I remember it was December of his Senior year of high school when my son, Erik, came to me and told me he was going to join the Navy and the recruiter was going to come over that evening and talk with us.  Of course, as a mother, my emotions were a mixture of pride and fear.  I grew up in a Navy family, so service to our country is nothing new to me, but when it is your own son this is something that pierces a mother's heart.  That night the recruiter came, and Erik informed him the only way he would enlist was if could be a Corpsman.  Well, the rest is history.... it has been 11 years, and Erik became a Corpsman in the U.S. Navy.  For those of you that don't know what a Corpsman is, he's the "doc" for the Marines.  It has been said that when a Marine is injured he calls for 3 things....1.  God ** 2. Doc (corpsman) ** 3. Mom.  Needless to say, I am a very proud mom to know that my son is willing to put his life on the line to save that of another on the battlefield.  For those of you that do not know what a Corpsman does, watch this video as this is the essence of a Corpsman. 

On a beautiful, sunny, spring afternoon in 2007 I got a phone call from Erik.  He stated that he was being deployed in September with the Marines 1/8 to Rimadi.  This was the call that most mothers dread.  The notification that their son was going to war.  The fact that Corpsman have received more Medal of Honors than any other billet speaks volumes, but it also speaks to the danger of being a Corpsman with the Marines.

15 September 2007, Erik and the Marines 1/8 left for Iraq.  As a side note, this happened to be the exact same day that his younger brother, my other son, Alexander, was being sworn into the Naval Reserve at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. Alexander was so proud of his brother's service in the Navy, that's all he wanted to do as well.  Alexander is currently in school, and is planning to fly helicopters for the Marines or the Coast Guard, so that he can follow in his brother's footsteps.   This day, was by far the most bitter sweet day of my life.

Through the prayers of my friends and family and with the Grace of our Lord, I am happy to say that my son was returned to us safely on 12 April 2008. Below is a photo when he showed up at his son's school and surprised him with his return from Iraq. I believe that the looks on everyone's face shows the emotions.

I know from what he's told me that other mother's, father's, wife's and son's and daughter's lost their loved ones and there was no happy reunion for them; but I also know that as long as there are brave men and women who are willing to fight for our freedom, and as long as their are Corpsman, who are willing to risk their life under fire to tend to the injured on the battlefield our Country will remain as great as it is.

It is with all my heart that I say THANK YOU to my son, Erik and all the other members of our Armed Forces for defending our way of life and it is with every ounce of love in my body that I say to Erik....WELL DONE SON. I AM SO PROUD OF YOU!!

(abc news) President Bush said Tuesday he was disappointed in "flawed intelligence" before the Iraq war and was concerned that if a Democrat wins the presidency in November and withdrew troops prematurely it could "eventually lead to another attack on the United States."

A question submitted from the online audience asked Bush whether he felt he had been misled about Iraq as he made the decision to go to war.

"`Misled' is a strong word," he said. "Not only our intelligence community, but intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment. And so I was disappointed to see how flawed our intelligence was."

"Do I think somebody lied to me? No, I don't. I think it was just, you know, they analyzed the situation and came up with the wrong conclusion," he added.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4849296

Now that we have that out of the way,  there are many that say Obama has lied about many things, such as siting listening to Rev. Jeremiah Wright for 20 years and didn't know his feeling toward the American government.  There are other lies that has been told by Obama, so are we going to keep him out of the White House or wait until he is there and then have to impeach him for lying? 

I picked an old gem the other day. Outbreak is about a hemorrhagic fever (See EBola) outbreak in California. And how the government is trying to cover up the fact that they have a anti syrum in order to be able to use the virus as a weapon later on.

Although its just a story It still makes me disgusted because I know that the government and military do that kind of shit in real life. They make average people seem dispensable and place us all in a category of "expendable unallocated funds" What kind of shit is that?

The movie that I saw before that was a documentery about the War in Iraq called no end in sight. It was really good but also made me angry. Because it basically laid out to us why this war is retarded and how our leadership in this country does not give two fucks about any of us, they are unnware of world events, we ARE dying for oil, AND... a whole bunch of other things that I am a little too angry to write at this moment.

Both movies are great and will stir up some feelings on the inside for everyone. Please for the love of God if you do not have netflix, get it right now. It will change your life.

“I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf,” he said. “I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”

Bush said he made that decision after the August 2003 bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the top U.N. official in Iraq and the organization’s high commissioner for human rights.

What an asshole.

Read more here and full transcript here.

Maybe you can make up your own, or just comment here and leave one!

I realize I haven't updated the skateboarding page yet, I'm busy with TOO MUCH FREAKIN FRENCH HOMEWORK!!!!!!!!!! Seriously, we get like 2 pages every night! Spanish would've been totally the better choice!!! But anyway, if you have a skateboarding video you'd like to be posted here, leave the link and I'll post it! Really any video, but it has to be owned by you.

1.20.09.=

That's the day Bush is out of office! Hopefully Obama of Hillary (Whoever wins) will be able to get us out of the Iraq War.

Scott777

Don't worry. You'll soon get your foreign policy fill. In the meantime, check out John McCain's latest verbal gaffe:

-----------------

-----------------

I venture to guess that the majority of what is in this post never aired in primetime or made its way to the print media (ok, perhaps a snippet on the bottom of page 42 way below the fold). Today we delve into war crimes, nukes, lies and information the Corporate Media (CM) won’t tell you. Let’s start with some questions.

Has the Bush Administration really been charged with war crimes? Do you know what your government does in your name? What’s Depleted Uranium got to do with it?

If you answered No, Maybe, or Huh? to any of the above questions, read on and learn what has been roundly excluded from the Corporate Media.

BTW, this is a quite long post…so, grab a beer and keep reading!

Let’s start by discussing whether the Bush Administration SHOULD be indicted and tried for war crimes. Just what is a war crime? I will use information from the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Crimes within the Court's Jurisdiction:

1. The crime of genocide
2. Crimes against humanity
3. The crime of aggression
4. Crimes against United Nations and associated personnel
5. War crimes
6. Other categories of crimes

This is a summary of what the ICC defines as War Crimes:

The draft statute enumerates four different categories of war crimes. The first two categories apply to international armed conflicts and are largely based on well-established principles of international law. There is broad support for their inclusion:
A. Grave breaches of the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949

I’ll come back to the rest of the Crimes in a moment, but first, let’s take a look at the applicable Geneva Conventions. You can read the full text of the Geneva Conventions here.

If you read the entire Geneva Conventions document, pay special attention to the following Articles:

Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities…shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

Article 17
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means, subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.

Article 87
Collective punishment for individual acts, corporal punishments, imprisonment in premises without daylight and, in general, any form of torture or cruelty, are forbidden.

Article 130
Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in this Convention.

Back to the ICC Crimes:

B. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflicts (largely derived from the Hague law, limiting the methods of waging war).
The third and fourth categories of war crimes apply to armed conflicts not of an international character. These categories are drawn from Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Second Additional Protocol to the four Geneva Conventions, respectively. The inclusion of these two provisions is still being debated.

C. In case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (which bars specified acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities)

D. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law (based largely on the Second Additional Protocol to the four Geneva Conventions).

As the above is a summary of the ICC Crimes, if you want detailed information, here.

So, what are these crimes defined by the ICC and how do they relate to the Geneva conventions?

Regarding the crime of Genocide, depending on where you look, there are a lot of dead Iraqis:

• Infoshout lists more than 135,000 dead Iraqis
• Iraq Body Count lists between 84,000 and 91,000 dead Iraqi civilians
• The World Health Organization lists more than 151,000 dead Iraqis
• CNN says 655,000 Iraqi deaths
• Lancet, the UK’s top medical journal, has more than 600,000 deaths

One has to wonder how many dead people a genocide makes. In Bosnia, the ethnic cleansing was estimated at around 200,000. Milosevic stood trial at The Hague for that.

Ok, crimes of genocide. Check.

What about the crime of Aggression? Marjorie Cohn says:

Bush’s new doctrine of "preemptive war" is a license to prosecute wars of aggression. It runs directly counter to the United Nations Charter’s prohibition on the use of armed force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. A preemptive war is a war of aggression. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" falls squarely into this category.

Kofi Annan also challenged the US doctrine of preemptive war saying that it “posed a fundamental challenge to the United Nations and could lead to a global free-for-all.”

So, crimes of aggression. Check.

And then there’s war crimes. Since there are many areas of this, let’s take them one at a time. First up, grave breaches of the four Geneva Conventions.

The Washington Post reports here and here:

In August 2002, the Justice Department advised the White House that torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad "may be justified," and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations" conducted in President Bush's war on terrorism, according to a newly obtained memo.

The legal reasoning in the 2002 memo, which covered treatment of al Qaeda detainees in CIA custody, was later used in a March 2003 report by Pentagon lawyers assessing interrogation rules governing the Defense Department's detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. At that time, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had asked the lawyers to examine the logistical, policy and legal issues associated with interrogation techniques.

In the Justice Department's view -- contained in a 50-page document signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee and obtained by The Washington Post -- inflicting moderate or fleeting pain does not necessarily constitute torture. Torture, the memo says, "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

By contrast, the Army's Field Manual 34-52, titled "Intelligence Interrogations," sets more restrictive rules. For example, the Army prohibits pain induced by chemicals or bondage; forcing an individual to stand, sit or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time; and food deprivation. Under mental torture, the Army prohibits mock executions, sleep deprivation and chemically induced psychosis.

The Office of Legal Counsel is the federal government's ultimate legal adviser. The most significant and sensitive topics that the federal government considers are often given to the OLC for review. In this case, the memorandum was signed by Jay S. Bybee, the head of the office at the time. Bybee's signature gives the document additional authority, making it akin to a binding legal opinion on government policy on interrogations. Bybee has since become a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Perhaps, I should let you decide. To refresh the following is prohibited at any time and at any place whatsoever:

• Murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture
• Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment
• No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion to secure information of any kind
• Collective punishment
• Great suffering or serious injury to body or health

Let’s look at what has been done in your name; in the name of the United States of America?

Photos from the Washington Post, the New Yorker, and Salon (some taken from The Raw Story)

And then there are these drawings based on Al Jazeera cameraman’s experiences at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The pictures were created by political cartoonist Lewis Peake (Illustration Art by Lewis Peake: Illustration and Website Design), and came about after Mr. al-Haj’s original drawings were censored by the Pentagon. Mr. al-Haj had shown the drawings to his lawyer, Cori Crider, during a visit last month. Fearing that they would be censored, Ms. Crider asked Mr. al-Haj to provide detailed descriptions of the drawings, which he duly did.

When the drawings were subsequently censored, as anticipated, Reprieve approached Lewis Peake and asked him to create original works based on Mr. al-Haj’s descriptions. The following drawings came from here and here.

Sami al-Haj who was held in captivity, by the United States, for five and a half years. He was sent to Gitmo in 2001 and never saw an attorney until 2004. He was ultimately released without charges being filed against him. Let me repeat; he spent five and a half years in “prison” and no charges were ever filed against him.

Does anyone remember the Maus cartoons from a prisoner's time at a concentration camp in WWII? Stunningly familiar.

And just today it was reported that another detainee had all charges dropped against him. This man, Mohammed al-Qahtani, was held at Guantanamo since 2002, supposedly as the 20th hijacker on 9/11.

In 2006, Qahtani recanted a confession he said he made after he was tortured. In fact, “Qahtani never made a single statement that was not extracted through torture or the threat of torture,” CCR notes.

Records of the interrogations of Qahtani, however, were “mysteriously lost.” Cameras that “run 24 hours a day at the prison were set to automatically record over their contents,” the Guardian reported last month.

Imagine that. Records disappearing – again. Damn, that is one hungry dog they have there eating all records, emails and everything else.

And the Administration’s take on it? Ooops. My bad. So sorry we tortured you.

And how about Section B, Other serious violations which include targeting civilians, rape, and intentional starvation.

Apparently, the bombs dropped on Iraq, as well as bullets used (in both the first Gulf war and now), are made with depleted uranium (DU). Depleted uranium is the byproduct of enriching uranium (enriched uranium is used to make nuclear weapons, the shit left over is depleted uranium) and, while less potent than enriched uranium, depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.5 BILLION YEARS (yes, that would be Billion with a B). Let’s think about that as we cavalierly discuss strategic nuclear attacks on ANY country (how about it Senators “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” McCain and “obliterate Iran” Clinton?).

While DU is less toxic than enriched uranium, there is no data concerning long-term health effects.

While any radiation exposure has risks, no conclusive epidemiological data have correlated DU exposure to specific human health effects such as cancer. However, the UK government has attributed birth defect claims from a 1991. Gulf War combat veteran to DU poisoning, and studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents continue to suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure

Let’s see how this worked out during the first Gulf war. I warn you, these videos are very graphic and not for the faint of heart.

Iraqi Birth Defects

Effects on US Service Men and Women

Iraqi cancers and birth defects have been blamed on US depleted uranium. And it looks like we’re stocking more uranium-rich bombs. Wonderful.

So, would you consider this a war crime? Major Douglas Rokke, a military veteran specializing in nuclear, biological and chemical warfare, who was one of the Pentagon’s foremost experts, and now an outspoken critic does.

Rokke labels the use of DU weapons as a war crime and a crime against humanity.
Internal documents show that the US Department of Defense (DoD) has known about the harmful environmental and health consequences of radioactive weapons since 1943. Despite this, the DoD has denied medical care to people exposed to DU, refused to clean up the environmental mess left behind by the weapons and has continued to lie about the adverse health effects for people exposed to depleted uranium.

The harmful effects of DU exposure include respiratory and neurological problems, rashes, cancers, kidney and lung damage, joint and muscle pain, fibromyalgia, cataracts, memory loss, changes in the RNA in DNA, causing genetic birth defects, and a host of other conditions associated with exposure to heavy metal toxicity and radiation.

Potentially, hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and other places are already sick or will become sick due to exposure to DU contamination.

Rokke was tasked to head a team to clean up the contamination left behind by depleted uranium during the 1991 Gulf War. What he found was a toxicological and radiological mess beyond comprehension. He discovered that doctors and nurses didn't know how to handle the medical cases they were seeing, and there simply was no way to treat all the victims or to clean up the mess left behind.

Of the 700,000 US troops who were in the Gulf during 1991 war, more than 200,000 are disabled from effects of Gulf War Syndrome, a condition believed to be caused by exposure to DU radiation, as well as factors including exposure to chemical agents, biological agents, pesticides, immunisations against anthrax and other diseases, and exposure to pollutants from oil-well fires.

The US does not want to lose DU munitions from their arsenal, Rokke states. A 1991 internal US Army memorandum recognised how effective these weapons were against Iraqi armour, but warned that if the health and environmental impact of these weapons become widely known, their use may become politically unacceptable and they could be removed from the arsenal. Therefore, the memo concluded that this “sensitive issue should be kept in mind when after action reports [on DU] are written”. Rokke's interpretation of this is that the Pentagon is directing its staff to lie.

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has categorised DU weapons, alongside nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, napalm and cluster bombs, as a “weapon of indiscriminate effect”. Iraqis are already suffering a host of health problems due to DU, and these will only increase over the coming decade.

Being an outspoken critic, Rokke, as with everyone who has spoken out against this administration, is now being discredited – and has been the recipient of threats and intimidation.

Is Rokke alone? No.

In addition, Lawyers Against the War state that:

[T]he estimate of the tons of DU the US used in Iraq: 1000-2000 tons - more than three times the amount used in the first Gulf War...only this time it was primarily spread in Iraq's cities, not on the battlefield.

The uranium and its radioactive decay products will remain toxic for over 4 billion years...and will slowly destroy the genetic future of the Iraqi people.

But the death and destruction will not be contained within the borders of Iraq. Winds will spread it throughout the Middle East and beyond. The US has carried out its omnicidal plan now on Afghanistan and Iraq...what country is next?

Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Kuwait, the Gulf States, and Iran will breathe the invisible war too... and they will share the fate of the Iraqi people, the caretakers of the cradle of civilization.

Lawyers Against the War also reports that ALL soldiers from the UK, upon their return from the Gulf are being checked for uranium cancer. (The Guardian Weekly 20-3-0501, page 4). And the US? In a word, no.

I suppose it doesn’t help Bush that there is corroboration of US backed Afghan allies committing atrocities.

Ok, what do you think? Are these war crimes?

Many lawyer groups, citizens, and countries around the world have chimed in, not just against the Bush Administration, but towards Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of England. Mr. Blair is in a much more precarious position because, unlike George Bush, Blair did not pull out of the ICC, so he can be more readily held to its standards.

Alright, we now know what the whole ICC Crimes and Geneva Conventions are about. Does the Bush Administration fall into any of these categories? Apparently, many think they do.

Based on a book written by two American Civil Liberties Union attorneys:

"[T]he documents show unambiguously that the administration has adopted some of the methods of the most tyrannical regimes," write Jameel Jaffer and Amrit Singh. "Documents from Guantanamo describe prisoners shackled in excruciating 'stress positions,' held in freezing-cold cells, forcibly stripped, hooded, terrorized with military dogs, and deprived of human contact for months."

And Jonathan Turley, an attorney who has argued case law in front of the Supreme Court and Professor of Constitutional Law at George Washington University says:

"It is really amazing because Congress -- including the Democrats -- have avoided any type of investigation into torture because they do not want to deal with the fact that the president ordered war crimes," Turley told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann Thursday night. "But evidence keeps on coming out.... What you get from this is this was a premeditated and carefully orchestrated torture program. Not torture, but a torture program."

The president and his aides were very, very careful to go to the lawyers first so they could make a claim they were acting under some assumption of actual authority," he said. "There really is none."

Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild, recognized as one of San Diego’s top attorneys in academics, who lectures on international human rights and US foreign policy says:

Non-governmental organizations and individuals from sixty-six different countries have filed 499 "communications" – or complaints – with the International Criminal Court (ICC), between July 2002 and July 2003. Many of them urge the ICC to investigate the United States conduct in the war on Iraq. The primary charge is that the U.S. committed an act of aggression against Iraq. The ICC has jurisdiction to punish the crime of aggression.

Bush’s new doctrine of "preemptive war" is a license to prosecute wars of aggression. It runs directly counter to the United Nations Charter’s prohibition on the use of armed force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. A preemptive war is a war of aggression. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" falls squarely into this category.

More than 50 years ago, Associate United States Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, one of the prosecutors at the Nuremberg Tribunal, wrote: "No political or economic situation can justify" the crime of aggression. He added: "If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us." An impartial international criminal tribunal is necessary to prevent "victor’s justice," where only the vanquished are subject to prosecution.

Under the treaty, the ICC can take jurisdiction over a national of even a non-party state if he or she commits a crime in a state party’s territory. The U.S. vehemently objects to this. But it’s nothing new. Under well-established principles of international law, the core crimes prosecuted in the ICC – genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression – are crimes of universal jurisdiction.

That means that an alleged perpetrator can – and always could – be arrested anywhere.

And then there is a group of Canadian lawyers who have charged Bush with torture.

Today in Vancouver, Lawyers Against the War filed torture charges against George W. Bush under the Canadian Criminal Code.

The charges concern the well known abuses of prisoners held by US Armed Forces in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the Guantánamo Bay prison in Cuba. The charges were accepted by the Justice of the Peace and referred for a hearing to decide whether Bush should be required to appear for trial.

You can download their PDF here.

Of course, the Japanese attorneys also want in to this party. Japanese lawyers have also filed a war crimes 'indictment' against Bush.

President Bush is being "indicted" for war crimes allegedly committed against the Afghan people since the U.S.-led coalition began its antiterrorism campaign in October 2001, a group of Japanese lawyers announced.

"We believe that attacks on Afghanistan led by the U.S. forces, such as aerial bombings and killings, were a violation of international law," said Haruhisa Takase, secretary general of the Tokyo-based International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan.

The lawyers are a nongovernmental private group and have neither official status nor authority, according to Takase.

The "indictment" was a device meant to signify the lawyers' condemnation of U.S. actions in Afghanistan, he said.

Takase contends Bush also may be liable for bombing private facilities and slaying war prisoners.

And the citizens in Japan feel the same way.

A citizens' tribunal Saturday in Tokyo found U.S. President George W. Bush guilty of war crimes for attacking civilians with indiscriminate weapons and other arms during the U.S.-led antiterrorism operations in Afghanistan in 2001.

The tribunal also issued recommendations for banning depleted uranium shells and other weapons that could indiscriminately harm people, compensating the victims in Afghanistan and reforming the United Nations in light of its failure to stop the U.S.-led operation there.

The tribunal participants spent two years examining Bush's role as the top commander in the war, making eight field trips to Afghanistan and holding nearly 20 public hearings.

"Bush said that military presence in Afghanistan is self-defense," said Robert Akroyd, a British lawyer who served as one of the five judges.

"But under international law," he said, "a defendant must pay great care to discriminate (between) legitimate objects and civilians" in claiming that one's act is self-defense, said Akroyd, former head of legal studies at Aston University in Britain.

Bush failed to do so with the U.S. military's use of "indiscriminate weapons such as the Daisy Cutter (a huge conventional bomb), cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells," he said.

In addition, a Tokyo War Crimes indictment was handed down against George W. Bush for his actions in

But let’s not leave our own attorneys out in the cold. Here is an open letter from the National Lawyers Guild to Senator John Conyers to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate war crimes:

We write to ask that you take the lead in efforts to appoint special counsel to investigate the top officials of the current US Government executive branch and their leading co-conspirators. The targets of this proposed investigation include, but are not limited to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Stephen Cambone, Douglas Feith, Lewis Libbey, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, Michael Ledeen, James Woolsey, Newt Gingrich, and John Ashcroft.

And students and the Civil Rights Defense Committee also joined the party announcing indictments for torture, illegal detention and murder as have many Citizen’s Tribunals around the world.

But the most riveting indictment is this, which was drafted by a panel of jurists including law professors, physicians, and a US diplomat and retired US Army Colonel (which is not the full indictment. Go to the link to download the full indictment.):

The Commission will inquire into the following charges:

Torture:
Count 1: The Bush administration authorized the use of torture and abuse in violation of international humanitarian and human rights law and domestic constitutional and statutory law.
Rendition:
Count 2: The Bush administration authorized the transfer (“rendition”) of persons held in U.S. custody to foreign countries where torture is known to be practiced.
Illegal Detention:

Count 3: The Bush administration authorized the indefinite detention of persons seized in foreign combat zones and in other countries far from any combat zone and denied them the protections of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war and the protections of the U.S. Constitution.

Count 4: The Bush administration authorized the round-up and detention in the United States of tens of thousands of immigrants on pretextual grounds and held them without charge or trial in violation of international human rights law and domestic constitutional and civil rights law.

Count 5: The Bush administration used military forces to seize and detain indefinitely without charges U.S. citizens, denying them the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.

Murder:
Count 6: The Bush administration committed murder by authorizing the CIA to kill those that the president designates, either US citizens or non-citizens, anywhere in the world.

Attacks on Global Public Health
The Commission will inquire into the following charges:

Count 1: Imposition of Abstinence-Only HIV Prevention Programs--

The Bush administration is using its political influence, aid, and funding in the sphere of HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment to advance policies and programs that worsen the AIDS pandemic. Guided by a Christian fundamentalist ideological agenda, the administration is promoting and forcing deadly abstinence-only HIV prevention and sex education programs instead of proven comprehensive programs that comprise consistent and correct use of condoms.

Count 2: Imposition of “Gag-Rule”--
The Bush administration has re-instated the “gag-rule” policy which restricts foreign organizations that receive US funds from using their own, non-U.S., funds to provide legal abortion services or even provide accurate medical counseling or referrals regarding abortion. This policy has led to the closing of reproductive health clinics dependent on international funding in very poor parts of the world. In many areas, these clinics have also been the only source of HIV/AIDS prevention and care programs, including the supply of much-needed and life-saving condoms.

Count 3: Distortion of Science--
The Bush administration and its political operatives have distorted sound science and attempted to suppress medical research studies in HIV prevention when it conflicts with the ideology of the Christian Right.

Count 4: Restriction of Generics--
The Bush administration has used its political and economic power to coerce other countries into agreements that severely restrict the manufacture and supply of generic drugs, the only affordable option for most HIV positive people in the Third World.

Which brings us to the meat of this post, the thing you are probably most curious about. Was George W. Bush and people in his administration charged with war crimes? Yes…and no. Several people in the Bush administration have received indictments for war crimes, including George Bush – but, there is a but. Keep reading.

First, let’s start with the only major publication in the United States, The New York Times, that I could find that reported this story on June 20, 2003.

Belgium said it had received lawsuits against President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain under a controversial war crimes law. But it said it had transferred the cases to the United States and Britain, reducing their chances of reaching a court. The Justice Ministry declined to say by whom the lawsuits were filed, but the law allows anyone to bring war crimes charges in Belgian courts. It was recently amended to allow the government to dismiss politically motivated cases by transferring them to the defendants' home country, as was also done with a recent lawsuit brought by a group of Iraqis against Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of allied forces in Iraq. The United States has said it wants Belgium to strike the law altogether.

ONE LOUSY PARAGRAPH?!? The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom have been charged with war crimes against humanity – and basically blown off by giving the countries involved jurisdiction – and we get one lousy paragraph? Give me a break! HELLO, Corporate Media…do your jobs!

CommonDreams had more information (originally reported by Reuters, but no longer available online):

Belgium's justice ministry said legal authorities had received lawsuits against Bush, Blair and a host of senior U.S. officials for crimes against humanity in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The ministry was able to send the lawsuits to Britain and the United States on Thursday under the recent change to the genocide law, ministry spokesman Joannes Thuy told Reuters.

"The renewed law makes its possible to send a lawsuit to a country if it has a legal system which can deal with this kind of complaint," he said.

One lawsuit accused Bush, Blair, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and U.S. General Tommy Franks of crimes against humanity in the recent Iraq war, a ministry statement said.

A second lawsuit was against Powell, also regarding the Iraq war.

A third was against Bush, Rumsfeld, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz for crimes against humanity in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Well, that’s just dandy. Send the lawsuits back here. I am sure the Justice Department will get some US Attorney right on that.

And then there is this formal complaint sent to the ICC by Health Now also leveling war crime charges against the US and UK.

And what of Donald Rumsfeld, he of known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns or simply not knowing what the hell he’s talking about, the Secretary of Defense at the time?

Criminal charges were sought in 2004 by Wolfgang Kaleck as well as Michael Ratner and Peter Weiss of the U.S.-based Center for Constitutional Rights in German courts against Donald Rumsfeld for war crimes. They were rejected by German Federal Public Prosecutor Kay Nehm with the explanation that criminal prosecution in the nations of the accused and the victims should be given priority.

And on a more current note, on October 27, 2007, Donald Rumsfeld fled France for fear of being arrested:

Former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld fled France today fearing arrest over charges of "ordering and authorizing" torture of detainees at both the American-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the US military's detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, unconfirmed reports coming from Paris suggest.

US embassy officials whisked Rumsfeld away yesterday from a breakfast meeting in Paris organized by the Foreign Policy magazine after human rights groups filed a criminal complaint against the man who spearheaded President George W. Bush's "war on terror" for six years.

According to activists in France, who greeted Rumsfeld shouting "murderer" and "war criminal" at the breakfast meeting venue, US embassy officials remained tight-lipped about the former defense secretary's whereabouts citing "security reasons".

"Rumsfeld must be feeling how Saddam Hussein felt when US forces were hunting him down," activist Tanguy Richard said. "He may never end up being hanged like his old friend, but he must learn that in the civilized world, war crime doesn't pay."

And then, there is this:

When General Tommy Franks, who coordinated the recent U.S.-led military attack on Iraq, was asked about civilian casualties, he shot back: ''We don't do body counts.''

Last week, a Belgian lawyer filed a lawsuit in Brussels charging Franks with war crimes. The action was submitted on behalf of 19 Iraqis, allegedly victims of cluster bombs and U.S. bombings of civilians, under a law that permits Belgian courts to try foreigners for war crimes.

First, U.S.-led forces targeted and killed many civilians during massive bombing of facilities unrelated to military objectives, such as government ministries serving civilian needs, as well as hospitals, schools and homes.

Secondly, he told IPS, the military used disproportionate force with its so-called ''covering fire'' technique, which means indiscriminate shooting at shops, homes and mosques, killing many civilian non-combatants, including women and children.

The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights and Amnesty International have both called for the establishment of a commission of experts to examine past and recent international war crimes and genocide committed in Iraq.

Listen to an interview with the attorney, Mr. Fermon, who filed the lawsuit here:

And let’s not forget the American attacks on varied news media personnel and offices; media outlets which were not friendly towards our “cause.”

This week, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) challenged a U.S. military accounting of the bombing last April of a hotel in Baghdad in which two journalists were killed.

After an investigation the CPJ concluded there is no evidence that U.S. forces were fired on from the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, where nearly 100 journalists were holed up before the building was shelled by U.S. forces.

The family of a Spanish journalist killed in that attack has already filed a lawsuit against three U.S. soldiers for war crimes and murder. The suit, based on a provision of the Rome Statute (of the International Criminal Court or ICC), could be expanded to include other people, ”independent of their rank or nationality”, said Pilar Hermoso, the attorney for Jose Couso's family.

But the high court's chief prosecutor, Eduardo Fungairiño, said this week he opposes the complaint, meaning a delay of 15 days before it is decided if the case will proceed.

''It is very clear that war crimes were committed in Iraq,'' says James Jennings, president of Conscience International.

More on that here, here, and here.

So, were they charged or indicted? This is where that Yeah…But comes in. See, it’s like this:

U.S. Threatened with Iraq War Crimes Trial

Ten Iraqi civilians are planning to press war crimes charges against U.S. General Tommy Franks, the commander of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, the American newspaper the Washington Times reported. Iraqis say the U.S. military committed war crimes, including the bombing of a Baghdad market.

The Iraqis, allegedly eyewitnesses and victims of U.S. atrocities, hold coalition forces responsible for numerous crimes, including failing to prevent looting, firing on an ambulance, shooting and injuring Iraqi civilians, causing the deaths of scores of people by bombing a Baghdad marketplace and killing at least ten passengers driving in a civilian bus near the town of Hillah.

"U.S. military officials had the authority but did nothing to stop these war crimes from occurring," Fermon told the newspaper. "A military commander is responsible for war crimes even if he did not commit or order them, but also if he fails to take all the necessary steps to prevent the atrocities from happening."

Belgium's 1993 law of universal jurisdiction allows its courts to prosecute people accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes regardless of where the crime occurred or whether the suspects or victims were Belgian.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell recently warned that Belgium was putting its international reputation at stake because of the law. Powell in March was named in a lawsuit filed by the families of Iraqi victims of a U.S. attack on a shelter that killed 400 people during the 1991 Gulf War.

Former U.S. President George Bush senior, and other members of his administration, including then defense secretary and now Vice President Dick Cheney, were also held responsible in the suit.

Really. And then what happened?

War crimes going ahead

A Belgian lawyer is planning to press ahead with a war crimes lawsuit against US General Tommy Franks, despite American anger.

The suit, brought by 19 Iraqis, accuses General Franks of war crimes during the Iraq conflict.
Lawyer Jan Fermon, who is acting on behalf of the Iraqis, described the plaintiffs as victims of cluster bombs and of US attacks on ambulances and civilians.

"We have a very specific case, with specific evidence," Mr Fermon said. "I do not see how they can reject it."

Mr Fermon said there were 17 "specific incidents" in which US soldiers and commanders had violated the law.

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says Bush administration officials are making it plain they would regard a prosecution of General Franks as a major diplomatic incident - an example of political harassment.

A senior administration official warned that even the issuing of indictments would result in what he called "diplomatic consequences" for Belgium.

But Mr Fermon hit back at Washington.

"I think either the US State Department has nothing to hide, in which case it's very important for them to have an independent inquiry - and why can't it be a Belgian magistrate - or they have something to hide and that's why they are threatening Belgium," the lawyer said.

But it’s not just Belgium which risks the wrath of the Bush Administration:

US threatens German relations

The Pentagon made thinly veiled threats on Monday, suggesting US-German relations could be at risk if a criminal complaint filed in German courts over Abu Ghraib proceeds.

The Pentagon expressed concern Monday over a criminal complaint filed in Germany against US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other officials over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, warning that "frivolous lawsuits" could affect the broader US-German relationship. The complaint was filed in Berlin on Nov. 30 by the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and Berlin's Republican Lawyers' Association on behalf of four Iraqis who were alleged to have been mistreated by US soldiers.

Besides Rumsfeld, former CIA director George Tenet, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Steven Cambone, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski and five other military officers who served in Iraq were named in the complaint, which seeks an investigation into their role in the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib.

Indicating the US planned to play a similar game of hardball with Germany, Rumsfeld has informed the German government via the US embassy that he will not take part in the annual Munich security conference in February should the investigation proceed.

Also reported here and more here.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but what happened?

Bush (et al) has a typical hissy fit, hold their collective breaths until they turn blue, stomp their feet, and threates whomever they damned well choose:

US anger at war crimes threat

The Bush administration has reacted angrily to suggestions that General Tommy Franks, the commander of the US-led war in Iraq, might be charged with war crimes.

If this prosecution goes ahead, Bush administration officials are making it plain they will regard it as a major diplomatic incident - an example of political harassment.

A senior administration official warned that even the issuing of indictments would result in what he called "diplomatic consequences" for Belgium.

What kind of threat, you ask?

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld threatened to block funding for a new NATO headquarters in Belgium over the law, and said the United States was considering whether it would continue to send officials to meetings in Brussels as long as the law was in place.

Let’s see if I have this straight. We threaten Belgium and Germany over war crimes which were demonstrated to have taken place. What does Belgium do? Well, Belgium dropped the war crimes cases (See this and this.)

Yes, there was controversy surrounding the law, which I will cover in just a moment. The US pressured Belgium to repeal the War Crimes Law and at first, they resisted. Eventually, they caved. While they didn’t repeal the law, they changed it significantly.

Oh, and by the by…Bush Sr. and Ariel Sharon were also to have appeared for war crimes in Belgium under this same law.

So, what’s the deal with this law? The law dates back to 1993 and is controversial because it gives anyone, anywhere in the world, the ability to file war crime charges against foreign leaders, anywhere in the world.

It’s contentious in that politicians say the law can be abused and politicized (and coming from our government, that is definitely something they know quite a lot about). The law flooded Belgium with many lawsuits.

When the law was changed, cases were dismissed against Ariel Sharon, (former President) Bush and Israeli Gen. Amos Yaron on grounds that Belgium courts did not have the jurisdiction to bring them to trial because none of the accused were citizens of Belgium at the time the alleged atrocities were committed. (Take note that this was not dropped due to lack of evidence, but due to jurisdiction.)

The decision to drop these cases high-profile cases will likely make our administration happy as string of lawsuits being brought by independent parties against current President George W. Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell and the U.S. commander of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Gen. Tommy Franks can now go away quietly. For now.

What’s the saddest part about this?

The Belgian government appeared relieved at the court’s decision. "As long as complaints based on the universal jurisdiction law were not thrown out, we cannot resume (high level) official contacts with the United States," Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel said Wednesday.
"We are satisfied with the decision," Israeli embassy spokesman Laurent Reichman told AP. "Now, both Belgium and Israel are going to work hard again to have the same friendly relations we had before."

Swell, we get great friendly relations and governments getting away with murder – literally. What’s wrong with this picture?

Someone remind me what the point of government is again, please. For it is certainly not to protect anyone – well, anyone not in power. Their role? Oh right, they take our tax dollars and give them to people they know. I forgot, sorry.

Let’s recap this, shall we

• U.S. Threatened with Iraq War Crimes Trial
• War crimes going ahead in Brussels
• US threatens German relations over war crimes indictment threat (also reported here)
• US angry at war crimes threat; threatens Belgium
• Belgium Drops War Crimes Cases; bows to Bush pressure (also reported here)
• Bush argues to repeal war crimes laws, Belgium Resists Pressure
• US forces changes in war crimes law

The following are a compilation of the best bits (excerpts) from the last three links:

Belgium's government reacted angrily today to mounting American pressure to rescind controversial war crimes legislation, arguing that the country had already addressed Washington's concerns.

Belgian government officials said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had only made the issue more difficult to deal with by threatening Thursday to find another venue for NATO meetings if Brussels failed to act on United States demands.

''I'd like to once again repeat to Mr. Rumsfeld that Belgium has amended the genocide law,'' the country's foreign minister, Louis Michel, told the country's state radio on Friday. ''We have changed it precisely to meet the fears of our American friends.''

The law, which allows anyone to bring war crimes charges in Belgian courts, regardless of where the crimes are said to have taken place, was recently amended to allow the government to dismiss politically motivated cases by transferring them to the defendants' home country. This was done with a recent lawsuit brought by a group of Iraqis against Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the commander of allied forces in Iraq.

But the United States has said it is not satisfied with case-by-case resolutions and wants Belgium to strike the law altogether.

During a meeting of NATO defense ministers here on Thursday, Mr. Rumsfeld said that the United States would have to ''seriously consider'' whether it would continue to allow senior American officials to visit Brussels and added that the United States would withhold financing for a new $350 million NATO headquarters in Belgium as long as the law remained on the books. The United States is expected to finance about a quarter of that project.

''This isn't the way to get them to rescind the law,'' one NATO diplomat said late Thursday, referring to Mr. Rumsfeld's approach. ''People will turn this into plucky little Belgium standing up to the bully, America, disguising the issue that this is a bad law that best be disposed of.''

About 30 such cases have been filed so far, including cases against former President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf for their roles in an incident during the 1991 Persian lf war in which civilians were killed in an attack on a bunker.

So, just what does this new law, which the US so forcefully demanded be changed, say?

Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt said the latest change would make it harder for foreigners to initiate proceedings under the legislation, which permits Belgian courts to try war and human rights crimes no matter where they were committed.

Reform to the 1993 law would oblige the defendant or victim to have Belgian residency if not citizenship, he said.

Under intense international pressure, Belgian legislators drastically amended it last month. The changes stipulated that human-rights complaints can be filed only if the victim or suspect was a Belgian citizen or long-term resident at the time of the alleged crime. In addition, the Belgian parliament also guaranteed diplomatic immunity for world leaders and other high-level officials visiting the country.

If you’d like to learn more, click here or here. (The last link is a great reference for more information.)

If this administration can intimidate and threaten Brussels (and Germany) in to caving on war crimes, how do the Dems in congress stand a chance?

By the way, Tony Blair, and several others in his administration, Jack Straw and Geoff Hoon, are also in deep doo-doo for being Bush’s poodle. War crimes cases were launched against them. (Details here and here.)

Blair also faces a war crimes suit from Greece.

What happens to Mr. Blair and his cohorts will be interesting to follow because they are subject to the ICC – so, while we may not see Bush or Cheney’s ugly mugs at The Hague in the immediate future, it is likely we will see Mr. Blair and his buddies…and one must wonder, when push comes to shove, what he’ll have to say about the entire matter at that time.

On a positive note, we must remember that all of the people tried for war crimes thus far have been charged and tried after they left office. There remains hope that justice will be served.

Click it if you liked it! : : : : : : : : : :

h/t to EuropeanView from TheZoo for help with these buttons! Much thanks!

Seldom are businesses in the developed world implicated directly in torture, but too often they avert their eyes as their products, purchases or independent contractors support abuses, according to Schulz, who is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank based in Washington, D.C. He cited the case of Taser International, the Scottsdale, Ariz., manufacturer of "stun guns." Taser's devices, sold domestically to police departments and private citizens, shoot electrified barbs that cause a flash of intense pain and momentary muscle failure. Police use them in place of pistols and clubs to protect themselves and subdue unruly people.

The U.S. Commerce Department has documented the sale of Tasers to countries, including Saudi Arabia, that are known for using electro-shock devices as tools of torture, Schulz said. He debated Taser's chief executive, Rick Smith, three years ago at Claremont-McKenna College in California. At the time, he asked Smith to stop selling his company's wares to countries that the U.S. State Department had classified as torturers. Taser's president indicated that the company "would sell to any country it pleased," Schulz stated.

I'm reminded of what Darius Rejali said on Democracy Now --

You know, one of the very important points I want to make in my book is that I know we’re all focused on international torture, but there is no sharp line between domestic and international torture. Practices that start in our prisons go out into the field. Practices in the field come back to us.

We all know what waterboarding is. What we forget is that waterboarding was a technique that, although it was learned in the Philippines—we’ve all seen the New Yorker article, I’m sure, on how that happened—those soldiers, when they come back, what kind of jobs do they get? They get jobs as policemen. They get jobs as private security people. And very soon, in the 1920s, all those techniques from the Philippine war started appearing all across the United States. They were used on conscientious objectors during World War I. The techniques that appeared in Chicago in ’72 to ’92 were all techniques that we have already documented in Vietnam that MPs were quite familiar with, right? So, after every war, people come back.

Tasers moved from domestic policing here, they’ve been out there in Iraq. We have a number of cases where people allege that they were tortured with the use of tasers. And the problem with tasers—the problem with any kind of device that doesn’t leave marks is this: if we’re going to use violence in a democracy, there has to be third-party accountability. It just can’t be that you take the cops’ word for it, right? There’s got to be a way in which somebody can say, “Hmm, let me look at that tape again and see if you properly used mace or that baton or something.” And with electrical weapons that leave very few marks, it’s very hard to know.

I always ask people, during the Rodney King video, which everybody saw, “Does everyone remember it?” And everyone says, “Yeah.” And ehtn I say, “Well, how much electroshock did he get when that video was running?” And everyone goes, “I don’t remember anything. There was just beating.” I was like, “No, he had a taser in him. He had gotten two bolts of 50,000 volts, and they were emptying out the remains of that charge in him while he was struggling.” Now, everybody can get outraged by violence they can see. Violence they can’t see, we barely have the opportunity even to raise the question.

Colin Powell's former chief of staff, Lawrence B. Wilkerson, writes about learning that Americans were torturing detainees, as per the White House orders:

Simply put, American fighting men and women were abusing detainees. I later learned that they were doing so on the basis of policies being set by senior members of the Bush administration. As someone who had spent thirty-one years in the Army, I was appalled...

The worst horrors of our war have yet to be revealed—but they will be. Secret prisons, renditions, homicides, torture, and innocents swept up in a vast network of detention—all will be revealed. It is the nature of our openness that it be so. We must start now to recognize our crimes and our complicity. We are all guilty, and we must all take action in whatever way we can. Torture and abuse are not American. They are foreign to us and always should be. We need to exorcise them from our souls and make amends.

Excerpts of 29-year old British resident Binyam Mohamed's diary were published in The Guardian in 2005. The paper reported that he described being flown by a US government plane to a prison in Morocco. One agonizing excerpt:

They cut all over my private parts. One of them said it would be better just to cut it off, as I would only breed terrorists. I asked for a doctor.

Doctor No 1 carried a briefcase. "You're all right, aren't you? But I'm going to say a prayer for you." Doctor No 2 gave me an Alka-Seltzer for the pain. I told him about my penis. "I need to see it. How did this happen?" I told him. He looked like it was just another patient. "Put this cream on it two times a day. Morning and night." He gave me some kind of antibiotic.

I was in Morocco for 18 months. Once they began this, they would do it to me about once a month. One time I asked a guard: "What's the point of this? I've got nothing I can say to them. I've told them everything I possibly could."

"As far as I know, it's just to degrade you. So when you leave here, you'll have these scars and you'll never forget. So you'll always fear doing anything but what the US wants."

Later, when a US airplane picked me up the following January, a female MP took pictures. She was one of the few Americans who ever showed me any sympathy. When she saw the injuries I had she gasped. They treated me and took more photos when I was in Kabul. Someone told me this was "to show Washington it's healing".

Mohamed is now suing the British government. Andy Worthington reports,

On Tuesday, Binyam Mohamed, a 29-year old British resident in Guantánamo, sued the British government for refusing to produce evidence which, his lawyers contend, would demonstrate that he was tortured for 27 months by or on behalf of US forces in Morocco and Afghanistan, that any “evidence” against him was only obtained through torture, and that the British government and intelligence services knew about his torture and provided personal information about him — unrelated to terrorism — that was used by the Americans’ proxy torturers in Morocco...

Although he later reported to his lawyer — Clive Stafford Smith of the legal action charity Reprieve, which represents 35 prisoners in Guantánamo — that the British checked out his story, and confirmed that he was a “nobody,” the Americans were not convinced, and decided to send him to Morocco, where he could be interrogated by professional torturers who were not bothered about international treaties preventing the use of torture, and who were equally unconcerned about whether evidence of their activities would ever surface.

Speaking of his time in Morocco, where he was held for 18 months, Binyam told Stafford Smith that he was subjected to horrendous torture, which, included, but was not limited to having his penis cut with a razor on a regular basis. In spite of this, the regular beatings and other torture that he did not even want to talk about, Binyam said that his lowest moment of all came when his torturers produced evidence of his life in London, which could only have come from the British intelligence services, and he realized that he had been abandoned and betrayed by his adopted homeland.

After Morocco, Binyam was transferred to Afghanistan, where he endured further torture in the “Dark Prison,” a secret “black site” near Kabul, run by the CIA, which was a grim recreation of a medieval dungeon, but with the addition of non-stop music and noise, blasted into the pitch-dark cells at an ear-piercing volume.

Make it Matter. Psychologists Acting with Conscience Together is asking APA members to sign the resolution --

Be it resolved that psychologists may not work in settings where persons are held outside of, or in violation of, either International Law (e.g., the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions) or the US Constitution (where appropriate), unless they are working directly for the persons being detained or for an independent third party working to protect human rights.

Psychologists Acting with Conscience Together reports that the resolution requires signatures from 1% of current APA members in order to be brought before the entire APA membership for a direct vote.

By Scott Ritter
ICH
05/13/08 "Truthdig"

As someone who has been urging focused citizen activism for some time now, I find it heartening that there are those in the United States who put action to words and seek to lead by example. This is the case with Chicago Alderman Joe Moore, who, together with seven of his 49 colleagues (Toni Preckwinkle, Sandi Jackson, Eugene Schulter, Robert Fioretti, Freddrenna Lyle, Ricardo Munoz and Mary Ann Smith), has prepared a resolution for the Chicago City Council opposing war on Iran. By itself, this resolution most probably will not serve to alter the policies currently being pursued by the Bush administration. But when a great American city such as Chicago takes the lead in expressing its rejection of irresponsible national policy, other cities should, and will, take notice.

I have been asked to be a witness, together with other experts on Iran and U.S. Middle East policy, before the City Council as it considers this resolution. I think it is of great importance that the representatives of the people of Chicago vote to adopt it in its entirety. I would also encourage other municipalities to consider similar resolutions opposing war on Iran, and to express their concern through the adoption of resolutions which, collectively, might serve as a notice to the United States Congress, as well as the administration of President Bush, that a war with Iran would not be supported by the citizens of this land.

In preparing for my role as witness, I carefully considered the Chicago resolution in its entirety, and offer my analysis of its content as a primer for interested parties. I sincerely hope that the leadership and courage exhibited by the Chicago council members can be replicated across America in a timely fashion, and that the resultant will of the people is recognized by the Congress in time for effective legislation to be drafted and passed which reduces the threat of U.S.-Iranian conflict.

“WHEREAS, The Bush Administration and its Congressional allies are engaging in a systematic campaign to convince the American people that the Islamic Republic of Iran poses an imminent threat to the American nation, American troops in the Middle East and U.S. allies.”

The propaganda war being waged by the Bush administration in this regard has been as intense and relentless as any in recent memory. Either directly or through proxy, the administration has painted a one-sided portrait of Iran which is inaccurate and misleading in the extreme. To have a nation of nearly 80 million people, possessing a history and culture several thousands of years old, suddenly personified in the image of a single individual, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a gross misrepresentation. Imagine if one tried to characterize the entire American people in the form of George W. Bush. Iran is a diverse nation, with numerous political and social constituencies which compete across a broad spectrum of forums, governmental and nongovernmental alike. To take the words and deeds of one man, out of context in some cases and inaccurately in others, and use them to paint a picture of national policy is as wrong as it is deceitful.

Iran today poses no threat to the American nation, its allies (including Israel) or American troops in the region. To the extent that U.S. service members are threatened in Iraq, one must consider the reality of a genuine popular resistance by Iraqis to a brutal and illegitimate occupation. It should also be noted that Iran is primarily interested in securing a stable Iraq in the post-Saddam period, a policy requiring Iran to back the current Iraqi government, a Shiite-dominated government which the United States helped empower and which the United States currently supports.

The fact that the current Iraqi government is drawn primarily from two political entities (the Da’wa Party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq) that are closely allied with the Iranians not only belies the U.S. claim that Iran seeks to undermine security in Iraq (since to accept this proposition one would have to embrace the premise that Iran is fighting itself), but also illustrates the inherent inconsistency of the U.S. position in Iraq, which is to oppose the one regional power which supports the stated U.S. objective of empowering the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad. The reality is that it is bad U.S. policy, not any concerted action on the part of Iran, which serves as the greatest threat to U.S. forces in the Middle East.

“WHEREAS, This campaign bears a strong resemblance to that waged during the lead-up to the Iraq War and occupation, with the use of unreliable sources, exaggerated threat assessments, the selective use of information, unsubstantiated accusations about Iran’s nuclear program and its supply of weapons to Iraqi forces as centerpieces of their case to the American people for aggressive action against Iran.”

If the current war in Iraq has taught the American people anything, it is that we can never again have our nation led to war based upon unsubstantiated data, rumor and speculation. Effective congressional oversight could have retarded the Bush propaganda on Iraq, especially concerning the WMD issue and the allegations of ties between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaida. The fact that Congress accepted, without question, every negative story produced by the Bush administration, and that the product of this abrogation of constitutional mandate was parroted as fact by a too-compliant media, should serve as a wake-up call that past patterns of behavior are repeating themselves today, this time in the case of Iran.

If one replaces Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress with Alireza Jafazadeh and the Mujahedeen Khalq, and “Curveball” (the disgraced INC-planted intelligence source cited by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell in his infamous February 2003 presentation before the U.N. Security Council) with the “magic laptop computer” (provided by the MEK to U.S. intelligence, and cited by the U.S. as the sole source for many of its claims concerning an ongoing Iranian nuclear weapons program), it is clear that there is much to be suspicious of regarding the Bush administration case against Iran.

When the United States cites the capture of alleged Iranian “Quds Force” officials as proof of Iranian perfidy inside Iraq, and then releases these same individuals months later, citing a lack of intelligence value and the fact that these prisoners pose no security threat, it becomes clear that the U.S. case against Iran is built primarily upon ideologically motivated smoke and mirrors. The Congress must never again allow itself to be used as a rubber stamp for unnecessary war, but it will act only when pushed to do so by an alarmed and awakened constituency.

“WHEREAS, Iran has not threatened to attack the United States, and no compelling evidence has been presented that Iran poses a real and imminent threat to the security and safety of the United States that would justify an unprovoked unilateral pre-emptive military attack.”

In fact, there is overwhelming evidence that Iran, rather than conspiring against the U.S. in the Middle East, has actively reached out to Washington in an effort to normalize relations. Iran was the first Islamic nation to condemn the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attack on the United States, and Iran coordinated with the U.S. military on certain aspects of the American military response in Afghanistan. Likewise, Iran was supportive of the U.S. drive to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

In May of 2003, Iran made a bold diplomatic approach to the United States which sought to resolve outstanding issues such as the Iranian nuclear program, Iranian support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and Iran’s relationship with Israel. It was the United States which rejected this outreach, not Iran. The fact is that it is the unilateral policy objectives of the Bush administration, which revolve around regime change in Iran, which serve as the principal threat to regional peace and security in the Middle East today. Iran poses a threat to no nation, least of all the United States.

“WHEREAS, We support the people of Iran who are struggling for freedom and democracy, and nothing herein should be construed as supportive of their government, the Islamic Republic of Iran, but a unilateral, pre-emptive U.S. military attack on Iran could well prove counterproductive to the cause of promoting freedom and democracy in that country.”

We should never forget that while Iran functions as a theocracy in terms of ultimate constitutional authority, both its legislative and executive branches are a product of democratic processes. The best course of action American policy could take would be to create the conditions inside Iran where the genuine will of the people can be expressed through the existing democratic structures. This is best accomplished by creating increased opportunities for interaction between Iran and the rest of the world. Such interaction would go far to moderate the theocratic structures inside Iran. The current policies of economic sanctions and political isolation of Iran are counterproductive in this regard, and serve to strengthen the political power of those conservative institutions that Americans hope would be undermined by an Iranian population moderated by international interaction.

“WHEREAS, A 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), representing the consensus view [of] all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, concluded that Iran froze its nuclear weapons program in 2003, and an earlier NIE concluded that Iran’s involvement in Iraq “is not likely to be a major driver of violence there.”

While the United States has been plagued by the increasing politicization of intelligence—prime examples being the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and the creation within the Pentagon of a special intelligence entity (the Office of Special Programs, under the guidance of Douglas Feith) whose sole purpose was to introduce into the policymaking body data and information which had been rejected by the intelligence community as unfounded—the entire work of the intelligence community cannot be dismissed out of hand, especially when it publishes a major finding which clashes with the position held by an activist administration. The fact that the U.S. intelligence community and the Bush administration do not agree on the specifics of how Iran constitutes a threat to America in and of itself begs intervention in the form of congressional oversight. It is not unpatriotic for Congress to hold hearings for the purpose of discerning the facts surrounding a given policy. When such policies involve war or the threat of war, the need is even more imperative, and the failure of Congress to act accordingly represents a dereliction of duty which must not be ignored by the American people, whom Congress purports to represent.

“WHEREAS, an attack on Iran is likely to cause untold thousands of American and Iranian casualties, lead to major economic dislocations, and threaten a much wider and more disastrous war in the Middle East.”

While it is currently in vogue for ideologues and proponents of neoconservative ideology to promote a “limited airstrike” against Iran, anyone with any military experience will point out that no plan survives initial contact with the enemy. The Iranian government will have a say in how it will choose to respond in case of an unprovoked American military strike, however limited it might be. Any Iranian retaliation might prompt an American counter-retaliation, and one might find a limited strike quickly spiraling out of control and threatening full-scale conflagration. The American economy has been bankrupted by the war in Iraq, and the American military, especially the Army and Marines, is stretched to its breaking point. While an argument can be made that any limited strike would rely primarily on the resources of the Air Force and Navy, if the conflict escalates, this will no longer be the case. Given the fact that any attack on Iran would represent an elective war rather than a war of national security, there is no compelling reasoning which cites the so-called national interest for the United States to consider any military action against Iran, either now or in the future.

“WHEREAS, a pre-emptive U.S. military attack on Iran would violate international law and our commitments under the U.N. Charter and further isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world.”

Most Americans remain ignorant of the laws which govern our nation, and the document which serves as the foundation of these laws. The United States Constitution, in Article 6, declares that international treaties and agreements ratified by a two-thirds vote in the Senate become the supreme law of the land. The United States is a signatory to the charter of the United Nations, and the charter has been ratified by the U.S. Senate. As such, the United States is bound by international law and its own Constitution to not only reject pre-emptive warfare (a notion cited by the Nuremburg tribunals as the greatest of all war crimes, since it is from pre-emptive war of aggression that all other war crimes are born), but note that the United States can justify going to war only as a result of legitimate self-defense (i.e., in response to an attack), per Article 51 of the U.N. charter, or as a result of a Chapter VII resolution of the United Nations Security Council authorizing the use of military force.

The Bush administration violated every legal principle the United States claims to represent, internationally and domestically, when it pre-emptively invaded Iraq in 2003, without provocation and void of any Chapter VII authorization. Two wrongs do not make a right, and it is imperative that the Congress take action to make sure that the administration is not permitted to embark on a similarly illegal and illegitimate course of action regarding Iran.

“WHEREAS, An attack on Iran is likely to inflame hatred for the U.S. in the Middle East and elsewhere, inspire terrorism, and lessen the security of Americans in Chicago and worldwide.”

The reputation of the United States has been severely harmed by the irresponsible actions of the Bush administration in Iraq. Without condoning the actions of groups such as al-Qaida, it is important to understand that irresponsible American action abroad does manifest itself in a backlash, and that often this backlash comes in the form of terrorism. Any U.S. attack on Iran would only reinforce the opinions of those in the world already disposed against the United States, and draw many more into their ranks. The only way to truly win the war on terror is to identify the point at which an individual decides to embrace terror as a means of achieving an objective, along with the means for which such a decision was made, and then to take actions to prevent that point from ever being reached. To operate as if American policy and actions in Iraq, and the potential of similar actions and activities in Iran, do not influence this equation is simply to ignore reality and embrace ignorance.

“WHEREAS, The Iraq war and occupation has already cost the lives of over 4,000 American soldiers, the maiming and wounding of over 38,000 American soldiers, the death and maiming of over one million Iraqi civilians.”

The war in Iraq has already killed far too many people, American and Iraqi alike. This war is widely recognized as being unsustainable. The key question that must be answered by those who champion a “stay the course” approach is, “How big do you want the Iraqi War Memorial to be?” It is already 4,070-plus names too big. Expanding the conflict to include Iran would not only extend this unwinnable (and unjustified) war, but it would also expand the size of whatever memorial is eventually built to commemorate this national folly. And while America will probably never construct a memorial to the Iraqi people we are responsible for killing and wounding, it should be understood that these people will never be forgotten by their fellow Iraqis, and indeed the rest of the world. To extend this human suffering and tragedy into Iran would be to create a level of suffering for which America can never, and should never, be forgiven.

“WHEREAS, According to the nonpartisan National Priorities Project, the Iraq War and occupation has cost American taxpayers more than $500 billion, the citizens of Chicago nearly $5.2 billion, and the citizens of each of Chicago’s 50 wards an average of $104 million, and

“WHEREAS, Any conflict with Iran is likely to incur far greater costs and divert more precious national resources away from critical human needs in Chicago and its 50 wards.”

As the American economy continues to suffer under the strains of the second most expensive war in U.S. history (after World War II), and as the Pentagon continues to consume national treasure which is sorely needed for domestic programs involving the health, education and general welfare of the people, it must be recognized that, in going to war against Iraq, President Bush actually declared war on the American people. Any military action against Iran would only magnify the economic consequences of this criminal folly.

“BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Council of the City of Chicago does hereby urge the Illinois Congressional delegation to clearly express the will of the people of Chicago in opposing any U.S. attack on Iran, and urging the Bush Administration to pursue diplomatic engagement with that nation, and

“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That suitable copies of the resolution be forwarded to President George W. Bush and all members of the Chicago Congressional