Tag: Iraq War

The Bush Administration’s On-Going War on Our Troops and Veterans

Written: 08/12/2006
Remarks delivered at an anti-war protest in Charlotte, NC

In early January 2003, a little over two months before the US invasion of Iraq, George W. Bush spoke to troops at Fort Hood Texas. He assured them, “I want to make sure that our soldiers have the best possible pay,” and, “I want to make sure the housing is the best possible for our military families.”

Two weeks later, Bush met with wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Medical Center and told them, “We should and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm’s way.”

These expressions of support, and others like them over the past 3 1/2 years since then, receive a lot of play on the cable news channels and make for good sound bites on the evening news. Anyone paying only superficial attention, or anyone who puts any faith in what Bush has to say, might come away with the impression that he sincerely means what he says, and that his words would translate into actions to benefit our servicemen and women.

Unfortunately, it has become all too clear that this Administration has a serious credibility gap, and has a long history of misleading the American people. A brief overview of what the Bush Administration has actually done, or attempted to do, over the past 3 1/2 years demonstrates that, despite their rhetoric of support, they have been waging an on-going war on our troops and veterans on every front where it matters.

After Bush declared “major combat operations” over in Iraq under the banner of “Mission Accomplished,” the Bush Administration tried to reduce proposals for modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay and the family-separation allowance, they opposed an increase in the $6,000 one-time payment to families of those killed in action, and acted to block a federal judge’s award of damages to Desert Storm veterans who had sued the Iraqi government for torture during the 1991 Gulf War.

They closed Small Business Administration offices that provided aid to veterans starting new businesses, closed several commissaries and military-run schools, and proposed increasing prescription co-payments and charging a $250 user fee for some veterans.

Before there was public outcry, the Bush Administration outrageously charged injured GIs $8 a day for food when transferred back to the US for medical treatment from injuries sustained in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Their budget proposals have included billions of dollars in cuts for VA medical and prosthetic research, military family housing, and VA hospitals.

The inadequate funding of healthcare and medical facilities has had its consequences. Various surveys and reports in the past couple of years have found that long-term care services are severely underfunded, that clinics have been withholding non-institutional long-term care services, that the VA was poorly prepared to serve the mental health needs of veterans, that over 310,000 veterans were waiting up to six months for medical appointments, that veterans receiving disability compensation had to wait from six months to two years, that there is a backlog of hundreds of thousands of benefits claims, and that the VA was only able to tend to 20% of homeless veterans.

Earlier this year, a Government Accountability Office audit of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs found that political pressure from the Bush Administration had caused VA officials to lower their budget requests to match the lowered funding targets from the White House, every year from 2003 to 2006.

Concerning this finding, Larry Scott of VAwatchdog.org wrote, “The VA’s healthcare budget didn’t make sense because VA officials, for at least the last four years, have been cooking the books.”

Back in July 2003, while withholding funding that military commanders said they needed for armor and body protection and while troops were scrounging for make-shift armor and buying their own if they could afford it, Bush’s answer to the growing insurgency was a taunting, “Bring ’em on.”

Later, in January 2006, the New York Times reported:

A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

Over the past several years, reports continued to surface about how over-extended and over-taxed our military had become, the significant recruiting short-falls, and the various attempts the Administration had made to address these problems without calling for a draft. These attempts included extending service via a stop-loss program, twice raising the eligibility age for enlistment, offering thousands of dollars to troops to reenlist, the recall of retired and discharged troops, and sending our National Guard overseas for extended deployment in Iraq.

At the same time, the Administration was also putting pressure on recruiters, leading to reports of highly questionable and illegal tactics to meet quotas, including misrepresentation of benefits, false assurances about non-deployment to Iraq, and the compromising of minimum IQ requirements. As the situation worsened, monetary incentives to sign up were increased and induction standards were lowered.

All these efforts have not done much to relieve the situation; suicides and post-traumatic stress disorder are at an all-time high, and morale continues to decline.

And after all of that, sadly, there is more….

In the Spring of this year, it was revealed that this war was being fought by sending troops with post-traumatic stress disorder back into combat, and that the military was relying increasingly on the use of antidepressants in the war zone.

In this all too brief and limited review of the Bush Administration and their efforts on behalf of our troops, it becomes very clear that their “support” for our troops doesn’t go much beyond whatever meaningless, deceptive, and superficial rhetoric will suffice to create the illusion of support, and to inspire our armed forces to act as cannon-fodder for their delusional policy objectives.

There are many other examples that I have passed over here, including: their reluctance to support health hazard research regarding Depleted Uranium exposure, their lack of support for tax breaks for service members while giving tax breaks to the rich, their poor planning for the post-war situation, their lack of bright and clear guidelines on handling prisoners or how to interrogate them, and, finally, having them wage an unnecessary and illegal war without an exit strategy, but it appears that this Administration has no interest in doing what it really takes to “support our troops” beyond what amounts to the policy equivalent of slapping a bumper sticker on the back of their SUVs.

This callous disregard and disrespect for our military and its veterans is driven by this President and his chickenhawk cronies, who have managed to avoid service or combat themselves. This Administration has grown accustomed to using force to get their way while sacrificing others. In this case, tens of thousands of our troops have, and are continuing to, pay the price, while this President vacations in Crawford, Texas.

Republicans in Congress have not acted much better, to cite just a couple of examples: in September 2005, House Republicans proposed closing elementary and secondary schools for military family members and voted that the VA must cut $798 million over the next five years. And just this week, USA Today reported that:

Congress appears ready to slash funding for the research and treatment of brain injuries caused by bomb blasts, an injury that military scientists describe as a signature wound of the Iraq war. House and Senate versions of the 2007 Defense appropriation bill contain $7 million for the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center – half of what the center received last fiscal year.

Last year, the Disabled American Veterans released a report on individual members of Congress, indicating the degree (from 0 to 100) that each elected official supported the interests of the organization in that year. The report gave a score of “0” to two-hundred congressional representatives, all of them Republicans. Only two Republicans received a score over 50. On the other hand, 154 Democrats received a score of “100” and only one Democrat scored under 60.

While Afghanistan deteriorates back into warlord fiefdoms and the Taliban reemerges within, while Iraq devolves into an undeclared civil war and has become a training ground for future terrorists, while the entire Middle East lurches towards total chaos and more people hate us than ever before, while the monetary costs threaten our economy and result in cuts in essential benefits and services, and while we are less free at home and the death toll on both sides is measured in the tens of thousands–all because of the policies of this Administration–the only war this Administration of chickenhawks seems to be winning is the war on our troops and our veterans

The Bush Administration’s on-going war on our troops and veterans is not honorable or sustainable, and we must do all we can to put a stop to it.

An American Protest

Written: 11/19/2002
Published in The People’s Civic Record, a monthly, Wilmington, NC based progressive magazine.

FRIDAY NIGHT, OCT. 25TH

I was in a horrible mood. I had been driving through blinding rain and fog in heavy traffic through most of Virginia. It seemed to only get worse as I got closer to my destination. I was driving up I-95 on my way to Washington D.C. to attend an anti-war demonstration.

I was wondering if it was worth it.

Congress had already abdicated its Constitutional duty to decide when to wage war, giving a blank check to Bush to pursue it at his discretion. I had hoped that the people opposed to this would have a chance to look their representatives in the eye before they reached a such an important decision.

A few email write-in campaigns against the war had begun to sway some in Congress. The issue passed with less votes in the House than initially expected because of them. Links to the email campaigns were spread by anti-war, peace, and “liberal” websites on the Internet, as well as the word of future anti-war demonstrations.

Unfortunately, it was too late.

Senator Robert Byrd, from West Virginia, had made a valiant effort to dissuade his fellow legislators with some courageous and eloquent speeches, pointing out the Constitutional authority to wage war rested in the legislative branch of government, not the executive. Quoting Madison and Lincoln, he had accused the President of “hubris” (hubris: “to rush at impetuously” wanton insolence or arrogance resulting from excessive pride or from passion). His words seemed to fall on many deaf ears. With the mid-term elections at hand, Democrats were too fearful to challenge a popular President, who seemed ready to wage war regardless of Congressional or international blessing. They were as eager to get this issue out of the way before elections as Bush was eager for them to rubber stamp his agenda.

Earlier that day, Senator Paul Wellstone, from Minnesota, an unabashed and extremely principled liberal, who had also stood against the rush to war, had been killed in a small plane crash. His first speech, as a member of Congress, had been opposing the first war against Iraq; his last speech opposed a second one.

This protest seemed a feeble attempt to counter Bush’s new National Security Strategy, which promotes the un-American and unchristian idea of doing unto others BEFORE they MIGHT do unto you, and the public’s seeming enthusiastic support for war, which had left me feeling isolated throughout the past year or more.

I partly blamed the media for its lack of coverage of dissent and lack of in-depth analysis about what was going on. I was angry that they weren’t making more out of the Bush administration’s policies, casting aside international and Constitutional law. I didn’t understand why they were failing to insist that Bush explain, and more fully define, his “war on terrorism” and his overall objectives in clearer terms than going after “evil-doers.” How could they not question Bush’s statements about the UN being irrelevant if it didn’t enforce its resolutions against Iraq, when somehow it is not irrelevant when it doesn’t enforce the resolutions against Israel? Where was the outrage when it was revealed that the Bush administration withheld the information that North Korea had WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) from the Congress and the American public until after the Senate vote giving him the power to go into Iraq? I was shocked that the same papers and columnists, who earlier reported that the inspectors themselves finally decided to leave Iraq in 1998, because of the lack of cooperation of the Iraqi government, were now spinning the lie that Iraq had “kicked” them out. I was discouraged with the lack of coverage regarding how the unilateral actions of this administration were making even countries friendly towards us highly uncomfortable. And I didn’t know why massive protests overseas by hundreds of thousands were barely making the news (a British protest against fox hunting, a few weeks earlier, had received much more coverage than a British antiwar protest which drew over 400,000 people, which occurred on the same day).

With the Congress and the media abdicating responsibility and a feeling of futility, I drove into Washington in the rain.

SATURDAY, OCT. 26TH

By Saturday morning, the rain had stopped, but it was still cloudy and overcast when I took the Metro into the heart of the city. I was heading to Constitution Garden Park, adjacent to the Vietnam Memorial where the protest was centered.

When I arrived, I breathed a sigh of relief. There were already several hundred people there. I let go of my worst fear, that this would be a wash-out.

It wasn’t long before the speakers started and the crowd began to swell into the thousands on the wet and muddy grounds.

The demonstration seemed to involve many disparate groups. Many with different additional agendas besides peace. For some, peace is not even on their agenda. They were just trying to use the anti-war movement to market anti-establishment ideas and felt that they can find likely customers among dissenters. There were the expected socialists and Greens and anarchists (oh, my!), but there were also people who are trying to prove things like the Kennedy assassination was part of a plot to undermine Asians (an actual argument someone was presenting at the march). With all the kooks and crazies globbing on, it makes it easy for the “establishment” to mock the whole cause, but it may be an unavoidable aspect of any protest of this type.

The International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now To Stop War and End Racism) Coalition was the primary organizer of the event. It seems they have some associations with former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, founder of the New York-based International Action Center (IAC).

Mirror demonstrations were being held in other cities across the country and across the world that day in San Francisco, New York, San Juan, Berlin, Stockholm, Madrid, Tokyo, and Manila, to name some of the more significant, but I felt this one was the most important. This one was going to look them in the eye.

Not In Our Name (a group of prominent Americans including; Edward Asner, Noam Chomsky, Casey Kasem, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Gloria Steinem, and Howard Zinn – among many others) were the hosts of the protest in New York.

It is difficult to assess the power possessed by each of the scores of “umbrella” organizations for peace like A.N.S.W.E.R. or Not In Our Name and it is possible that an inadequate or inappropriate group may succeed in pulling off an event – and gain power – because of their marketing ability, not because of their competence in other areas.

In spite of the diversity of groups and their perspectives, the driving force behind the turnout could be found in the people who came. It wasn’t just the kooky, weird looking people that CNN might tend to focus on to make for better TV in their coverage. It was the mothers and nuns and veterans and “regular” people from all over the country, who felt that this war was wrong. Many people at the march didn’t know anything about A.N.S.W.E.R. or many of the other groups vying for attention, but everyone seemed incredibly relieved with the turnout. They no longer felt alone in their objection to war and it gave everyone some hope for the future – something sadly lacking in the current administration’s vision for it, i.e.: that we have to learn to expect terrorism.

I talked to one gentleman who had come on a bus from Tennessee. He had brought an American flag to carry and wave at the rally. He was trying to illustrate that you can be a patriot, and still oppose the policies of the current administration BECAUSE you love your country.

I also saw someone carrying a large North Carolina state flag and I knew that a local Wilmington peace group called P.E.A.C.E. (People Educating with an Active Commitment to Equality) was there as well, so my state and city were well represented.

By midday, the overcast skies and morning fog had burned away and the sun was shining. It had become a beautiful, clear and comfortable autumn day as the crowd continued to swell. There were people as far as I could see. I walked to the edge of the park and looked out across the water. I was surprised to see people gathered all around the banks, too far away to hear the speakers, but unable to get closer because of the crowd size.

The anti-war protest in Washington turned out to be the largest demonstration against war in America since the late 1960s protests against the war in Vietnam. Full media coverage was provided by C-Span and Pacifica Radio, who estimated the crowd gathered to protest at over 200,000. Limited or cursory news coverage was made by the commercial media – who variously reported figures anywhere from “hundreds and hundreds” to “thousands” to “tens of thousands” to “over 100,000.” Apparently, the figures reported depended on when they dropped by to make their report – the crowd grew as the day went on and it doesn’t seem they could spare someone to take eight hours or so to give an accurate reporting of events. I know NBC failed to even mention it on their nightly newscasts (perhaps because there weren’t any bombs or bullets involved).

Considering all the various reports, including comments reported by Police (estimating over 100,000 to over 150,000) and my own experience with concert and sports crowds, I estimate that there were at least 130,000 to 150,000 protesters at its peak and I could not see them all.

Many people spoke at the rally. Maybe there were too many, as the crowd was ready to march at least an hour before the speakers were through and began drifting away from the stage to march before the organizers were ready. The speakers were not of one voice on all points either. For example, Jesse Jackson said the previous war with Iraq was justified, Ramsey Clark said that it wasn’t. I think there was a power play there, among the various speakers and groups that wanted to be recognized, and some were using the event for their own political purposes. A.N.S.W.E.R. allowed for the different voices. I’ve since heard criticism “from the left” regarding A.N.S.W.E.R. allowing one speaker or another to speak, but my thought about that was, “why didn’t they step up to the plate?”

The speakers included Jesse Jackson, Susan Sarandon, Al Sharpton, Congressmember Cynthia McKinney, former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark, singer Patti Smith, Secretary-General of the International Longshore Workers Union Local 10 Clarence Thomas, Mahdi Bray of Muslim American Freedom Foundation, attorneys Leonard Weinglass and Lynne Stewart, Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry’s, Ahmed Al-Awazza of the Muslim Students Association, Michael Letwin of New York City Labor Against the War, youth organizer for A.N.S.W.E.R. Peta Lindsay, and author Leslie Feinberg.

As much as I might disagree with someone like a Jackson, a Thomas, or a Sharpton on some issues, they made eloquent speeches and, at least, they stepped up to the plate.

After too many speeches, we finally marched. Well, at first, those at the tail of the march stood for about 1/2 hour, as the march was so large that there was a temporary gridlock, when protesters at the head of the march returned to Constitution Avenue on their way back, they had to wait to allow demonstrators at the tail of the march to pass.

The NY Times, who had vaguely reported that “thousands” attended the rally in the next day’s Sunday paper, was so deluged with complaints regarding its coverage that it did a follow up piece on Wednesday. Here’s how they described it in the second report:

“The demonstration on Saturday in Washington drew 100,000 by police estimates and 200,000 by organizers’, forming a two-mile wall of marchers around the White House. The turnout startled even organizers, who had taken out permits for 20,000 marchers. They expected 30 buses, and were surprised by about 650, coming from as far as Nebraska and Florida.”

The crowd was entirely peaceful and included all ages and races. People even brought their children. In spite of the various agendas by various groups and speakers, the majority of the people, who had come out to made this demonstration a success, were united against war and united in a desire for peace. That unity of feeling ultimately overcame everything else.

This is me with my sign. The picture was taken as the march was breaking up.

There were no clashes with police and I was glad and relieved the “peace” demonstration had been entirely “peaceful.” Overall, it had been a positive demonstration instead of a negative one and, with the numbers of people involved, I felt that we had made a statement that was bound to be heard.

AFTERWARDS

As I left the city on Monday morning, the rain started again and, by then, I had discovered that the event wasn’t very well covered at all. It was several years into the Vietnam war before a protest of this magnitude occurred and this protest had been largely ignored by the media. It was amazing to me, when I came home to Wilmington, to find that many people here hadn’t heard a thing about it. It was even more disheartening after November 5th and the mid-term elections, when Republicans took control of the Senate, giving them control of all three branches of government and leaving the country without any checks or balance – or even a token alternative to the dim prospects offered by those who now hold our future in their hands.

But there is one thing different that I know now that I didn’t know before, that is; there are a lot of people who are as opposed to the bill of goods being offered to us as I am, and our numbers will do nothing but grow. Our message will be heard. If not through the mainstream media, then by other means. Eventually, we will not be ignored.

There will be another protest in Washington on January 18-19, and more people will know and more people will come.

Progressives of every stripe must have the courage of Robert Byrd to reclaim the moral and patriotic high-ground from those that are using those ideas merely to undermine them. They must seize this moment to make a better world and offer a brighter future and greater vision than is being offered to us.

The People must not abdicate their responsibility.

Paul Wellstone is dead, but his message did not die with him.

An American Restaurant

Written: 06/13/2003
Published in The People’s Civic Record, a monthly, Wilmington, NC based progressive magazine.

THE HUBRIS IS SERVED…

Note of explanation: Senator Robert Byrd, from West Virginia, has accused the President of “hubris” (hubris: “to rush at impetuously” wanton insolence or arrogance).

[Scene: A dimly lit American restaurant with a little Wagner playing in the background]

Waiter: How are you tonight?

Patron: I’m fine.

Waiter: May I recommend the Hubris this evening?

Patron: No thank you.

Waiter: It’s our special….

Patron: No thank you.

Waiter: I must insist…..

Patron: I was thinking of having the Peace and Prosperity entree with Liberty salad.

Waiter: I’m sorry, sir, but those items are no longer available.

Patron: That was my favorite…. What happened??

Waiter: We are now under new management. We have a new menu. Would you like some time to look it over? …. I must say that you will regret it, if you don’t try the Hubris.

Patron: No, thank you. This place does seem different – I didn’t expect the body scan at the door and it looks darker in here…. What’s with the curtains?

Waiter: Our new cook doesn’t like to be watched…. I think you should try the Hubris. It is excellent this evening. Everybody else is having it.

Patron: No, thank you. What else do you have?

Waiter: The specials of today are: Guantánamo Bay Detainees – individually gagged and hooded, lightly tortured, and some of them are very young and fresh; Immigrant Stew – isolated indefinitely under strong lights, abused and traumatized, left without the will to object; the Preemptive Strike, an oil-based recipe, stuffed with false allegations and soaked in dreams of empire, guaranteed to shock and awe; the Patriot Act, made with shredded bill of rights and fostered on a cowardly congress; Poindexter’s Nightmare with Orwell’s eyeballs, arranged in such a way that it almost appears they are looking at you; and finally, and especially, the Hubris, which I think would be best….

[The lights go out – sounds of a slight muffled struggle]

Patron: What happened to the lights???

Waiter: One of our patrons is being moved to the Delta room.

Patron: What’s that?

[The lights return]

Waiter: You don’t want to know…. I am urging you most strongly to have the Hubris now….

Another Patron: Whasamatter, buddy? Hubris not good enough for you? You think you are better than us?

Waiter: Why won’t you have the Hubris? It is an arrogant pompous, filled with lies and deceptions, covered in a chicken-little fear-mongering, and soaked in a mixture of false patriotism and moral relativism to make it exceedingly smooth going down.

Patron: I find the lies difficult to swallow…. I was interested in something else….

Waiter: Oh, I see we have a Taliban lover tonight!

Patron: I never cared for the Taliban. The Taliban has always made me feel repressed.

Waiter: Perhaps you would like the Dissenter’s Protest in a bed of lazy socialists and godless communists? It comes with a liberal helping of unwashed and unshaven hippie greens in anarchy on the side….

Patron: What else do you have?

Waiter: Well, we have the Cheney Halliburton, the Wolfowitz/Libby Imperium, and Rumsfeld’s Remarkable Ruminations… We also have some fine Spineless Democrats with a republican lite dressing…or some very tender Media Pushovers with sheep dip…. but the Hubris is really your only choice. Everyone else is having it. It comes with freedom fries….

[The waiter motions to the side]

You simply must try it. I must insist….

[The Hubris is served…]

Patron: I didn’t order this!

Waiter: It doesn’t matter. It is all we really have. You must take it.

Patron: It looks like some kind of a bush! These fries are burnt to a crisp…and I wanted meat. Where is the meat?

Waiter: The Hubris is never served with meat.

Another Patron: Hey buddy, either take the Hubris or leave.

Patron: Excuse me, but I would like to speak to the manager.

Waiter: The manager is unavailable; he is posing for our next television commercial. We are advertising our new locations opening in the Middle East.

Patron: I don’t see anything I like on this menu. This place isn’t as nice as it use to be…. Don’t you have any Decency left? I could have some of that….

Waiter: I’m sorry sir, I must ask you to leave now….

Patron: But I am a life-long patron…and a stockholder!!!

Waiter: I must refer you to the new management.

Patron: You said he was unavailable….

Waiter: Mr. Ashcroft may see you. He handles these kinds of things.

[The waiter motions to the side]

Patron: I don’t want to see Mr. Ashcroft. I want to see the manager!

[Mr. Ashcroft appears]

Waiter: Perhaps, you would be more comfortable waiting in the Delta room while we figure your bill.

[The lights go out]

Patron: Hey, what happened to the lights!? What kind of place is this!? Muft! mumm….

[Muffled struggle]

Waiter: Everything will be fine, sir. Your ignorance and inattention will bring your just desserts.

The New American Justice

Written: 04/26/2003
Published in The People’s Civic Record, a monthly, Wilmington, NC based progressive magazine.

JUSTICE BEHIND THE CURTAIN

“Implicit in the term `national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideals which set this nation apart.”

– Justice Potter Stewart

In Bagram air base, north of the Afghan capital Kabul, U.S. military police run a detention facility. In December 2002, two detainees died while in U.S. custody shortly after their arrival there. Military coroners have determined that one man died on December 3rd of a pulmonary embolism and the second man died on December 10th of a heart attack. Autopsies found that a contributing factor in both cases was “blunt force trauma.” Both death certificates had “homicide” checked as the cause of death.

In an article on conditions of the detainees at the Bagram detention facility, the Washington Post reported that:

“According to Americans with direct knowledge and others who have witnessed the treatment, captives are often ‘softened up’ by MPs and U.S. Army Special Forces troops who beat them up and confine them in tiny rooms.”

Other conditions employed include: blindfolding and hooding, binding in painful positions, denial of medication to alleviate pain, sleep deprivation, and various other “stress and duress” techniques.

Several weeks ago, two prisoners judged innocent were released. Both told of being doused with water while confined naked in cells so cold there was ice on the floor.

One official, supervising the capture and transfer of accused terrorists, said, “If you don’t violate someone’s human rights some of the time, you probably aren’t doing your job.”

Sometimes, particularly uncooperative detainees are transferred to foreign intelligence services in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, and Syria, who conduct “conventional” methods of torture – including beatings and electric shocks. These transfers require no legal process and are known as “extraordinary renditions.”

The March 2002, Washington Post told of a covert campaign by the U.S. to abduct terror “suspects” from “Indonesia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia, and other countries” and transfer them, without extradition procedures, to where they are imprisoned, tortured, and, in some instances, put to death.

Meantime, over 660 prisoners, from over 40 countries, are being held indefinitely at the U.S. naval facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in a kind of legal limbo. Most of the detainees were captured during the fighting in Afghanistan, but the U.S. refuses to grant them prisoner-of-war status. The numbers include at least four, who are children, aged between 13 and 15.

These actions violate both the Geneva Conventions and international law.

A deputy commander at the base has been quoted as saying that some of the detainees appeared to be “victims of circumstance.”

According to Amnesty International, “Among the early transferees were six Algerian nationals seized by US officials in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Their case was described by a representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights as one of ‘extra judicial removal from sovereign territory.'” And it refers to the holding of children as “wholly repugnant and contrary to basic principles of human rights.”

Civil rights lawyer, Stephen Yagman, who has launched a lawsuit on the prisoners behalf, says treatment at Guantánamo includes “sensory deprivation to induce a feeling of depression so that they become receptive to any human contact.” Former U.S. intelligence officer Wayne Madsen called this “torture lite,” sleep deprivation and prolonged exposure to bright light.

It was reported recently that suicide attempts among the prisoners is on the rise with the total number of attempts now at 25.

Estimates by various human rights organizations are that there are roughly 3,000 people being held by the U.S. military and intelligence agencies – both foreign and domestic – in its “war on terrorism.” They have not been charged, and they have not been connected to the terror attacks of 9-11.

In November 2002, Abu Ali al-Harithi, a suspect in the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, was spotted driving through the desert in Yemen by a CIA drone. Violating the sovereignty of another country and exacting sloppy justice, the drone launched Hellfire missiles at his vehicle, killing him and five others (whose associations with him were unknown), including a naturalized American citizen, Ahmed Hijazi.

Such brutal and arbitrary treatment of suspects and prisoners offends every notion of fairness and due process. Widely reported in the foreign press, it helps explain why not everyone is thrilled with the notion of America imposing its definition of freedom throughout the world.

Since most of the prisoners, that we have “detained,” are foreigners captured during the months immediately following September 11th, during the fighting in Afghanistan, it is often easy to dismiss the stories of abuses in far off places as part of the necessary response to the horrible events of September 11….

Meanwhile, back in the United States, the Justice Dept. continues rounding up, deporting, and detaining immigrants, while keeping their names, numbers, and cases secret. When legal hearings are held, they are held behind closed doors with the press – sometimes even the lawyers of the detained – barred from the proceedings. Many have been held without any outside contact and some unknown number are being held indefinitely, without being charged, by being designated as “material witnesses.”

Even American citizens are not immune from the new justice, as the cases of Yaser Esam Hamdi, José Padilla, and Maher (Mike) Hawash demonstrate.

Hamdi was arrested overseas. In January, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because he had been arrested overseas in “wartime,” “the judiciary must defer to the military.” The government can now hold him indefinitely without constitutional protections simply by declaring him an “unlawful combatant.”

José, arrested in the U.S., is a native born American citizen, born in Brooklyn. Initially, the government planned to try him in a civilian court. But when it appeared that there might not be enough evidence to convict him, he was also declared an “unlawful combatant” and has been held in secret since June.

U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey has ruled that Padilla should have the minimum right to consult with lawyers. The Justice Department however, has refused to comply with the order and will continue to appeal.

Hawash, the most recent American to be arrested, is a 38-year-old software designer for the Intel Corporation in Oregon and a graduate of the University of Texas. In mid-March 2003, a dozen armed police raided his home at dawn, terrifying his wife and three children. According to the New York Times, Federal Court search warrants were sealed in the case and the F.B.I. is holding him indefinitely as a “material witness” in an ongoing investigation by the Joint Terrorism Task Force. Friends, family, and supporters say they have no idea why he was arrested without normal legal protection or what the government wants with him.

Steven McGeady, a former Intel executive, has started a legal defense fund for Mr. Hawash. Explained Mr. McGeady, “You hear about this happening in other countries and to immigrants and then to American citizens. And finally, you hear about it happening to someone you know. It’s scary.”

Lucas Guttentag, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrant’s Rights Project, agrees, “The government doesn’t have, and should not have, the power to arrest and detain someone without charging them. If this kind of thing is permitted, then any United States citizen can be swept off the street without being charged.”

Secret arrests, indefinite imprisonment, and the apparent elimination of the most basic civil rights of American citizens on Justice Department say-so alone is but the tip of the iceberg of the new American justice. The U.S.A. Patriot Act, hastily passed shortly after 9-11-01, and certain other recent executive orders, allow the government the kind of arbitrary rights we have traditionally associated with totalitarian states. Hard-won privacy rights were undone overnight. The new powers allow the government to monitor religious and political institutions and conversations between attorneys and clients. They allow the government to examine patrons’ library records (including website visits), and to forbid librarians to speak about it. They allow the government to enter your home in your absence and search it, along with your papers and effects, without notifying you and without probable cause. They allow the government to jail you indefinitely without a trial, without right to legal representation, without being charged, or without being able to confront witnesses against you.

Apparently, the Justice Department thought the Patriot Act didn’t go far enough. It is now preparing a “National Security Enhancement Act” – dubbed Patriot Act II. The new proposals are reported to include a provision that the right of U.S. citizenship may be removed, if someone is declared an “unlawful combatant” by the executive branch of government. (Currently, only citizens themselves can renounce their citizenship.)

What has happened to our Bill of Rights?

If the terrorists “hate us for our freedoms,” why are we so eager to give them up to fight them?

As Benjamin Franklin said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

In last year’s State of the Union address, Bush said that “America will lead by defending liberty and justice;” in this year’s State of the Union, Bush said that our enemies will be learning “the meaning of American justice.”

Many Americans are also asking about the “meaning” of the new “American justice.” Two hundred years ago, our ancestors fought a revolution to replace the arbitrary rule of men with the rule of law. Individual rights were best protected, they believed, by due process, not the arbitrary rules of government no matter how well intentioned. In the interim, the American idea of rule of law became a model for patriots throughout the world to fight for in their own countries. Bush says this is a “new” kind of war, with “new” methods to deal with it. Is the successful American experiment at risk? Will the phrase “American system” become an idea to be feared? Are our leaders making up the rules as they go, or are they determined to impose a new kind of justice alien to the American experience?

In the months preceding the war in Iraq, our leaders described it as a war against “evil.” As the military phase of the war in Iraq draws to a close, perhaps we had better remind ourselves of the meaning of the “good” we claim to propagate.

In October 2001, Osama bin Laden said, “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed.”

Any “new” American justice should reflect our best ideals and greatest values — not those of our worst enemies and darkest nightmares.

 

 

Selling a War

Written: 03/16/2003
Published in The People’s Civic Record, a monthly, Wilmington, NC based progressive magazine.

“When you advertise fire-extinguishers, open with the fire.”

– David Ogilvy

Though the decision to wage war with Iraq had been made months earlier, the “buzz” about it first began this past summer. Asked to explain why the president was waiting until after Labor Day to push for war, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card said, “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.”

The “new” product is war.

The following is a look at some of the arguments employed to make the “sell.”

Bush has claimed that Iraq is developing drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which “could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.” “We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States,” he said.

U.S. military experts confirmed that Iraq had been converting eastern European trainer jets into drones, but said that they have a maximum range of a few hundred miles and that they were no threat to targets in the U.S.

Bush has claimed that Iraq has attempted to import hardened aluminum tubes “for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.”

UN weapons inspectors have concluded that the aluminum tubes in question are not suitable for uranium enrichment centrifuges, saying, “It was highly unlikely that Iraq could have achieved the considerable redesign needed to use them in a revived centrifuge program,” and, after reviewing documents, calls the Iraqi alibi – that they were to be used for conventional weapons – “air-tight.”

Bush has claimed that Iraq attempted to buy uranium for nuclear warheads from Niger and the U.S. has presented documents to support this claim.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has recently concluded that the documents were forgeries.

Weapons inspector ElBaradei told the UN Security Council in March, “Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents, which formed the basis for the reports of these uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger, are, in fact, not authentic,” and “we have also concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.”

At this time, it is unknown who forged the documents.

Bush has claimed that Iraq is a few months away from developing nuclear weapons, “I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied — finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA, that they were six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon. I don’t know what more evidence we need.”

The IAEA report made no such claim.

The UN inspectors believe that they had dismantled the Iraq’s nuclear weapons capacity by 1998 and said in March that, “We have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program,” and stated that they had found “no indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected site.”

In February, Secretary of State Colin Powell quoted a British report on Iraq’s nuclear program and praised it as an “up-to-date and unsettling assessment.”

Later, it was reported in the New York Times that the report was plagiarized from several academic journals, some published in 1997 about “the activities of Iraqi intelligence in Kuwait in 1990 and 1991.”

One plagiarized author was quoted as saying, “Had they consulted me, I could have provided them with more up-dated information.”

Chief weapon’s inspector, Hans Blix has complained that the U.S. misquoted his reports and has openly challenged several assertions made by the U.S., while other weapons inspectors – increasingly irritated and angry with the quality of information provided to them by the U.S. – have called the intelligence “garbage after garbage after garbage.”

CBS News reported that weapons inspectors found “nothing” at U.S.-implicated nuclear research buildings and they have found “nothing” at specific coordinates supplied by the U.S. to find incriminating evidence in presidential palaces.

Even the recently discovered al-Samond 2 missiles, that Iraq is currently in the process of destroying, only exceed its 93-mile limit by 15 – 20 miles before being loaded down with the extra weight of their guidance system.

Other ascertains used to “sell” this war are:

* That Saddam gassed his own people – a true claim of an event occurring before the first Gulf War, during which time we were supporting Saddam in his war against Iran. The numbers killed in this instance may be exceeded by us when we invade.

* That he has invaded other countries – another true claim, also occurring before the first Gulf War, but note that Kuwait was violating OPEC oil production agreements as they pursued slant-oil well drillings from pools shared with Iraq, which was one reason Iraq began making threats against them, and when Saddam Hussein asked April Glaspie, the U.S. Ambassador, to explain the U.S. position regarding the matter, she told him that the U.S. considered it a regional concern and assured him that the U.S. would not intervene.

* That he is “evil” – but there are plenty of “evil” leaders in this world that we are not planning to remove from power. We have even supported “evil” leaders in the past – including support for the Shah of Iran for 25 years, whose brutal secret police had one of the worse human rights records in the world.

* That we will be liberating a repressed people. No doubt they are repressed, as are many other people in this world which we are not clamoring to “liberate.” Considering the recent reports that we will use an invasion plan called “shock and awe,” which consists of dropping 4-6 thousand bombs on Iraq in the first 48 hours, I wonder how many Iraqi citizens will be running around screaming “Liberate me!” when the sky starts falling.

* That Saddam is associated with Osama bin Laden – a claim which has not been confirmed with any serious evidence and is highly unlikely, as they are natural enemies. In his last reported statement, bin Laden even speaks out against Saddam stating that, “It doesn’t matter whether the socialist (Baath) party or Saddam disappear,” and that he does not seek victory for any of the “ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq.”

* That an al Qaeda camp is operating a base in Northern Iraq – which is, essentially, out of Saddam’s control and so… why don’t we target it when we bomb every day in the no-fly zones where it is located?

Bush has also made claims that Saddam Hussein is “a man who hates so much he’s willing to kill his own people, much less Americans” and that “we must do everything we can to disarm this man before he hurts a single American,” that he is a “threat…that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America,” that he “could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints” [Emphasis, mine].

Are we to become the world’s thought-police and decide what someone could do in the future – to punish them in advance, or are we to become some kind of paranoid avenger – blindly lashing-out against anyone who might stand against us – like a swaggering drunk in the night?

An Oct. 8th, 2002 letter by CIA chief George Tenet, reported the CIA had concluded that “Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW (chemical and biological weapons) against the United States.” It said, “Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions” and that “Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD (weapons of mass destruction) attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.”

Bush has repeatedly talked about being “forced into war” with Iraq. Iraq has not attacked us, Iraq has not threatened us, nor does Iraq appear to have the inclination or capability to bother us much. Saddam knows that any “attack” he might wage against us will be met with his ultimate destruction. He has been pinned-down and under restrictions for 12 years and we’ve been bombing on a regular basis all that time as we have been enforcing “no-fly zones” in northern and southern Iraq.

Since the last Gulf War, he has not attacked or threatened anyone.

So, how exactly have we been “forced” into this war?

If it is a matter of the UN being relevant only by enforcing its resolutions, why is there no talk of enforcing resolutions regarding Israel and why are we willing to defy it ourselves?

Propaganda before a war is nothing new – it is probably as old as war itself.

It has been said that truth is the first casualty of war.

In the last Gulf War, there were tearful testimonies of Iraqi soldiers removing 312 babies from incubators in a hospital and being “left on the cold floor to die.” (Seven congressmen cited this testimony as part of the reason they gave the first Bush authority to wage war – the resolution passed by five votes.)

Later, it was learned that the testimonies were produced by senior executives of Hill and Knowlton in Washington, “the biggest global PR firm at the time, who had a contract worth more than $10 million with the Kuwaitis to make the case for war.”

The witnesses had been coached and included – as the primary witness – the daughter of a Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington, who had no connection to the Kuwait hospital.

There were also fabricated reports of Iraqis – 250,000 troops with 1,500 tanks – amassing on the border with Saudi Arabia – intent on invasion within as little as 48 hours – used as justification for war. As the Christian Science Monitor reported, regarding evidence from satellite images of the area obtained by the St. Petersburg Times in Florida; “…no Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border – just empty desert.”

Jean Heller, the journalist who broke the story, said, “It was a pretty serious fib.”

“That was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn’t exist,” she said.

Many of the same people who were in the first Bush administration are in the second Bush administration and they appear to be employing the same tactics as before.

The Bush administration’s success, and the media’s failure, may be reflected in polls showing large percentages of the American public, who believe, incorrectly, that Iraqis were among the 9-11 hijackers (44% according to a January 2003 Knight Ridder poll) and that Saddam had something to do with the 9-11 attack (45% according to a March 2003 New York Times/CBS poll).

American writer and commentator, H. L. Mencken, once said, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Certainly, the hobgoblin Osama bin Laden is not imaginary, but the results of his attack on the United States of America only enhances this administration’s ability to present us with other hobgoblins, which may not be as much of a threat to us as they are made out to be. If Saddam Hussein is such a threat to us, why does this administration have to present misinformation to “sell” us on the danger?

Shortly after 9-11, president Chirac from France, our oldest ally, was the first foreign leader to pay his respects at ground-zero. Headlines in France proclaimed, “We Are All Americans Now.”

We had most of the world behind us.

In a year-and-a-half, we have managed to squander almost every bit of goodwill offered to us at that time. Today, headlines are more likely to read, “The United States of America Has Gone Mad” as did a recent article in France.

How did we manage to get ourselves in this position so quickly?

The answer is: by the arrogance of dismissing our allies as we move towards an attitude of “my way or the highway” with the rest of the world and by offering up lies to “sell” ourselves and our objectives.

I am not going to buy the “new” product being offered here and increasingly, the rest of the world isn’t buying it either.

PAX AMERICANA

Written: 01/14/2003
Published in The People’s Civic Record, a monthly, Wilmington, NC based progressive magazine.

In 1992, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and I. Lewis Libby drafted a report outlining the role the U.S. should play in the 21st Century which was called, “Defense Planning Guidance” It suggested an aggressive, preemptive, and unilateral approach that would “discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role” and wanted to make sure that America would maintain dominance in the world “by force if necessary.”

When the draft was leaked, it met with plenty of criticism and was quickly withdrawn and denounced by Bush I, but the ideas it contained did not die with it.

During the Clinton administration, a group of like-minded neoconservative imperialists – funded by right-wing foundations, energy companies, and the military-industrial complex – continued the strategic planning outlined in the report, evolving into a group called, “The Project for a New American Century” (PNAC).

The group’s former and current members and contributors include: Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, Defense Department Head of Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation Stephen Cambone, Vice President’s Chief of Staff I. Lewis Libby, Undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer for the Pentagon Dov Zakheim, Defense Policy Board Member Eliot Cohen, and Chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board Richard Perle.

In September 2000, right before the election and one year before the “attack on America,” the PNAC released a report entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” from which Bush’s new National Defense Strategy derives.

“At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals,” the report says, “The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this ‘American peace.'”

Iran, Iraq and North Korea are identified as potential targets in the same sentence, hence explaining the “Axis of Evil” remarks from Bush. “Past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power,” it says.

It speaks of a “Pax Americana” where we will have to perform “constabulary duties” and act preemptively and unilaterally to obtain our goals. This requires “American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations.”

Both the National Defense Strategy and the PNAC report have the stated objective of insuring that no country will ever present a challenge to the United States and both recommend almost exactly the same increase in military spending which has now occurred. This is so we can “fight and win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars.”

The report recommends that the U.S. establish permanent military bases “within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops” in addition to the roughly 130 nations where U.S. troops are already deployed. It refers to our troops as “the cavalry on the new American frontier” and says we need new bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia.

This helps explain why we have now installed troops in Georgia and the Philippines and why we are sending military “advisers” to Columbia.

The report recommends the repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, a strong commitment to a global missile defense system (otherwise known as “Star Wars”) and the development of small nuclear warheads “required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries.”

The report calls for control of the world’s energy resources and the targeting of Iraq to achieve our goals because “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

The report laments that the climate in America was not such that they could hope to achieve their goals in the near future without “some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

The attack on 9-11-01 was just what they were looking for.

These people are now in power, in key positions, with the event they needed to accomplish their goals. They came ready with the blueprints for empire already in hand, and they have been following those blueprints to the letter.

The PNAC report soon became the basis for our new National Security Strategy.

According to CBS News, immediately after 9-11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq and began pushing the intelligence community hard for some link between the attack and Iraq. According to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11, Rumsfeld is quoted as saying he wanted “best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. (Saddam Hussein) at same time. Not only UBL (Osama bin Laden).” “Go massive,” the notes say, “Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”

Though no real evidence was found linking Saddam Hussein with 9-11, six days later, on Sept. 17th – according to senior administration officials – President Bush signed a “TOP SECRET” document outlining the plan for war with Afghanistan and directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq.

Lacking hard evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the attack, the Bush administration began effectively conducting a campaign of misinformation, misrepresentation, and dissemination regarding the threat by Iraq to the United States of America.

The CIA’s former head of counter-intelligence Vincent Cannistraro, has said, “Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there’s a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA.”

During the Cuban Missile crisis, President John F. Kennedy presented incontrovertible evidence to the world that missiles had been introduced into Cuba. If Bush has some incontrovertible evidence that Iraq has WMDs, as he claims, why is he unwilling to share that information with anyone, including the weapon’s inspectors?

Based on the evidence, the “war on terrorism” is just a pretext for an imperial “Pax Americana.”

Why should we believe they have any other goals than what they have already self-professed in their report?