September 11 aroused the support and the sympathy of the world, has permanently wasted its capital. The head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who accompanied Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad, had acknowledged to a Senate Committee the day before that his army could only be defeated, given that there is, according to him, no "way to win." ...
Iraqi civilians in car: intelligence said loaded with suicide bombs, "That's the rhetoric we received from intelligence" -- "we never heard anything"
sacbee.com -- Opinion -- Atrocities in Iraq: 'I killed innocent people for our government':By Paul Rockwell -- Special to The Bee | Published 2:15 am PDT Sunday, May 16, 2004
'We forget what war is about, what it does to those who wage it and those who suffer from it. Those who hate war the most, I have often found, are veterans who know it.'
- Chris Hedges, New York Times reporter and author of 'War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning'"
...
Q: What experiences turned you against the war and made you leave the Marines?
A: I was in charge of a platoon that consists of machine gunners and missile men. Our job was to go into certain areas of the towns and secure the roadways. There was this one particular incident - and there's many more - the one that really pushed me over the edge. It involved a car with Iraqi civilians. From all the intelligence reports we were getting, the cars were loaded down with suicide bombs or material. That's the rhetoric we received from intelligence. They came upon our checkpoint. We fired some warning shots. They didn't slow down. So we lit them up.
Q: Lit up? You mean you fired machine guns?
A: Right. Every car that we lit up we were expecting ammunition to go off. But we never heard any. Well, this particular vehicle we didn't destroy completely, and one gentleman looked up at me and said: "Why did you kill my brother? We didn't do anything wrong." That hit me like a ton of bricks. ...
sacbee.com -- Opinion -- Atrocities in Iraq: 'I killed innocent people for our government':By Paul Rockwell -- Special to The Bee | Published 2:15 am PDT Sunday, May 16, 2004
'We forget what war is about, what it does to those who wage it and those who suffer from it. Those who hate war the most, I have often found, are veterans who know it.'
- Chris Hedges, New York Times reporter and author of 'War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning'"
...
Q: What experiences turned you against the war and made you leave the Marines?
A: I was in charge of a platoon that consists of machine gunners and missile men. Our job was to go into certain areas of the towns and secure the roadways. There was this one particular incident - and there's many more - the one that really pushed me over the edge. It involved a car with Iraqi civilians. From all the intelligence reports we were getting, the cars were loaded down with suicide bombs or material. That's the rhetoric we received from intelligence. They came upon our checkpoint. We fired some warning shots. They didn't slow down. So we lit them up.
Q: Lit up? You mean you fired machine guns?
A: Right. Every car that we lit up we were expecting ammunition to go off. But we never heard any. Well, this particular vehicle we didn't destroy completely, and one gentleman looked up at me and said: "Why did you kill my brother? We didn't do anything wrong." That hit me like a ton of bricks. ...
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay: told ... wrongly that targeting [Palestinian] leaders only puts Israeli people at greater risk ...
Yahoo! News - DeLay Links U.S. War, Mideast Conflict: "2 hours, 22 minutes agoAdd Politics - U. S. Congress to My Yahoo! |
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Monday the war in Iraq (news - web sites) and Israel's battle against Palestinian terrorists are two fronts in the same global conflict, 'and we will win it.'
The survival of Israel is essential to America's victory in the war on terror, and America's victory in the war on terror is essential to Israel's survival," the Texas Republican told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
"We will never leave their side."
DeLay's comments marked the latest in a string of rhetorical and policy gestures by Republicans in and out of the White House to bolster GOP hopes to increase its share of the Jewish vote in the November elections.
DeLay, R-Texas, a conservative who has emerged as a strong defender of Israel, appeared before the pro-Israel lobbying group on the same day as a senior House Democrat who also made a robust statement of support for the Jewish state.
...
DeLay also challenged Sharon's critics and Bush's.
"We are told Israel's decision to target leaders of those terrorist organizations that target her citizens only puts the Israeli people at greater risk," he said.
"We are told the war on terror — whether waged by the United States and our coalition of the willing or by the people of Israel — was a mistake, is a quagmire and will be a regret.
"Ladies and gentleman, we are told ... wrongly."
Yahoo! News - DeLay Links U.S. War, Mideast Conflict: "2 hours, 22 minutes agoAdd Politics - U. S. Congress to My Yahoo! |
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Monday the war in Iraq (news - web sites) and Israel's battle against Palestinian terrorists are two fronts in the same global conflict, 'and we will win it.'
The survival of Israel is essential to America's victory in the war on terror, and America's victory in the war on terror is essential to Israel's survival," the Texas Republican told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
"We will never leave their side."
DeLay's comments marked the latest in a string of rhetorical and policy gestures by Republicans in and out of the White House to bolster GOP hopes to increase its share of the Jewish vote in the November elections.
DeLay, R-Texas, a conservative who has emerged as a strong defender of Israel, appeared before the pro-Israel lobbying group on the same day as a senior House Democrat who also made a robust statement of support for the Jewish state.
...
DeLay also challenged Sharon's critics and Bush's.
"We are told Israel's decision to target leaders of those terrorist organizations that target her citizens only puts the Israeli people at greater risk," he said.
"We are told the war on terror — whether waged by the United States and our coalition of the willing or by the people of Israel — was a mistake, is a quagmire and will be a regret.
"Ladies and gentleman, we are told ... wrongly."
Mile-long swath of broken concrete, splintered wood and twisted metal: Israel crushes 1,218 houses --- 257 Pal dead, 58 children and teenagers, 11 IDF
Community Razed Along With Its Homes in Gaza (washingtonpost.com): "Palestinian Camp Is in Crossfire Between Gunmen, Israeli Army | By Molly Moore | Washington Post Foreign Service | Sunday, May 16, 2004; Page A19
...
Since the start of the Palestinian uprising in September 2000, 257 Palestinians -- including at least 58 children and teenagers -- have died in clashes here, according to local medical officials and human rights organizations. The Israeli military said 10 of its soldiers have been killed here.
During the same 31/2-year period, Israeli military bulldozers have crushed 1,218 houses along the northern edge of the border between Gaza and Egypt, pushing back the city of Rafah and the adjacent refugee camp. A mile-long swath of broken concrete, splintered wood and twisted metal is all that remains of what Azizah Abu Anzah and others say was a close-knit community built by families and neighbors who gathered here a half-century ago in a cluster of U.N. tents.
"They've separated us," Abu Anzah said a few weeks ago in the house that has since been demolished. "All my neighbors were my relatives. Now they are scattered everywhere."
After Israel demolished between 80 and 120 homes in the Rafah camp this week, ...
Community Razed Along With Its Homes in Gaza (washingtonpost.com): "Palestinian Camp Is in Crossfire Between Gunmen, Israeli Army | By Molly Moore | Washington Post Foreign Service | Sunday, May 16, 2004; Page A19
...
Since the start of the Palestinian uprising in September 2000, 257 Palestinians -- including at least 58 children and teenagers -- have died in clashes here, according to local medical officials and human rights organizations. The Israeli military said 10 of its soldiers have been killed here.
During the same 31/2-year period, Israeli military bulldozers have crushed 1,218 houses along the northern edge of the border between Gaza and Egypt, pushing back the city of Rafah and the adjacent refugee camp. A mile-long swath of broken concrete, splintered wood and twisted metal is all that remains of what Azizah Abu Anzah and others say was a close-knit community built by families and neighbors who gathered here a half-century ago in a cluster of U.N. tents.
"They've separated us," Abu Anzah said a few weeks ago in the house that has since been demolished. "All my neighbors were my relatives. Now they are scattered everywhere."
After Israel demolished between 80 and 120 homes in the Rafah camp this week, ...
Israeli demolitions: 2,018 houses beyond repair in Gaza strip, 88 over last weekend, 12,600 Palestinians homeless, 500-800 more in West Bank
Yahoo! News - Statistics on Israeli Army Demolition: "Sun May 16, 3:05 PM ET | By The Associated Press
The Israeli military has demolished dozens of homes in the Palestinian refugee camp of Rafah over the weekend, following attacks that killed seven Israeli soldiers there. The army says it may raze hundreds more homes in the Gaza Strip (news - web sites) shantytown to widen a military patrol road.
Following are statistics on demolitions since the outbreak of Israeli-Palestinian fighting in September 2000, provided by the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, which administers Palestinian refugee camps:
_ Since Oct.1, 2000, 2,018 houses were destroyed or damaged beyond repair in the Gaza Strip, making 18,382 people homeless. Of those, more than half were in the Rafah camp, where 1,309 houses were razed or irreparably damaged, and 12,600 people made homeless.
_ Eighty-eight homes were destroyed in Rafah over the weekend.
_ The overall figures include non-refugees, who make up about 15 percent of the total who have lost their homes.
_ While most demolitions are carried out by bulldozer, the U.N. figures also include damage from Israeli airstrikes.
_ The army says it does not keep a general record of demolitions but it believes the U.N. figures are exaggerated.
_ The Israeli Committee Against House Demolition said it does not keep an independent tally, but regards the U.N. figures as the most reliable.
_ The U.N. agency does not keep a formal tally in the West Bank in general, although it says 432 homes were destroyed during a 2002 military incursion into Jenin refugee camp. Aid workers estimate 500-800 houses have been demolished in the West Bank since the start of the uprising.
Yahoo! News - Statistics on Israeli Army Demolition: "Sun May 16, 3:05 PM ET | By The Associated Press
The Israeli military has demolished dozens of homes in the Palestinian refugee camp of Rafah over the weekend, following attacks that killed seven Israeli soldiers there. The army says it may raze hundreds more homes in the Gaza Strip (news - web sites) shantytown to widen a military patrol road.
Following are statistics on demolitions since the outbreak of Israeli-Palestinian fighting in September 2000, provided by the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, which administers Palestinian refugee camps:
_ Since Oct.1, 2000, 2,018 houses were destroyed or damaged beyond repair in the Gaza Strip, making 18,382 people homeless. Of those, more than half were in the Rafah camp, where 1,309 houses were razed or irreparably damaged, and 12,600 people made homeless.
_ Eighty-eight homes were destroyed in Rafah over the weekend.
_ The overall figures include non-refugees, who make up about 15 percent of the total who have lost their homes.
_ While most demolitions are carried out by bulldozer, the U.N. figures also include damage from Israeli airstrikes.
_ The army says it does not keep a general record of demolitions but it believes the U.N. figures are exaggerated.
_ The Israeli Committee Against House Demolition said it does not keep an independent tally, but regards the U.N. figures as the most reliable.
_ The U.N. agency does not keep a formal tally in the West Bank in general, although it says 432 homes were destroyed during a 2002 military incursion into Jenin refugee camp. Aid workers estimate 500-800 houses have been demolished in the West Bank since the start of the uprising.
Sunday, May 16, 2004
Abuse Scandal Focuses on Bush Foundation [opened door for mistreatment?]: ICRC + other human rights reports discussed at NSC in Administration
Abuse Scandal Focuses on Bush Foundation (washingtonpost.com): "By Pete Yost | The Associated Press | Sunday, May 16, 2004; 6:17 PM
WASHINGTON - The Iraq prisoner abuse scandal shifted Sunday to the question of whether the Bush administration set up a legal foundation that opened the door for the mistreatment. Within months of the Sept. 11 attacks, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales reportedly wrote President Bush a memo about the terrorism fight and prisoners' rights under the Geneva Conventions.
"In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions," Gonzales wrote, according to the report in Newsweek magazine. Secretary of State Colin Powell "hit the roof" when he read the memo, according to the account.
...
"We knew that the ICRC had concerns, and in accordance with the matter in which the ICRC does its work, it presented those concerns directly to the command in Baghdad," Powell said on "Fox News Sunday." "And I know that some corrective action was taken with respect to those concerns."
Powell added, "All of the reports we received from ICRC having to do with the situation in Guantanamo, the situation in Afghanistan or the situation in Iraq was the subject of discussion within the administration, at our principals' committee meetings" and at National Security Council meetings. ...
...
But three directives in particular have already begun to attract congressional scrutiny: The first is a classified report by Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller on Sept. 9, 2003, demanding that the military police at Abu Ghraib be dedicated and trained to set "the conditions for the successful interrogation and exploitation of internees/detainees." The report, which Cambone has testified was presented to his deputy William Boykin, contained five recommendations spelling out how this was to occur and reported it had already begun.
The second is an Oct. 12 classified memo signed by Sanchez that demanded a "harmonization" of military policing and intelligence work at Abu Ghraib for the purpose of ensuring "consistency with the interrogation policies . . . and maximiz[ing] the efficiency of the interrogation."
The third is a Nov. 19 memo from Sanchez's office that formally placed the two key Abu Ghraib cellblocks where the abuses occurred under the control of Pappas and his 205th Military Intelligence Brigade. It was 11 days later, after this memo placed the military police responsible for "security of detainees and base protection" in Pappas's hands, that he sought, in his memo to Sanchez, to draw military police explicitly into applying pressure on the Syrian.
Abuse Scandal Focuses on Bush Foundation (washingtonpost.com): "By Pete Yost | The Associated Press | Sunday, May 16, 2004; 6:17 PM
WASHINGTON - The Iraq prisoner abuse scandal shifted Sunday to the question of whether the Bush administration set up a legal foundation that opened the door for the mistreatment. Within months of the Sept. 11 attacks, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales reportedly wrote President Bush a memo about the terrorism fight and prisoners' rights under the Geneva Conventions.
"In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions," Gonzales wrote, according to the report in Newsweek magazine. Secretary of State Colin Powell "hit the roof" when he read the memo, according to the account.
...
"We knew that the ICRC had concerns, and in accordance with the matter in which the ICRC does its work, it presented those concerns directly to the command in Baghdad," Powell said on "Fox News Sunday." "And I know that some corrective action was taken with respect to those concerns."
Powell added, "All of the reports we received from ICRC having to do with the situation in Guantanamo, the situation in Afghanistan or the situation in Iraq was the subject of discussion within the administration, at our principals' committee meetings" and at National Security Council meetings. ...
...
But three directives in particular have already begun to attract congressional scrutiny: The first is a classified report by Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller on Sept. 9, 2003, demanding that the military police at Abu Ghraib be dedicated and trained to set "the conditions for the successful interrogation and exploitation of internees/detainees." The report, which Cambone has testified was presented to his deputy William Boykin, contained five recommendations spelling out how this was to occur and reported it had already begun.
The second is an Oct. 12 classified memo signed by Sanchez that demanded a "harmonization" of military policing and intelligence work at Abu Ghraib for the purpose of ensuring "consistency with the interrogation policies . . . and maximiz[ing] the efficiency of the interrogation."
The third is a Nov. 19 memo from Sanchez's office that formally placed the two key Abu Ghraib cellblocks where the abuses occurred under the control of Pappas and his 205th Military Intelligence Brigade. It was 11 days later, after this memo placed the military police responsible for "security of detainees and base protection" in Pappas's hands, that he sought, in his memo to Sanchez, to draw military police explicitly into applying pressure on the Syrian.
The [Bush Administration's] Policy of Abuse: ICRC condemned the techniques as illegal under the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture
The Policy of Abuse (washingtonpost.com): "Sunday, May 16, 2004; Page B06
UNTIL THIS MONTH very little was publicly known about the Bush administration's procedures for handling and interrogating foreign detainees. Human rights groups had collected reports of abuses at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in Afghanistan, reports that the administration dismissed or denied. Spokesmen pointed to President Bush's statement in June of last year that the United States would not violate an international convention against torture and to assurances that detainees in Guantanamo were being treated according to the principles of the Geneva Conventions. In the past two weeks, thanks to the furor over the photographs from Abu Ghraib prison and a series of congressional hearings, a disturbingly different picture has been revealed -- one that in its own way is shocking and damaging to America's place in the world.
What is now known is that official procedures for handling detainees permitted hooding, sleep and dietary deprivation, forced "stress" positions, isolation for more than 30 days and intimidation by dogs, and that these reflected judgments at the highest levels of the Bush administration. These decisions, taken in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, changed decades of previous U.S. policy and violated or radically reinterpreted existing regulations. Their adoption deeply disturbed legal professionals inside the military, so much so that some secretly took their complaints to outside watchdog organizations. The International Committee of the Red Cross, as well as many independent legal experts, has condemned the resulting questioning techniques as illegal under the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture. Yet Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has been saying that the United States considers such treatment of prisoners appropriate and legal -- and, presumably, sanctioned for use against detainees everywhere, including Americans. ...
...
... A number of practices are identified in official manuals as illegal physical or mental torture, including "food deprivation," "abnormal sleep deprivation" and "forcing an individual to stand, sit or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time." With the encouragement of senior civilian Pentagon officials, these rules have been turned inside out. Sleep deprivation of up to 72 hours, the Pentagon decided, was not "abnormal" and therefore not torture; a forced stress position held for as long as 45 minutes was not "prolonged" and thus also allowed. The list of practices approved for Iraq also included "dietary manipulation" (as distinguished from illegal "food deprivation"), "sensory deprivation" and "change of scenery down" (putting a prisoner in a worse place).
Even harsher methods have been approved for Guantanamo and for facilities in Afghanistan and elsewhere where the Bush administration is holding detainees it says are "unlawful combatants" under the terms of the Geneva Conventions. ...
The Policy of Abuse (washingtonpost.com): "Sunday, May 16, 2004; Page B06
UNTIL THIS MONTH very little was publicly known about the Bush administration's procedures for handling and interrogating foreign detainees. Human rights groups had collected reports of abuses at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in Afghanistan, reports that the administration dismissed or denied. Spokesmen pointed to President Bush's statement in June of last year that the United States would not violate an international convention against torture and to assurances that detainees in Guantanamo were being treated according to the principles of the Geneva Conventions. In the past two weeks, thanks to the furor over the photographs from Abu Ghraib prison and a series of congressional hearings, a disturbingly different picture has been revealed -- one that in its own way is shocking and damaging to America's place in the world.
What is now known is that official procedures for handling detainees permitted hooding, sleep and dietary deprivation, forced "stress" positions, isolation for more than 30 days and intimidation by dogs, and that these reflected judgments at the highest levels of the Bush administration. These decisions, taken in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, changed decades of previous U.S. policy and violated or radically reinterpreted existing regulations. Their adoption deeply disturbed legal professionals inside the military, so much so that some secretly took their complaints to outside watchdog organizations. The International Committee of the Red Cross, as well as many independent legal experts, has condemned the resulting questioning techniques as illegal under the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture. Yet Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has been saying that the United States considers such treatment of prisoners appropriate and legal -- and, presumably, sanctioned for use against detainees everywhere, including Americans. ...
...
... A number of practices are identified in official manuals as illegal physical or mental torture, including "food deprivation," "abnormal sleep deprivation" and "forcing an individual to stand, sit or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time." With the encouragement of senior civilian Pentagon officials, these rules have been turned inside out. Sleep deprivation of up to 72 hours, the Pentagon decided, was not "abnormal" and therefore not torture; a forced stress position held for as long as 45 minutes was not "prolonged" and thus also allowed. The list of practices approved for Iraq also included "dietary manipulation" (as distinguished from illegal "food deprivation"), "sensory deprivation" and "change of scenery down" (putting a prisoner in a worse place).
Even harsher methods have been approved for Guantanamo and for facilities in Afghanistan and elsewhere where the Bush administration is holding detainees it says are "unlawful combatants" under the terms of the Geneva Conventions. ...
Powell Offers Abuse Apology and Israeli Rebuke: Arabs mistrustful of American policies in both Iraq and the Palestine-Israel conflict.
The New York Times > International > Europe > Powell Offers Abuse Apology and Israeli Rebuke: "By ALAN COWELL | Published: May 16, 2004
HUNEH, Jordan, May 16 � Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, at a gathering of the Arab elite, offered a direct apology today to Iraqi prisoners in Baghdad abused by Americans and castigated Israel for demolishing Palestinian homes in Gaza.
But, as he ended a brief foray into the Arab world hoping to rebuild American credibility, there was little evidence that the twin gestures had mollified Arabs mistrustful of American policies in both Iraq and the Palestine-Israel conflict.
...
Even as he spoke of a new start to peace efforts between Israelis and Palestinians, though, Arab officials complained that Israel's destruction of Palestinian homes in Gaza's Rafah refugee camp seemed to undermine an offer by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to dismantle Jewish settlements in Gaza and pull out Israeli troops.
Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher of Egypt, a delegate at the World Economic forum, told CNN: "The plan that the Americans are talking about is a plan that didn't float at all." He added, "The way Mr. Sharon is implementing it is to destroy more homes in Gaza — I mean what sort of Gaza does he want to leave?"
At his news conference, Mr. Powell said: "We oppose the destruction of homes. We don't think that is productive."
...
At a session of the World Economic Forum, however, Nabil Shaath, the Palestinian Foreign Minister, took issue angrily with what he depicted as a one-sided American attitude on the issue. The United States "must put a full stop on the violence by both sides," he said. "Stop blaming it all on the Palestinians."
In an interview later, he said Mr. Powell's visit here had been "positive in two senses" because it signaled American willingness to restart talks and to return to the negotiating framework established before Mr. Sharon's new initiative.
"Other than these two positive factors there was nothing practical," Mr. Shaath said. "There was no decision that the United States is going to get re-engaged in a meaningful way." ...
The New York Times > International > Europe > Powell Offers Abuse Apology and Israeli Rebuke: "By ALAN COWELL | Published: May 16, 2004
HUNEH, Jordan, May 16 � Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, at a gathering of the Arab elite, offered a direct apology today to Iraqi prisoners in Baghdad abused by Americans and castigated Israel for demolishing Palestinian homes in Gaza.
But, as he ended a brief foray into the Arab world hoping to rebuild American credibility, there was little evidence that the twin gestures had mollified Arabs mistrustful of American policies in both Iraq and the Palestine-Israel conflict.
...
Even as he spoke of a new start to peace efforts between Israelis and Palestinians, though, Arab officials complained that Israel's destruction of Palestinian homes in Gaza's Rafah refugee camp seemed to undermine an offer by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to dismantle Jewish settlements in Gaza and pull out Israeli troops.
Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher of Egypt, a delegate at the World Economic forum, told CNN: "The plan that the Americans are talking about is a plan that didn't float at all." He added, "The way Mr. Sharon is implementing it is to destroy more homes in Gaza — I mean what sort of Gaza does he want to leave?"
At his news conference, Mr. Powell said: "We oppose the destruction of homes. We don't think that is productive."
...
At a session of the World Economic Forum, however, Nabil Shaath, the Palestinian Foreign Minister, took issue angrily with what he depicted as a one-sided American attitude on the issue. The United States "must put a full stop on the violence by both sides," he said. "Stop blaming it all on the Palestinians."
In an interview later, he said Mr. Powell's visit here had been "positive in two senses" because it signaled American willingness to restart talks and to return to the negotiating framework established before Mr. Sharon's new initiative.
"Other than these two positive factors there was nothing practical," Mr. Shaath said. "There was no decision that the United States is going to get re-engaged in a meaningful way." ...
Military newspaper blames Rumsfeld, Myers for "professional negligence"
Yahoo! News - Military newspaper blames Rumsfeld, Myers for "professional negligence": "Mon May 10,11:00 AM ET"
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A leading military newspaper said that US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone for the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq (news - web sites) by refusing to give captives rights due prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.
"This was a failure that ran straight to the top," said the editorial appearing in the May 17 edition of the Military Times weeklies.
"Accountability here is essential -- even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war," it said.
...
"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone early in this war by steadfastly refusing to give captives the rights accorded to prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention," it said.
"From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and accorded no rights whatsoever. The message to the troops: Anything goes."
The editorial also faults General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for trying to persuade CBS television to refrain from airing the images while failing to read the army's own damning internal report detailing the abuses.
"On the battlefield, Myers' and Rumsfelds' errors would be called a lack of situational awareness -- a failure that amounts to professional negligence," it said.
Yahoo! News - Military newspaper blames Rumsfeld, Myers for "professional negligence": "Mon May 10,11:00 AM ET"
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A leading military newspaper said that US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone for the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq (news - web sites) by refusing to give captives rights due prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.
"This was a failure that ran straight to the top," said the editorial appearing in the May 17 edition of the Military Times weeklies.
"Accountability here is essential -- even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war," it said.
...
"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone early in this war by steadfastly refusing to give captives the rights accorded to prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention," it said.
"From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and accorded no rights whatsoever. The message to the troops: Anything goes."
The editorial also faults General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for trying to persuade CBS television to refrain from airing the images while failing to read the army's own damning internal report detailing the abuses.
"On the battlefield, Myers' and Rumsfelds' errors would be called a lack of situational awareness -- a failure that amounts to professional negligence," it said.
The [neoconservative] cult that's running the country: Bush could funsamentally change administration by firing fewer than fifteen senior officials
Salon.com Books | The cult that's running the country: "
Joseph Wilson blasts the secretive neoconservative cabal that plunged America into a disastrous war, in this excerpt from his new book.
...
... Paul Wolfowitz, in an interview with Vanity Fair, acknowledged as much when he said, "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." (The Pentagon released its own transcript of the interview after they were unhappy with news coverage of the revelations in the published article, but the two versions do not differ on this point.)
This enterprise in Iraq was always about a larger neoconservative agenda of projecting force as the means of imposing solutions. It was about shaking up the Middle East in the hope that democracy might emerge -- what I had heard Charles Krauthammer call "the coming ashore in Arabia." Whatever one may conclude about the desirability of using our military to bring democracy to the Arab world, the fact is that we went to war without first testing the thesis in serious national debate.
...
The neoconservatives who have taken us down this path are actually very few in number. It is a small pack of zealots whose dedication has spanned decades, and that through years of selective recruitment has become a government cult with cells in most of the national security system. Among those cells are the secretive Office of Special Plans [Douglas Feith]in the Department of Defense (reportedly now disbanded) and a similar operation in the State Department that is managed in the office of Under Secretary for Disarmament John Bolton.
... They introduced themselves as Albert and Roberta Wohlstetter, professors from the University of Chicago, and they made themselves at home for a brief chat.
Albert Wohlstetter, one of the most influential strategists of nuclear weapons policy in the second half of the twentieth century until his death in 1997, was a mentor to Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. ...
...
President Bush could fundamentally change the direction of his administration by firing fewer than fifteen senior officials, beginning with those signatories of the Project for the New American Century and those currently holding government posts who signed a 1998 letter that urged President Clinton to wage war on Iraq. They are clustered at the National Security Council (NSC), in the Defense and State Departments, and within Vice President Cheney's own parallel national security office. That particular little-known organization -- not accountable to Congress and virtually unknown to the American people -- should be completely dismantled. Never in the history of our democracy has there been established such an influential and pervasive center of power with the ability to circumvent longstanding and accepted reporting structures and to skew decisionmaking practices. It has been described to me chillingly by a former senior government official as a coup d'etat within the State. That's all it would take -- firing fewer than fifteen officials, and the scuttling of Cheney's questionable office -- to alter this administration's radical course.
...
The man attacking my integrity and reputation -- and, I believe, quite possibly the person who exposed my wife's identity -- was the same Scooter Libby who, before he came into the new administration, was one of the principal attorneys for Marc Rich, ex-fugitive. ... Libby is a consummate Republican insider who has bounced back and forth between government posts and his international law practice. He first worked on the Rich case in the mid-1980s, after a stint in the State Department. From 1989 to 1993, Libby worked for Paul Wolfowitz in the Pentagon, before returning to the task of trying to obtain a legal settlement for his fugitive client.
...
In the late nineties, Libby also participated in the preparation of the Project for the New American Century's seminal document, "Rebuilding American Defenses," which became the neoconservative blueprint for national security policy, much of which has been implemented in the aftermath of 9/11. This ardent neoconservative is a leading participant in the network of hidden cells that funneled so much disinformation to our political decision makers outside normal channels. He is one of a handful of senior officials in the administration with both the means and the motive to conduct the covert inquiry that allowed some in the White House to learn my wife's name and status, and then disclose that information to the press.
The other name that has most often been repeated to me in connection with the inquiry and disclosure into my background and Valerie's is that of Elliott Abrams, who gained infamy in the Iran–Contra scandal during the first Bush administration. Abrams had been convicted in 1991 on two charges of lying to Congress about illegal government support of the Nicaraguan contra rebels. He was pardoned in 1992 by President George H. W. Bush. How unsurprising it would be if Abrams, an admitted perjurer and a charter member of the neoconservative movement, has engaged in unethical or criminal behavior in yet another presidential administration.
According to my sources, between March 2003 and the appearance of my article in July, the workup on me that turned up the information on Valerie was shared with Karl Rove, who then circulated it in administration and neoconservative circles. That would explain the assertion later advanced by Clifford May, the neocon fellow traveler, who wrote that Valerie's employment was supposedly widely known. Oh, really? ...
...
In fact, senior advisers close to the president may well have been clever enough to have used others to do the actual leaking, in order to keep their fingerprints off the crime. John Hannah and David Wurmser, mid-level political appointees in the vice president's office, have both been suggested as sources of the leaks. I don't know either, though at the time of the leak, Wurmser, a prominent neoconservative, was working as a special assistant to John Bolton at the State Department. Mid-level officials, however, do not leak information without authority from a higher level. They would have been instruments, not the makers, of decisions.
...
... By the end of February 2004, efforts to launch congressional inquiries had been voted down in three House committees. Henry Hyde, Republican chairman of the International Relations panel, claimed, "It would be irresponsible for the committee to ... jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation." On the contrary, according to congressional sources of mine, Republicans, pressured by the White House, have simply refused to exercise oversight responsibility on this national security matter.
It's a far cry from the days when the House Government Reform committee, chaired by Indiana congressman Dan Burton, held frequent hearings on alleged Clinton administration misdeeds. At a time when all experts on national security agree that we need to strengthen our ability to collect human intelligence, the unwillingness of some to seriously address this act of betrayal is surely damaging that effort.
But as with all cover-ups, such as Watergate and Iran-Contra, the revelation of the whole truth in this matter will likely be a long time coming, and have repercussions none of us can anticipate.
Salon.com Books | The cult that's running the country: "
Joseph Wilson blasts the secretive neoconservative cabal that plunged America into a disastrous war, in this excerpt from his new book.
...
... Paul Wolfowitz, in an interview with Vanity Fair, acknowledged as much when he said, "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." (The Pentagon released its own transcript of the interview after they were unhappy with news coverage of the revelations in the published article, but the two versions do not differ on this point.)
This enterprise in Iraq was always about a larger neoconservative agenda of projecting force as the means of imposing solutions. It was about shaking up the Middle East in the hope that democracy might emerge -- what I had heard Charles Krauthammer call "the coming ashore in Arabia." Whatever one may conclude about the desirability of using our military to bring democracy to the Arab world, the fact is that we went to war without first testing the thesis in serious national debate.
...
The neoconservatives who have taken us down this path are actually very few in number. It is a small pack of zealots whose dedication has spanned decades, and that through years of selective recruitment has become a government cult with cells in most of the national security system. Among those cells are the secretive Office of Special Plans [Douglas Feith]in the Department of Defense (reportedly now disbanded) and a similar operation in the State Department that is managed in the office of Under Secretary for Disarmament John Bolton.
... They introduced themselves as Albert and Roberta Wohlstetter, professors from the University of Chicago, and they made themselves at home for a brief chat.
Albert Wohlstetter, one of the most influential strategists of nuclear weapons policy in the second half of the twentieth century until his death in 1997, was a mentor to Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. ...
...
President Bush could fundamentally change the direction of his administration by firing fewer than fifteen senior officials, beginning with those signatories of the Project for the New American Century and those currently holding government posts who signed a 1998 letter that urged President Clinton to wage war on Iraq. They are clustered at the National Security Council (NSC), in the Defense and State Departments, and within Vice President Cheney's own parallel national security office. That particular little-known organization -- not accountable to Congress and virtually unknown to the American people -- should be completely dismantled. Never in the history of our democracy has there been established such an influential and pervasive center of power with the ability to circumvent longstanding and accepted reporting structures and to skew decisionmaking practices. It has been described to me chillingly by a former senior government official as a coup d'etat within the State. That's all it would take -- firing fewer than fifteen officials, and the scuttling of Cheney's questionable office -- to alter this administration's radical course.
...
The man attacking my integrity and reputation -- and, I believe, quite possibly the person who exposed my wife's identity -- was the same Scooter Libby who, before he came into the new administration, was one of the principal attorneys for Marc Rich, ex-fugitive. ... Libby is a consummate Republican insider who has bounced back and forth between government posts and his international law practice. He first worked on the Rich case in the mid-1980s, after a stint in the State Department. From 1989 to 1993, Libby worked for Paul Wolfowitz in the Pentagon, before returning to the task of trying to obtain a legal settlement for his fugitive client.
...
In the late nineties, Libby also participated in the preparation of the Project for the New American Century's seminal document, "Rebuilding American Defenses," which became the neoconservative blueprint for national security policy, much of which has been implemented in the aftermath of 9/11. This ardent neoconservative is a leading participant in the network of hidden cells that funneled so much disinformation to our political decision makers outside normal channels. He is one of a handful of senior officials in the administration with both the means and the motive to conduct the covert inquiry that allowed some in the White House to learn my wife's name and status, and then disclose that information to the press.
The other name that has most often been repeated to me in connection with the inquiry and disclosure into my background and Valerie's is that of Elliott Abrams, who gained infamy in the Iran–Contra scandal during the first Bush administration. Abrams had been convicted in 1991 on two charges of lying to Congress about illegal government support of the Nicaraguan contra rebels. He was pardoned in 1992 by President George H. W. Bush. How unsurprising it would be if Abrams, an admitted perjurer and a charter member of the neoconservative movement, has engaged in unethical or criminal behavior in yet another presidential administration.
According to my sources, between March 2003 and the appearance of my article in July, the workup on me that turned up the information on Valerie was shared with Karl Rove, who then circulated it in administration and neoconservative circles. That would explain the assertion later advanced by Clifford May, the neocon fellow traveler, who wrote that Valerie's employment was supposedly widely known. Oh, really? ...
...
In fact, senior advisers close to the president may well have been clever enough to have used others to do the actual leaking, in order to keep their fingerprints off the crime. John Hannah and David Wurmser, mid-level political appointees in the vice president's office, have both been suggested as sources of the leaks. I don't know either, though at the time of the leak, Wurmser, a prominent neoconservative, was working as a special assistant to John Bolton at the State Department. Mid-level officials, however, do not leak information without authority from a higher level. They would have been instruments, not the makers, of decisions.
...
... By the end of February 2004, efforts to launch congressional inquiries had been voted down in three House committees. Henry Hyde, Republican chairman of the International Relations panel, claimed, "It would be irresponsible for the committee to ... jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation." On the contrary, according to congressional sources of mine, Republicans, pressured by the White House, have simply refused to exercise oversight responsibility on this national security matter.
It's a far cry from the days when the House Government Reform committee, chaired by Indiana congressman Dan Burton, held frequent hearings on alleged Clinton administration misdeeds. At a time when all experts on national security agree that we need to strengthen our ability to collect human intelligence, the unwillingness of some to seriously address this act of betrayal is surely damaging that effort.
But as with all cover-ups, such as Watergate and Iran-Contra, the revelation of the whole truth in this matter will likely be a long time coming, and have repercussions none of us can anticipate.
Powell aides go public on rift with Bush: disdain for the hawks: Condeleeza Rice a "jerK": never been in the face of battle: cavalier decisions
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Powell aides go public on rift with Bush: "Chief of staff says secretary of state is fed up with apologising for the administration and is disdainful of 'ideological' hawks | Gary Younge in New York | Thursday May 6, 2004
Colin Powell's key aide has described US sanctions policy against countries such as Pakistan and Cuba as "the dumbest policy on the face of the Earth".
In an article in GQ magazine Larry Wilkerson, chief of staff of the United States secretary of state, bemoans Mr Powell's firefighting role in President George Bush's cabinet.
The article, which includes an interview with Mr Powell, is most illuminating for the comments made by his close friends and colleagues who are explicit about his distrust and disdain for the hawks in the administration.
Mr Powell's deputy, Richard Armitage, remarks on his boss's anguish at the damage to his credibility following his speech to the United Nations last year making the case for war and insisting there were weapons of mass destruction. "It's a source of great distress for the secretary," he said.
Meanwhile his mentor from the National War College, Harlan Ullman, describes the US national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, as a "jerk".
...
Mr Wilkerson even makes jibes at the war record of Mr Bush's inner circle, comparing their desire for military conflict with their reluctance to serve as young men: "I make no bones about it. I have some reservations about people who have never been in the face of battle, so to speak, who are making cavalier decisions about sending men and women out to die."
He then goes on to name former neo-conservative adviser, Richard Perle. He said: "Thank God [he] tendered his resignation and no longer will be even a semi-official person in this administration."
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Powell aides go public on rift with Bush: "Chief of staff says secretary of state is fed up with apologising for the administration and is disdainful of 'ideological' hawks | Gary Younge in New York | Thursday May 6, 2004
Colin Powell's key aide has described US sanctions policy against countries such as Pakistan and Cuba as "the dumbest policy on the face of the Earth".
In an article in GQ magazine Larry Wilkerson, chief of staff of the United States secretary of state, bemoans Mr Powell's firefighting role in President George Bush's cabinet.
The article, which includes an interview with Mr Powell, is most illuminating for the comments made by his close friends and colleagues who are explicit about his distrust and disdain for the hawks in the administration.
Mr Powell's deputy, Richard Armitage, remarks on his boss's anguish at the damage to his credibility following his speech to the United Nations last year making the case for war and insisting there were weapons of mass destruction. "It's a source of great distress for the secretary," he said.
Meanwhile his mentor from the National War College, Harlan Ullman, describes the US national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, as a "jerk".
...
Mr Wilkerson even makes jibes at the war record of Mr Bush's inner circle, comparing their desire for military conflict with their reluctance to serve as young men: "I make no bones about it. I have some reservations about people who have never been in the face of battle, so to speak, who are making cavalier decisions about sending men and women out to die."
He then goes on to name former neo-conservative adviser, Richard Perle. He said: "Thank God [he] tendered his resignation and no longer will be even a semi-official person in this administration."
[Ashcroft used prison specialist with history of huan rights abuses as consultant to prisons in Iraq]
Exporting America's Prison Problems: "May 12, 2004 | by Dan Frosch
In 1997 a 29-year-old schizophrenic inmate named Michael Valent was stripped naked and strapped to a restraining chair by Utah prison staff because he refused to take a pillowcase off his head. Shortly after he was released some sixteen hours later, Valent collapsed and died from a blood clot that blocked an artery to his heart.
... Director of the Utah Department of Corrections, Lane McCotter, who was named in the suit and defended use of the chair, resigned in the ensuing firestorm.
Some six years later, Lane McCotter was working in Abu Ghraib prison, part of a four-man team of correctional advisers sent by the Justice Department and charged with the sensitive mission of reconstructing Iraq's notorious prisons, ravaged by decades of human rights abuse.
...
... interviewed close to forty mentally ill inmates who had also been restrained in the chair. "We found out they were being kept there far longer than necessary," says Anderson. "There were cases where inmates ended up sitting in their own feces. They were being tortured."
...
... the ACLU filed a lawsuit against three Utah DOC doctors, this time for binding a mentally ill man, naked save his underwear, to a stainless steel pallet called 'the board' for eighty-five straight days.
Less than a year later, a team of Justice Department correctional experts was inside the Santa Fe jail investigating civil rights violations [links to McCotter again]. In March 2003, their report concluded that certain conditions violated inmates' constitutional rights, and that inmates suffered "harm or the risk of serious harm" from, among other things, woeful deficiencies in healthcare and basic living conditions. ...
Exporting America's Prison Problems: "May 12, 2004 | by Dan Frosch
In 1997 a 29-year-old schizophrenic inmate named Michael Valent was stripped naked and strapped to a restraining chair by Utah prison staff because he refused to take a pillowcase off his head. Shortly after he was released some sixteen hours later, Valent collapsed and died from a blood clot that blocked an artery to his heart.
... Director of the Utah Department of Corrections, Lane McCotter, who was named in the suit and defended use of the chair, resigned in the ensuing firestorm.
Some six years later, Lane McCotter was working in Abu Ghraib prison, part of a four-man team of correctional advisers sent by the Justice Department and charged with the sensitive mission of reconstructing Iraq's notorious prisons, ravaged by decades of human rights abuse.
...
... interviewed close to forty mentally ill inmates who had also been restrained in the chair. "We found out they were being kept there far longer than necessary," says Anderson. "There were cases where inmates ended up sitting in their own feces. They were being tortured."
...
... the ACLU filed a lawsuit against three Utah DOC doctors, this time for binding a mentally ill man, naked save his underwear, to a stainless steel pallet called 'the board' for eighty-five straight days.
Less than a year later, a team of Justice Department correctional experts was inside the Santa Fe jail investigating civil rights violations [links to McCotter again]. In March 2003, their report concluded that certain conditions violated inmates' constitutional rights, and that inmates suffered "harm or the risk of serious harm" from, among other things, woeful deficiencies in healthcare and basic living conditions. ...
Thursday, May 13, 2004
Dear Bush: 13 groups report 1 year of complaints of human rights abuses: hundereds of Iraqi civilians killed in Fallujah
Ralph Nader: An Open Letter to Bush on Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners: "May 13, 2004 | Inhumane Treatment of Prisoners Produces Blowbacks and Backlashes | By RALPH NADER
Dear Mr. President:
The reported widespread abuse of prisoners by your Administration adds another condition that reflects on your failure of leadership. Anticipation and prevention of such tragedies should have been routine by the top officials whom you command. How can you imagine winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? You are expanding what the intelligence agencies call 'blowbacks' - expanding the networking of stateless terrorists against the United States. In addition, your Administration's actions put US soldiers and civilians in Iraq at increased risk from the backlash to the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, most of whom the press reports were charged with no wrongdoing when imprisoned.
With the publication of photos from Abu Ghraib prison the truth is beginning to come out. In recent years newspaper articles, human rights reports and expressions of concern from the International Red Cross, Red Crescent and other human services agencies have claimed that torture, degradation and inhuman treatment had become the mode of operation under your Administration in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, and Iraq. This has included repeated reports in the media of deaths and suicides of people being held in US military custody.
...
The International Committee of the Red Cross issued a report concerning prisoner abuse based on private interviews with prisoners of war and civilian internees during the 29 visits ICRC staff conducted in 14 places of detention across Iraq between March 31 and October 2, 2003. The report said that as far back as last May, the Red Cross reported to the military about 200 allegations of abuse, and that in July it complained about 50 allegations of abuse ...
...
You cannot claim that you were unaware of these allegations. You are briefed daily. In addition to these allegations being reported in the media, human rights groups have specifically written to your Administration about them. In July 2003, Amnesty International sent your administration a Memorandum on Concerns Relating to Law and Order in Iraq. The Memorandum included allegations of torture and ill-treatment of Iraqi detainees by US and Coalition forces.
A May 7, 2004 letter signed by nine leading human rights organizations states: "For over a year, the undersigned organizations and others have repeatedly asked you and senior officials in your Administration to act promptly and forcefully to publicly repudiate the statements of intelligence officials and to assure that the treatment of detainees is consistent with international humanitarian law." ...
...
You and your aides have a disquieting habit of not responding at all to such letters going back to the pre-invasion of Iraq early last year, when 13 groups representing millions of Americans (e.g., religious, veterans, business, labor, retired intelligence) wrote you requesting a meeting. They did not even receive the courtesy of a reply.
...
... [These photos] come on top of reports of US military actions that took the lives of hundreds civilians - including women and children - in Fallujah, as well as reports of over 10,000 Iraqi civilians being killed in the US war and occupation of Iraq. ...
Ralph Nader: An Open Letter to Bush on Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners: "May 13, 2004 | Inhumane Treatment of Prisoners Produces Blowbacks and Backlashes | By RALPH NADER
Dear Mr. President:
The reported widespread abuse of prisoners by your Administration adds another condition that reflects on your failure of leadership. Anticipation and prevention of such tragedies should have been routine by the top officials whom you command. How can you imagine winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? You are expanding what the intelligence agencies call 'blowbacks' - expanding the networking of stateless terrorists against the United States. In addition, your Administration's actions put US soldiers and civilians in Iraq at increased risk from the backlash to the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, most of whom the press reports were charged with no wrongdoing when imprisoned.
With the publication of photos from Abu Ghraib prison the truth is beginning to come out. In recent years newspaper articles, human rights reports and expressions of concern from the International Red Cross, Red Crescent and other human services agencies have claimed that torture, degradation and inhuman treatment had become the mode of operation under your Administration in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, and Iraq. This has included repeated reports in the media of deaths and suicides of people being held in US military custody.
...
The International Committee of the Red Cross issued a report concerning prisoner abuse based on private interviews with prisoners of war and civilian internees during the 29 visits ICRC staff conducted in 14 places of detention across Iraq between March 31 and October 2, 2003. The report said that as far back as last May, the Red Cross reported to the military about 200 allegations of abuse, and that in July it complained about 50 allegations of abuse ...
...
You cannot claim that you were unaware of these allegations. You are briefed daily. In addition to these allegations being reported in the media, human rights groups have specifically written to your Administration about them. In July 2003, Amnesty International sent your administration a Memorandum on Concerns Relating to Law and Order in Iraq. The Memorandum included allegations of torture and ill-treatment of Iraqi detainees by US and Coalition forces.
A May 7, 2004 letter signed by nine leading human rights organizations states: "For over a year, the undersigned organizations and others have repeatedly asked you and senior officials in your Administration to act promptly and forcefully to publicly repudiate the statements of intelligence officials and to assure that the treatment of detainees is consistent with international humanitarian law." ...
...
You and your aides have a disquieting habit of not responding at all to such letters going back to the pre-invasion of Iraq early last year, when 13 groups representing millions of Americans (e.g., religious, veterans, business, labor, retired intelligence) wrote you requesting a meeting. They did not even receive the courtesy of a reply.
...
... [These photos] come on top of reports of US military actions that took the lives of hundreds civilians - including women and children - in Fallujah, as well as reports of over 10,000 Iraqi civilians being killed in the US war and occupation of Iraq. ...
C.i.A. Methods Cited in Top Qaeda Interrogations: defenders say stopped short of torture [hooded, roughed, soaked, deprived of food, light, medication
The New York Times > Washington > Harsh C.I.A. Methods Cited in Top Qaeda Interrogations: "By JAMES RISEN, DAVID JOHNSTON and NEIL A. LEWIS | Published: May 13, 2004
WASHINGTON, May 12 � The Central Intelligence Agency has used coercive interrogation methods against a select group of high-level leaders and operatives of Al Qaeda that have produced growing concerns inside the agency about abuses, according to current and former counterterrorism officials.
At least one agency employee has been disciplined for threatening a detainee with a gun during questioning, they said.
In the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a high-level detainee who is believed to have helped plan the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, C.I.A. interrogators used graduated levels of force, including a technique known as 'water boarding,' in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown."
...
Defenders of the operation said the methods stopped short of torture, did not violate American anti-torture statutes, and were necessary to fight a war against a nebulous enemy ...
...
Counterrorism officials say detainees have also been sent to third countries, where they are convinced that they might be executed, or tricked into believing they were being sent to such places. Some have been hooded, roughed up, soaked with water and deprived of food, light and medications. ...
The New York Times > Washington > Harsh C.I.A. Methods Cited in Top Qaeda Interrogations: "By JAMES RISEN, DAVID JOHNSTON and NEIL A. LEWIS | Published: May 13, 2004
WASHINGTON, May 12 � The Central Intelligence Agency has used coercive interrogation methods against a select group of high-level leaders and operatives of Al Qaeda that have produced growing concerns inside the agency about abuses, according to current and former counterterrorism officials.
At least one agency employee has been disciplined for threatening a detainee with a gun during questioning, they said.
In the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a high-level detainee who is believed to have helped plan the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, C.I.A. interrogators used graduated levels of force, including a technique known as 'water boarding,' in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown."
...
Defenders of the operation said the methods stopped short of torture, did not violate American anti-torture statutes, and were necessary to fight a war against a nebulous enemy ...
...
Counterrorism officials say detainees have also been sent to third countries, where they are convinced that they might be executed, or tricked into believing they were being sent to such places. Some have been hooded, roughed up, soaked with water and deprived of food, light and medications. ...
President, has a strong moral vision, has no moral influence: time to change regime at home to change regime in Iraq?
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Dancing Alone: "By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN | May 13, 2004
It is time to ask this question: Do we have any chance of succeeding at regime change in Iraq without regime change here at home?
'Hey, Friedman, why are you bringing politics into this all of a sudden? You're the guy who always said that producing a decent outcome in Iraq was of such overriding importance to the country that it had to be kept above politics.'
Yes, that's true. I still believe that. My mistake was thinking that the Bush team believed it, too. I thought the administration would have to do the right things in Iraq — from prewar planning and putting in enough troops to dismissing the secretary of defense for incompetence ... That's why they [the Bush administration] spent more time studying U.S. polls than Iraqi history. That is why, I'll bet, Karl Rove has had more sway over this war than Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Bill Burns. Mr. Burns knew only what would play in the Middle East. Mr. Rove knew what would play in the Middle West.
I admit, I'm a little slow. Because I tried to think about something as deadly serious as Iraq, and the post- 9/11 world, in a nonpartisan fashion — as Joe Biden, John McCain and Dick Lugar did — I assumed the Bush officials were doing the same. I was wrong. They were always so slow to change course because confronting their mistakes didn't just involve confronting reality, but their own politics. ...
... Why did the administration always — rightly — bash Yasir Arafat, but never lift a finger or utter a word to stop Ariel Sharon's massive building of illegal settlements in the West Bank? Because while that might have earned America credibility in the Middle East, it might have cost the Bush campaign Jewish votes in Florida.
And, of course, why did the president praise Mr. Rumsfeld rather than fire him? Because Karl Rove says to hold the conservative base, you must always appear to be strong, decisive and loyal. ...
Add it all up, and you see how we got so off track in Iraq, why we are dancing alone in the world — and why our president, who has a strong moral vision, has no moral influence.
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Dancing Alone: "By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN | May 13, 2004
It is time to ask this question: Do we have any chance of succeeding at regime change in Iraq without regime change here at home?
'Hey, Friedman, why are you bringing politics into this all of a sudden? You're the guy who always said that producing a decent outcome in Iraq was of such overriding importance to the country that it had to be kept above politics.'
Yes, that's true. I still believe that. My mistake was thinking that the Bush team believed it, too. I thought the administration would have to do the right things in Iraq — from prewar planning and putting in enough troops to dismissing the secretary of defense for incompetence ... That's why they [the Bush administration] spent more time studying U.S. polls than Iraqi history. That is why, I'll bet, Karl Rove has had more sway over this war than Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Bill Burns. Mr. Burns knew only what would play in the Middle East. Mr. Rove knew what would play in the Middle West.
I admit, I'm a little slow. Because I tried to think about something as deadly serious as Iraq, and the post- 9/11 world, in a nonpartisan fashion — as Joe Biden, John McCain and Dick Lugar did — I assumed the Bush officials were doing the same. I was wrong. They were always so slow to change course because confronting their mistakes didn't just involve confronting reality, but their own politics. ...
... Why did the administration always — rightly — bash Yasir Arafat, but never lift a finger or utter a word to stop Ariel Sharon's massive building of illegal settlements in the West Bank? Because while that might have earned America credibility in the Middle East, it might have cost the Bush campaign Jewish votes in Florida.
And, of course, why did the president praise Mr. Rumsfeld rather than fire him? Because Karl Rove says to hold the conservative base, you must always appear to be strong, decisive and loyal. ...
Add it all up, and you see how we got so off track in Iraq, why we are dancing alone in the world — and why our president, who has a strong moral vision, has no moral influence.
DoD 72-point "matrix": bright lights or blaring noise, hooding, [extreme] heat and cold, bondage: All Illegal: All sanctioned and used by Bush admin
Time to Stop 'Stress and Duress' (washingtonpost.com): "Time to Stop 'Stress and Duress'
By Kenneth Roth
Thursday, May 13, 2004; Page A29
The sexual humiliation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison is so shocking that it risks overshadowing other U.S. interrogation practices that are also reprehensible. And unlike the sexual abuse, these other practices have been sanctioned by the highest levels of government and are probably more widespread.
...
The Defense Department has adopted a 72-point "matrix" of types of stress to which detainees can be subjected. These include stripping detainees naked, depriving them of sleep, subjecting them to bright lights or blaring noise, hooding them, exposing them to heat and cold, and binding them in uncomfortable positions. The more stressful techniques must be approved by senior commanders, but all are permitted. And nearly all are being used, according to testimony taken by Human Rights Watch from post-Sept. 11 detainees released from U.S. custody.
None of these techniques is legal. Treaties ratified by the United States, including the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against Torture, prohibit not only torture but also "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." In ratifying the Convention Against Torture, the U.S. government interpreted this provision to prohibit the same practices as those proscribed by the U.S. Constitution. The Bush administration reiterated that understanding last June.
In other words, just as U.S. courts repeatedly have found it unconstitutional for interrogators in American police stations to use these third-degree methods, it is illegal under international law for U.S. interrogators in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere to employ them. U.S. military manuals ban these "stress and duress" techniques, and federal law condemns them as war crimes. Yet the Bush administration has authorized them.
...
... Coupled with anger at other lawless practices, such as the Bush administration's refusal to apply the Geneva Conventions to the Guantanamo detainees, that revulsion has contributed to America's plummeting esteem. Allies are less willing to cooperate in combating terrorism, and terrorist recruiters must be having a field day.
...
Government officials are also notoriously poor at regulating coercive interrogation techniques. For example, Israel's effort to regulate the application of "moderate physical pressure" led to deaths in custody and ultimately a decision by Israel's Supreme Court to outlaw it. Human Rights Watch and others have repeatedly reported abusive techniques on the part of U.S. interrogators, but the Bush administration did nothing to address them until the photographs of Abu Ghraib became public.
Time to Stop 'Stress and Duress' (washingtonpost.com): "Time to Stop 'Stress and Duress'
By Kenneth Roth
Thursday, May 13, 2004; Page A29
The sexual humiliation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison is so shocking that it risks overshadowing other U.S. interrogation practices that are also reprehensible. And unlike the sexual abuse, these other practices have been sanctioned by the highest levels of government and are probably more widespread.
...
The Defense Department has adopted a 72-point "matrix" of types of stress to which detainees can be subjected. These include stripping detainees naked, depriving them of sleep, subjecting them to bright lights or blaring noise, hooding them, exposing them to heat and cold, and binding them in uncomfortable positions. The more stressful techniques must be approved by senior commanders, but all are permitted. And nearly all are being used, according to testimony taken by Human Rights Watch from post-Sept. 11 detainees released from U.S. custody.
None of these techniques is legal. Treaties ratified by the United States, including the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against Torture, prohibit not only torture but also "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." In ratifying the Convention Against Torture, the U.S. government interpreted this provision to prohibit the same practices as those proscribed by the U.S. Constitution. The Bush administration reiterated that understanding last June.
In other words, just as U.S. courts repeatedly have found it unconstitutional for interrogators in American police stations to use these third-degree methods, it is illegal under international law for U.S. interrogators in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere to employ them. U.S. military manuals ban these "stress and duress" techniques, and federal law condemns them as war crimes. Yet the Bush administration has authorized them.
...
... Coupled with anger at other lawless practices, such as the Bush administration's refusal to apply the Geneva Conventions to the Guantanamo detainees, that revulsion has contributed to America's plummeting esteem. Allies are less willing to cooperate in combating terrorism, and terrorist recruiters must be having a field day.
...
Government officials are also notoriously poor at regulating coercive interrogation techniques. For example, Israel's effort to regulate the application of "moderate physical pressure" led to deaths in custody and ultimately a decision by Israel's Supreme Court to outlaw it. Human Rights Watch and others have repeatedly reported abusive techniques on the part of U.S. interrogators, but the Bush administration did nothing to address them until the photographs of Abu Ghraib became public.
Zeitoun, Gaza: Israelis kill: 11 Pal dead, 185 wounded
Excite - News: "Israel Kills 12 in Gaza Strip After Deadly Ambush | May 13, 4:03 pm ET | By Nidal al-Mughrabi
GAZA (Reuters) - Israel killed 12 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip on Thursday after 11 of its soldiers died in two ambushes in the worst blow to the Middle East's mightiest army in two years.
The new spiral of violence sharpened debate between proponents and opponents of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's 'Disengagement Plan' to evacuate settlers from Gaza, now stalled by rightist hard-liners in his own Likud party.
But even Sharon's key allies warned after the ambushes, on Wednesday and Tuesday, that Israelis would not be stampeded out of Gaza, captured along with the West Bank in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
'No one intends to flee Gaza. We will fight terror with all means necessary to provide security for our citizens,' Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told a televised news conference." ...
...
Witnesses said helicopter missiles killed 11 Palestinians, four of them militants and the rest civilians, in Rafah refugee camp, near the area where fighters blew up an explosives-packed troop carrier on Wednesday, killing five soldiers.
...
Witnesses and medics said Israeli troops also shot dead a 19-year-old Palestinian civilian and demolished 10 homes during a push into Rafah.
...
Palestinian medics said Israeli forces killed 16 people and wounded 185 in a two-day siege of Zeitoun.
Excite - News: "Israel Kills 12 in Gaza Strip After Deadly Ambush | May 13, 4:03 pm ET | By Nidal al-Mughrabi
GAZA (Reuters) - Israel killed 12 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip on Thursday after 11 of its soldiers died in two ambushes in the worst blow to the Middle East's mightiest army in two years.
The new spiral of violence sharpened debate between proponents and opponents of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's 'Disengagement Plan' to evacuate settlers from Gaza, now stalled by rightist hard-liners in his own Likud party.
But even Sharon's key allies warned after the ambushes, on Wednesday and Tuesday, that Israelis would not be stampeded out of Gaza, captured along with the West Bank in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
'No one intends to flee Gaza. We will fight terror with all means necessary to provide security for our citizens,' Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told a televised news conference." ...
...
Witnesses said helicopter missiles killed 11 Palestinians, four of them militants and the rest civilians, in Rafah refugee camp, near the area where fighters blew up an explosives-packed troop carrier on Wednesday, killing five soldiers.
...
Witnesses and medics said Israeli troops also shot dead a 19-year-old Palestinian civilian and demolished 10 homes during a push into Rafah.
...
Palestinian medics said Israeli forces killed 16 people and wounded 185 in a two-day siege of Zeitoun.
