Archive for the ‘imperialism’ Category

Detainee says he gave false story after harsh interrogation

June 17, 2009

Suspected Sept. 11 organizer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told U.S. military officials he gave false information to the CIA even after undergoing…

By Julian E. Barnes and Greg Miller |  The Seattle Times, June 16, 2009

Tribune Washington Bureau

Sept. 11 suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Sept. 11 suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

WASHINGTON — Suspected Sept. 11 organizer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told U.S. military officials he gave false information to the CIA even after undergoing punishing bouts of interrogation, according to documents made public Monday, a claim likely to intensify the debate over the Bush administration’s use of harsh techniques to gain information from terrorism suspects.

Mohammed made the assertion during hearings held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where the militant leader was transferred in 2006 after being held at secret CIA sites since his capture in 2003.

“I make up stories,” Mohammed said, describing in broken English an interrogation likely administered by the CIA concerning the location of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden.

“Where is he? I don’t know. Then, he torture me,” Mohammed said. “Then I said, ‘Yes, he is in this area.’ ”

The admission could amplify calls for the Obama administration to make public more information about the abuse of detainees or to allow a broader inquiry into the Bush administration’s interrogation policies. Monday’s disclosure, representing the first allegation by a detainee that he lied while being subjected to harsh practices, also could raise more questions about the effectiveness of the techniques.

The transcripts were released as part of a lawsuit in which the American Civil Liberties Union is seeking documents and details of the government’s terrorism-detainee programs.

Previous accounts of the military tribunal hearings had been made public, but the Obama administration reviewed the still-secret sections and determined that more could be released.

Most of the new material centers on the detainees’ claims of abuse during interrogations while being held overseas in CIA custody.

One detainee, Abu Zubaydah, told the tribunal that after months “of suffering and torture, physically and mentally, they did not care about my injuries.”

Zubaydah was the first detainee subjected to Bush administration-approved harsh interrogation techniques, which included a simulated form of drowning known as waterboarding, slamming the suspect into walls and prolonged periods of nudity.

Zubaydah claimed in the hearing that he “nearly died four times.”

The International Court of Justice must investigate the Iraq war

June 17, 2009

The evidence is that war crimes have been committed

By Christopher King | Redress, June 17, 2009

Christopher King argues that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s announcement that an inquiry into the Iraq war would be held in secret is an attempt to dismiss the appalling consequences of the Iraq war, and is an insult to the country and to the British dead in Iraq and the London bombings.

Gordon Brown’s inquiry into the Iraq war will:

  • Be in private, that is, secret
  • Be held by privy councillors
  • Not seek to apportion blame

None of this is in the public interest or the interests of the country.

  • The secrecy of the hearing is transparently to enable a cover up of the facts.
  • Privy councillors are core pillars of the establishment and share the interests of the wealthy rather than those of democracy and the country as a whole.
  • The Iraq war was a war of choice, a pre-emptive war and on all the evidence a war of aggression – a war crime. As such it would be in breach of the United Nations’ Nuremberg principles, falling under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

The effects of the Iraq war were of extraordinary seriousness:

  • Over one million Iraqis killed, many more wounded
  • Four to five million Iraqis made refugees, most still displaced
  • Destruction of much of the country’s infrastructure, still unrepaired
  • Widespread destruction of housing and buildings
  • 179 British soldiers killed, probably about 1500 wounded, 222 seriously
  • Waste of approximately GBP 9 billion in direct costs
  • Reprisal attacks and deaths in London and elsewhere, decreased UK security together with huge costs and inconvenience of security precautions
  • Destruction of the United Nation’s authority, loss of UK credibility, a precedent for aggressive warfare, breach of international law, thus decreased world security.

Gordon Brown’s attempt to dismiss these appalling consequences by a secret inquiry is absurd. It is an insult to the country and to the British dead in Iraq and the London bombings. Brown himself voted in Parliament for the war as a member of the Blair cabinet at that time.

Nor could any form of parliamentary inquiry do justice to this disaster to Iraq and this country. We have a Parliament of professional politicians who are for the most part both incompetent and corrupt. They are not politicians of principle; they are politicians of self-interest. Most, with a few honourable exceptions, voted for the Iraq war. They did not read the weapons inspectors’ reports; they did not read the United Nations proceedings, yet they voted to invade another country and collude with the dangerous fool whom America chose as its president, not once, but twice. Their vote showed contempt for the British people whose money they take and who marched peacefully, a million strong in London, to tell them that the Iraq war was wrong.

On his resignation as premier, Anthony Blair, who marketed the war for George Bush, was immediately rewarded by the Americans with a job at the investment bank JP Morgan at a salary of GBP 2.5 million per year. This is reported to be the first of a series of posts that could gain him GBP 40 million. JP Morgan is now involved in Iraqi oil and stands to make huge profits by mortgaging future Iraqi oil production. One must ask, “Would Mr Blair have gained these rewards if he had refused to place the UK armed forces at America’s disposal and market the Iraq war to the rest of the world?” All the evidence is that the objective of the war was the seizure of Iraq’s oil resources and Anthony Blair’s objective was money.

This secret, disgusting, cover-up inquiry organized by Gordon Brown should be ignored. It is a waste of time to oppose it or to attempt modification of its terms of reference, whatever they might be. Those named to hold it would do well to reconsider as they will henceforth be regarded as apologists for and concealers of war crimes. Those concerned with peace, justice and the rule of law should concentrate their effort where it will bear results. The future morale, reputation and direction of the country are at stake. The country needs to be cleansed.

There is only one possibility for demonstrating that the United Kingdom has returned to the rule of law. The Iraq war inquiry must go to the International Court of Justice.

Gordon Brown is obliged to call an election in less than a year. Those political parties or independent candidates who stand on the undertaking to take the Iraq war to the International Court of Justice will gain overwhelming public support. The country is sickened of its self-serving politicians. A means of expressing public opinion is needed. Coalitions of the minority parties for this purpose should be formed since the major parties will not support this action. If our serving soldiers, the injured and families of the dead want the truth, they will find it at the International Court of Justice – not in Gordon Brown’s secret whitewash inquiry that he hopes will get him past the next election.

At the last parliamentary election, the Liberal Democrats had the opportunity to stand on a platform of withdrawing our forces from Iraq. Anthony Blair successfully bluffed them that it would be “disloyal to our brave troops”. The evidence is that Anthony Blair’s lies and cynical use of our troops for his personal enrichment put them in harm’s way and left 179 of them dead.

Christopher King is a retired consultant and lecturer in management and marketing. He lives in London, UK.

Israel: Netanyahu rejects compromise with Palestinians

June 16, 2009
By Jean Shaoul | wsws.og, 16 June 2009

Israel’s premier, Benyamin Netanyahu, has made clear that his government is not interested in reaching any agreement with the Palestinians.

Netanyahu’s speech was billed as his response to US President Barack Obama’s call in Cairo on June 4 for the creation of a Palestinian state and the end of new settlements on the West Bank. It was delivered before an invited audience at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University, near Tel Aviv, an academic stronghold of the religious right.

Netanyahu stated unequivocally that the establishment of a Palestinian “state” was dependent upon the Palestinians’ acquiescence to a series of Israeli demands, which together strip the putative entity of any of the normal attributes of a state.

These demands were dressed up as Israeli “principles.” The first principle and “fundamental condition” was that the Palestinians recognise not just the state of Israel, but its character as “the state of the Jewish people.” This meant that Palestinian refugees who were either forced out their homes in 1948, or who fled in 1967, would not be allowed to return to Israel.

Continued >>

Agent Orange Continues to Poison Vietnam

June 16, 2009

by Marjorie Cohn | CommonDreams.org, June 14, 2009

From 1961 to 1971, the U.S. military sprayed Vietnam with Agent Orange, which contained large quantities of Dioxin, in order to defoliate the trees for military objectives. Dioxin is one of the most dangerous chemicals known to man. It has been recognized by the World Health Organization as a carcinogen (causes cancer) and by the American Academy of Medicine as a teratogen (causes birth defects).

Between 2.5 and 4.8 million people were exposed to Agent Orange. 1.4 billion hectares of land and forest – approximately 12 percent of the land area of Vietnam – were sprayed.

The Vietnamese who were exposed to the chemical have suffered from cancer, liver damage, pulmonary and heart diseases, defects to reproductive capacity, and skin and nervous disorders. Children and grandchildren of those exposed have severe physical deformities, mental and physical disabilities, diseases, and shortened life spans. The forests and jungles in large parts of southern Vietnam have been devastated and denuded. They may never grow back and if they do, it will take 50 to 200 years to regenerate. Animals that inhabited the forests and jungles have become extinct, disrupting the communities that depended on them. The rivers and underground water in some areas have also been contaminated. Erosion and desertification will change the environment, contributing to the warming of the planet and dislocation of crop and animal life.

The U.S. government and the chemical companies knew that Agent Orange, when produced rapidly at high temperatures, would contain large quantities of Dioxin. Nevertheless, the chemical companies continued to produce it in this manner. The U.S. government and the chemical companies also knew that the Bionetics Study, commissioned by the government in 1963, showed that even low levels of Dioxin produced significant deformities in unborn offspring of laboratory animals. But they suppressed that study and continued to spray Vietnam with Agent Orange. It wasn’t until the study was leaked in 1969 that the spraying of Agent Orange was discontinued.

U.S. soldiers who served in Vietnam have experienced similar illnesses. After they sued the chemical companies, including Dow and Monsanto, that manufactured and sold Agent Orange to the government, the case settled out of court for $180 million which gave few plaintiffs more than a few thousand dollars each. Later the U.S. veterans won a legislative victory for compensation for exposure to Agent Orange. They receive $1.52 billion per year in benefits.

But when the Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange sued the chemical companies in federal court, U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein dismissed the lawsuit, concluding that Agent Orange did not constitute a poison weapon prohibited by the Hague Convention of 1907. Weinstein had reportedly told the chemical companies when they settled the U.S. veterans’ suit that their liability was over and he was making good on his promise. His dismissal was affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. The chemical companies admitted in their filing in the Supreme Court that the harm alleged by the victims was foreseeable although not intended. How can something that is foreseeable be unintended?

On May 15 and 16 of this year, the International Peoples’ Tribunal of Conscience in Support of the Vietnamese Victims of Agent Orange convened in Paris and heard testimony from 27 victims, witnesses and scientific experts. Seven people from three continents served as judges of the Tribunal, which was sponsored by the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL).

Testimony given by the witnesses showed the following:

Mai Giang Vu, a member of the Army of South Vietnam, carried barrels of the chemicals on his back. His two sons could not walk or function normally, their limbs gradually “curled up” and they could only crawl. They died at the ages of 23 and 25.

Pham The Minh, whose parents also served in the South Vietnamese Army, showed the Tribunal his severely deformed, crooked, skinny legs; he has great difficulty walking, as well as digestive and pulmonary diseases.

To Nga Tran is a French Vietnamese who worked as a journalist during the spraying. Her daughter weighed 6.6 pounds at the age of three months. Her skin began shredding and she could not bear to have skin contact or simple demonstrations of love. She died at 17 months, weighing 6.6 pounds. Ms. To described a woman who gave birth to a “ball” with no human form. Many children are born without brains; others make inhuman sounds.

Rosemarie Hohn Mizo is the widow of George Mizo, who served in the U.S. Army in Vietnam in 1967. He slept on contaminated ground and consumed food and drink that were also contaminated. George refused to serve after he was wounded for the third time; he was court-martialed and sentenced to 2-1/2 years in prison and a dishonorable discharge. George helped found the Friendship Village where Vietnamese victims live in a supportive environment. He died from conditions related to his exposure to Agent Orange.

Georges Doussin, co-founder of the Friendship Village, visited a dormitory where he saw 50 highly deformed “monsters,” who produced inhuman sounds. One man whose parent had been exposed to Agent Orange had four toes on each foot. Doussin said Agent Orange creates “total anarchy in evolution.”

Dr. Nguyen Thi Ngoc Phuong, from Tu Du Hospital in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon), sees many children born without arms and/or legs, without heads or faces, and without a brain chamber. According to the World Health Organization, only 1 – 4 parts per trillion (PPT) of Dioxin in breast milk can cause severe deformities in fetuses and even death. But up to 1450 PPT are found in maternal milk in Vietnam.

Dr. Jeanne Stellman, who wrote the seminal article about Agent Orange in the magazine Nature, testified that “this is the largest unstudied environmental disaster in the world (except for natural disasters).”

Dr. Jean Grassman, from Brooklyn College at City University of New York, testified that Dioxin is a potent cellular disregulator which alters a variety of pathways to disrupt many systems. Children, she said, are very sensitive to Dioxin; the intrauterine or post natal exposure to Dioxin may result in altered immune, neurobehavioral, and hormonal functioning. Women pass their exposure to their children both in utero and through the excretion of Dioxin in breast milk.

Many ecosystems have been destroyed and Dioxin continues to poison Vietnam, especially in the several “hot spots.”

Chemist Dr. Pierre Vermeulin testified that it was estimated that $1 billion would be required to restore one hectare of land in Vietnam. The cost of caring for the victims, many of whom need 24-hour care, is enormous.

In 1973, President Richard Nixon promised $3.25 billion in reconstruction aid to Vietnam “without any preconditions.” That aid was never granted.

There are only 11 Friendship Villages in Vietnam; 1000 are needed to care for the child victims of Agent Orange.

Last week, the Bureau of the IADL, meeting in Hanoi, presented President Nguyen Minh Triet of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam with the final decision of the Tribunal. The judges found the U.S. government and the chemical companies guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ecocide during the illegal U.S. war of aggression in Vietnam. We recommended that the Agent Orange Commission be established in Vietnam to assess the damages suffered by the people and destruction of the environment, and that the U.S. government and the chemical companies provide compensation for the damage and destruction.

I told the President that it always struck me that even as U.S. bombs were dropping on the people of Vietnam, they always distinguished between the American government and the American people. The President responded, “We fought the forces of aggression but we always reserved our love for the people of America . . . because we knew they always supported us.”

An estimated 3 million Vietnamese people were killed in the war, which also claimed 58,000 American lives. For many other Vietnamese and U.S. veterans and their families, the war continues to take its toll.

Several treaties the United States has ratified require an effective remedy for violations of human rights. It is time to make good on Nixon’s promise and remedy the terrible wrong the U.S. government perpetrated on the people of Vietnam. Congress must pass legislation to compensate the Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange as it did for the U.S. Vietnam veteran victims.

Our government must know that it cannot continue to use weapons that target and harm civilians. Indeed, the U.S. military is using depleted uranium in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will poison those countries for incalculable decades.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and President of the National Lawyers Guild. She is the author of Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law and co-author of Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent (with Kathleen Gilberd). Her articles are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com

What Kind of Two-State Solution?

June 15, 2009
Agence Global, June 15, 2009
by Immanuel Wallerstein,   Commentary No. 259, J

Now that President Obama has put his weight so openly and publicly behind the concept of a two-state “solution” for the Israel-Palestine controversy/struggle, such a “solution” may well be achieved in the coming years. The reason is simple. Stated abstractly, such a solution has overwhelming support in world political opinion. Polls show a majority of Jewish Israelis favor it, as do a majority of Jews elsewhere in the world. Support among Arab leaders is strong and wide. Even Hamas indicates it is willing to accept the concept of two states on the basis of an indefinite “truce” in the struggle. Some “truces” in the modern world have lasted four centuries. And more recently, there has been “truces” on the Korean peninsula and in Kashmir for more than a half-century. Some “truces” seem pretty permanent.

What seems to be left out of the discussion these days is what does the expression “two states” mean? Quite diverse definitions exist. We should remember that the last real negotiations, those between Yasir Arafat and Ehud Barak in 2000, foundered at the last minute at Taba over diverse definitions.

What are the issues in these contrary definitions? There are at least six different issues which the mere slogan of “two states” hides. The first issue is the definition of sovereignty. The Palestinians of course think that sovereign means sovereign – a state with the same powers as any other sovereign state. Even those Israeli political leaders who have accepted the terminology of two states have been thinking of a limited version of sovereignty. For example, what kind of military apparatus would such the Palestinian state have? Would it control completely overflight permissions? Would it have unlimited control of its borders?

The second issue is of course the borders of such a state. Both the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Hamas feel that accepting the 1967 borders is already an enormous concession on their part. They certainly do not expect to obtain anything less. But such borders of course do not include the post-1967 Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories, nor east Jerusalem. Tiny adjustments in these borders might be acceptable. But tiny means truly tiny.

The third issue is  internal democracy  in Israel. Will non-Jewish Israelis continue to have fewer rights than Jewish Israelis? This is a central and very little discussed question.

The fourth issue is whether the two states will be defined as secular states or religious states. Will the Palestinian state be a Muslim state? Will Israel continue to be a Jewish state?

The fifth issue is the so-called right of return. Israel was founded on the unlimited right of return of any Jew who wishes to come to Israel. The Arabs who fled from Israel (or were forced out) demand a right of return. This has been the knottiest issue in the entire historic debate. It is a question of both demography and land. The Palestinians might accept a merely symbolic gesture on this question, if all other issues were resolved in ways they considered appropriate.

Finally, of course, there is the question of what would happen with the existing Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories. It is conceivable that the Palestinians might say that some of them could remain where they are. But it seems hardly likely that the settlers would agree to stay in a Palestinian state, or would willingly accept evacuation to Israel.

Now what has Obama done? He has taken a strong position on two questions the present ultra-right Israeli government refuses to accept: no further expansion of any kind of the existing settlements and a commitment to a two-state solution. This is unquestionably positive and courageous in the context of U.S. internal politics.

However, it risks being dangerous in terms of any real solution. For consider the following possibility. Under severe twisting of the arm of Israeli Prime Minister Netanhayu by Obama, Netanyahu concedes both points, and reshuffles his cabinet in the light of this shift in position. Will he then not turn around and say to Obama that now the Palestinians must make comparable concessions? But he would not really be talking about “controlling violence” by the Palestinian Authority – the usual Israeli governmental mantra. He will mean concessions on all the issues I have listed above – on none of which any Palestinian leadership can today make any significant further concession.

Obama’s courageous gestures will then turn out to be a mode of distraction from the real underlying issues.

The Obama Enigma: Imperial Interventionism and Militarism

June 14, 2009

by Rodrigue Tremblay | June  14, 2009

“We do not want a PAX Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children — not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women — not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.”

President John F. Kennedy, 1963

“I will not hesitate to use force unilaterally, if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests wherever we are attacked or imminently threatened. …

We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense, in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability — to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities.”

Sen. Barack Obama, Foreign Affairs (July/August 2007)

“Our interest in Afghanistan is to prevent it from becoming a haven for terrorists bent on attacking us. That does not require the scale of military operations that the incoming administration is contemplating. It does not require wholesale occupation. It does not require the endless funneling of human treasure and countless billions of taxpayer dollars to the Afghan government.”

Bob Herbert, The New York Times, January 6, 2009

Those who thought that the election of Barack Obama as American President would mean a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy should have lost their illusions by now. Faces change but the system remains. When you want change, it’s necessary to look beyond a single individual and evaluate the team he is working with …or for. And the Obama team is what can be called a soft neoconservative team, all devoted to maintaining the military-industrial complex, and all sold out with the ideology of permanent wars rather than permanent human progress.

The truth is that during the last election, both candidate McCain and candidate Obama were favorable to the policy of permanent wars under the cover of fighting terrorism. That is the reason I had concluded then that candidate Obama was only marginally superior to candidate McCain, but not fundamentally different. In fact, I believe that as far as character goes, McCain was probably more his own man than Obama, who has demonstrated a tendency to align himself with powerful interests in order to bolster his political career.

Continued >>

More ’sickening’ truths about torture soon to be revealed

June 12, 2009

By David Edwards and Muriel Kane | Uruknet.info, June 12, 2009

12tort-11.jpeg

June 12, 2009

A crucial CIA Inspector General’s report from May 2004 is expected to reveal some long-hidden truths about the Bush administration’s use of torture.

According to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, “This report is sort of the big kahuna in terms of what we have been waiting to see from the government’s own files on torture. That report, which is long and has been described by people who have seen it as ’sickening,’ apparently stopped the torture program in its tracks.”

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) recently warned in a speech on the floor of the Senate that almost everything we think we know about the Bush administration’s torture program is wrong.

“There has been a campaign of falsehood about this whole sorry episode,” Whitehouse stated. “We’ve been misled about nearly every aspect of this program. … Measured against the information I’ve been able to get access to, the storyline that we have been led to believe … is false in every one of its dimensions.”

Continued >> uruknet.info

In America Fear Rules

June 11, 2009

Who Spent All That Money For What?

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS | Counterpunch, June 10, 2009

The power of irrational fear in the US is extraordinary.  It ranks up there with the Israel Lobby, the military/security complex, and the financial gangsters.  Indeed, fear might be the most powerful force in America.

Americans are at ease with their country’s aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, which has resulted in a million dead Muslim civilians and several million refugees,  because the US government has filled Americans with fear of terrorists.  “We have to kill them over there before they come over here.”

Fearful of American citizens, the US government is building concentration camps, apparently all over the country.  According to news reports, a $385 million US government contract was given by the Bush/Cheney Regime to Cheney’s company, Halliburton, to build “detention centers” in the US. The corporate media never explained for whom the detention centers are intended.

Most Americans dismiss such reports.  “It can’t happen here.”  However, In northeastern Florida not far from Tallahassee, I have seen what might be one of these camps.  There is a building inside a huge open area fenced with razor wire.  There is no one there and no signs.  The facility appears new and unused and does not look like an abandoned prisoner work camp.

What is it for?

Who spent all that money for what?

There are Americans who are so terrified of their lives being taken by terrorists that they are hoping the US government will use nuclear weapons to  destroy “the Muslim enemy.”  The justifications concocted for the use of nuclear bombs against Japanese civilian populations have had their effect.  There are millions of Americans who wish “their” government would kill everyone that “their” government has demonized.

When I tell these people that they will die of old age without ever seeing a terrorist, they think I am insane. Don’t I know that terrorists are everywhere in America?  That’s why we have airport security and homeland security.  That’s why the government is justified in breaking the law to spy on citizens without warrants.  That’s why the government is justified to torture people in violation of US law and the Geneva Conventions.  If we don’t torture them, American cities will go up in mushroom clouds.  Dick Cheney tells us this every week.

Terrorists are everywhere.  “They hate us for our freedom and democracy.”  When I tell
America’s alarmed citizens that the US has as many stolen elections as any country and that our civil liberties have been eroded by “the war on terror”  they lump me into the terrorist category.  They automatically conflate factual truth with anti-Americanism.

The same mentality prevails with regard to domestic crime.  Most Americans, including, unfortunately, juries, assume that if the police make a case against a person and a prosecutor prosecutes it, the defendant is guilty.  Most Americans are incapable of believing that police or a prosecutor would frame an innocent person for career or bureaucratic reasons or out of pure meanness.

Yet, it happens all the time.  Indeed, it is routine.

Frame-ups are so routine that 96 per cent of the criminally accused will not risk a “jury of their peers,” preferring to negotiate a plea bargain agreement with the prosecutor. The jury of their peers are a brainwashed lot, fearful of crime, which they have never experienced but hear about all the time.  Criminals are everywhere, doing their evil deeds.

The US has a much higher percentage of its population in prison than “authoritarian” countries, such as China, a one-party state.  An intelligent population might wonder how a “freedom and democracy” country could have incarceration rates far higher than a  dictatorship, but Americans fail this test.  The more people that are put in prison, the safer Americans feel.

Lawrence Stratton and I describe frame-up techniques in The Tyranny of Good Intentions. Police and prosecutors even frame the guilty, as it is easier than convicting them on the evidence.

One case that has been before us for years, but is resolutely neglected by the corporate media, whose function is to scare the people, is that of Troy Davis.

Troy Davis was convicted of killing a police officer.  The only evidence connecting him to the crime is the testimony of “witnesses,” the vast majority of whom have withdrawn their testimony.  The witnesses say they testified falsely against Troy Davis because of police intimidation and coercion.

One would think that this would lead to a new hearing and trial.  But not in America.  The Republican judicial nazis have created the concept of “finality.”  Even if the evidence shows that a wrongfully convicted person is innocent, finality requires that we execute him.  If the convicted person is executed, we can assume he was guilty, because America has a pure justice system and never punishes the innocent.  Everyone in prison and everyone  executed is guilty.  Otherwise, they they wouldn’t be in prison or executed.

It is all very simple if you are an American.  America is pure, but other countries, except for our allies, are barbaric.

The same goes for our wars.  Everyone we kill, whether they are passengers on Serbian commuter trains or attending weddings, funerals, or children playing soccer in Iraq, is a terrorist, or we would not have killed them. So was the little girl who was raped by our terrorist-fighting troops and then murdered, brutally, along with her family.

America only kills terrorists.  If we kill you, you are a terrorist.

Americans are the salt of the earth.  They never do any wrong.  Only those other people do.  Not the Israelis, of course.

And police, prosecutors, and juries never make mistakes.  Everyone accused is guilty.

Fear has made every American a suspect, eroded our rights, and compromised our humanity.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

Governor Bush told Houston Journalist: If Elected. “I’m Going to Invade Iraq”

June 9, 2009

by Sherwood Ross| Global Research, June 2, 2009

Two years before the 9/11 attacks on America, George W. Bush told a Houston journalist if elected president, “I’m going to invade Iraq.”

Bush made the comments about starting an aggressive war to veteran Houston Chronicle reporter Mickey Herskowitz, then working with Bush on his book “A Charge To Keep,” later brought out by publisher William Morrow.

This disclosure was uncovered by Russ Baker, an award-winning investigative reporter when he interviewed Herskowitz for his own book, “Family of Secrets” (Bloomsbury Press) about the Bush dynasty. However, Baker says, when he approached The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times with the potentially devastating story to President Bush prior to the 2004 presidential election, they declined to publish it.

In a new book, “Media In Crisis”(Doukathsan), Baker quotes Herskowitz as telling him: “He (Bush) said he wanted to do it(invade Iraq), and the reason he wanted to do it is he had been led to understand that you could not really have a successful presidency unless you were seen as commander-in-chief, unless you were seen as waging a war.”

Bush told Herskowitz that his father (President George H.W. Bush) knew that from Panama and (President Ronald)Reagan knew that from Grenada and…(UK Prime Minister)Maggie Thatcher knew this from the Falklands.”

According to Baker, Bush told Herskowitz, “The ideal thing was a small war, and this is why Bush said nobody was going to be killed in Iraq because he thought it would be small war.”

Bush co-authored his book “A Charge To Keep” with Karen Hughes. In his introduction to the work, Bush wrote, “I thank Mickey Herskowitz for his help and work in getting the project started.”

Baker said he believed if a major daily ran his Herskowitz interview it “could have changed the election” but “I could not get it published.” The story was turned down by both The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post. He described the Post as “scared because of the Dan Rather thing, and they said to me, ‘What do you have in the way of evidence?’” Baker replied, “Here’s a tape of Mickey Herskowitz, who’s published 20-some books, long-time journalist of the Houston Chronicle, friend of the Bush family, telling me this story.” The Post said, “It’s not enough. In this climate, we need Bush on tape saying this.” Expressing his disappointment over the rejection, Baker said, “Well, that standard has never applied anywhere.”

The story about Bush’s comments to Herskowitz is one of many about the frustrations journalists face in getting the truth to the public that appear in “Media In Crisis.” The book contains the comments of five Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists, among others, and officials of various journalism foundations, as well as veteran broadcasters. The book also covers the economic woes of daily newspapers and their future, the rise of Internet bloggers and other news-purveying media, the quality of reporting, and the quality of instruction in journalism schools.

Publisher Doukathsan Press is affiliated with the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, where a “Media In Crisis” conference was held last March upon which the new book is based. The cost of “Media In Crisis” is $15. To obtain a copy, send check or money order to Ms. Rosa Figueiredo at Massachusetts School of Law, 500 Federal Street, Andover, Mass. 01810. #

Sherwood Ross is a Media Consultant to the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover. Reach him at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com

Top US lawyers were overruled on ‘torture’ of terror suspects

June 9, 2009

The Australian, June 8, 2009

WASHINGTON: Senior US Justice Department lawyers in 2005 sought to limit tough interrogation tactics against terror suspects but were overruled.

James Comey, who was then the No2 official at the Justice Department, tried to convince Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales that some of the tactics were wrong and they would eventually damage the reputation of the department.

The New York Times reported that Mr Comey had sent an email at the time describing his efforts to curtail the use of the tactics that critics call torture. “I told him the people who were applying pressure now would not be there when the s… hit the fan,” Mr Comey wrote in an email obtained by the Times.

“It would be Alberto Gonzales in the bull’s-eye.

“I told him it was my job to protect the department and the A-G and that I could not agree to this because it was wrong.”

A person familiar with Mr Comey’s concerns, speaking anonymously, said Mr Comey had sought to put limits on the use of the interrogation tactics on moral and ethical grounds, and because they didn’t work.

The Justice Department has been conducting an investigation into the conduct of the lawyers, who wrote memos authorising the CIA to use a variety of measures, including sleep deprivation, slamming suspects into walls and waterboarding to make them talk. The memos were the subject of internal debates within the Bush administration and were later made public by the Obama administration.

AP