Archive for the ‘US policy’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

US/IRAN: Scowcroft, Brzezinski Urge Bush to Drop Precondition

July 23, 2008

By Jim Lobe*

WASHINGTON, Jul 22 (IPS) – Two of Washington’s most prominent foreign policy greybeards praised Saturday’s direct participation in multinational talks with Iran by a senior U.S. diplomat but called on the administration of President George W. Bush to drop his demands that Tehran freeze its uranium enrichment programme as a precondition for broader negotiations.

Ret. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser under Republican presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who held the same post under Democratic President Jimmy Carter, urged Bush to go further by offering immediate rewards to Tehran in exchange for such a freeze.

And both men warned that repeated U.S. threats to use military force against Iran were counter-productive and strengthened hard-line forces in the regime led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They said an actual military attack — whether by the U.S. or by Israel — would likely be disastrous for U.S. interests in the region.

“A war with Iran will produce calamities for sure,” said Brzezinski, who pointed, among other things, to its likely impact on the price of oil and the likelihood that it would create yet another front to add to the two wars — Iraq and Afghanstan — in which U.S. military forces are already engaged.

“(Brzezinski’s assessment) may be a little more dire (than mine) but not much,” Scowcroft told IPS in a brief interview after the two men spoke at a briefing sponsored by the Centre for Security and International Studies (CSIS) here. “It would turn the region into a cauldron of conflict, bitterness, and hatred. It would turn Islam against us.”

Both men have been strongly critical of U.S. policy in the Middle East, particularly the decision to invade Iraq — although Brzezinski has been considerably more vocal than Scowcroft, who remains a close friend of Bush’s father. Both leading lights of the so-called “realist” foreign-policy establishment, they are currently collaborating on a book to be published in September.

Their joint appearance at CSIS, which was announced late last week after the administration had confirmed that undersecretary of state for policy, Amb. William Burns, would attend Saturday’s meeting between the so-called P5+1 (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany) and Iran, seemed timed to demonstrate strong bipartisan support for continued and enhanced U.S. engagement.

Continued . . .

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized, US policy | Leave a Comment »

Dictatorial Powers Upheld

July 22, 2008

The Meaning of the Al-Marri Decision

By ANDY WORTHINGTON | Counterpunch, July 21, 2008

Wake up, America! On July 15, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled by 5 votes to 4 in the case of Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli that the President can arrest US citizens and legal residents inside the United States and imprison them indefinitely, without charge or trial, based solely on his assertion that they are “enemy combatants.” Have a little think about it, and you’ll see that the Fourth Circuit judges have just endorsed dictatorial powers.

In the words of Judge William B. Traxler, whose swing vote confirmed the court’s otherwise divided ruling, “the Constitution generally affords all persons detained by the government the right to be charged and tried in a criminal proceeding for suspected wrongdoing, and it prohibits the government from subjecting individuals arrested inside the United States to military detention unless they fall within certain narrow exceptions … The detention of enemy combatants during military hostilities, however, is such an exception. If properly designated an enemy combatant pursuant to legal authority of the President, such persons may be detained without charge or criminal proceedings for the duration of the relevant hostilities.”

As was pointed out by Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, who was steadfastly opposed to the majority verdict (and whose opinion was endorsed by Judges M. Blane Michael, Robert B. King and Roger L. Gregory), “the duration of the relevant hostilities” is a disturbingly open-ended prospect. After citing the 2007 State of the Union Address, in which the President claimed that ‘[t]he war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others,’” Judge Motz noted, “Unlike detention for the duration of a traditional armed conflict between nations, detention for the length of a ‘war on terror’ has no bounds.”

The Court of Appeals made its extraordinary ruling in relation to a habeas corpus claim in the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, whose story I reported at length here. To recap briefly, al-Marri, a Qatari national who had studied in Peoria, Illinois in 1991, returned to the United States in September 2001, with his US residency in order, to pursue post-graduate studies, bringing his family — his wife and five children — with him. Three months later he was arrested and charged with fraud and making false statements to the FBI, but in June 2003, a month before he was due to stand trial for these charges in a federal court, the prosecution dropped the charges and informed the court that he was to be held as an “enemy combatant” instead.

Continued . . .

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Human rights, US policy, War Criminals | Leave a Comment »

RIGHTS-US: Hamdan Case to Test Military Tribunals

July 22, 2008

By William Fisher

NEW YORK, Jul 21 (IPS) – As the long-awaited trial of Guantanamo detainee Salim Ahmed Hamdan opened this week at the U.S. naval base in Cuba, human rights groups filed suit demanding that the Department of Justice (DOJ) produce documents related to the U.S. government’s ghost detention, torture, and extraordinary rendition programme.

Attorney-General Michael Mukasey also called on Congress to quickly pass new legislation to guard against judges imposing a patchwork of conflicting rules that could produce confusion, more court challenges and even lengthier delays for prisoners who have been held at Guantanamo for as long as seven years.

Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s alleged former driver, is the first terror suspect to face trial at Guantanamo in seven years and the first test of whether that system can dispense fair and impartial justice. The charges against the Yemeni father of two will proceed before a military commission — the first since the end of World War II — with a jury of uniformed officers and rules that many constitutional authorities believe give great deference to the prosecution.

Evidence obtained from “cruel” and “inhuman” interrogation methods as well as hearsay evidence will be admissible under certain circumstances. Hamdan faces a maximum of life in prison if convicted.

“This was supposed to be the premier system for bringing to justice the masterminds of the worst crime ever committed on U.S. soil,” said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. “The only result in seven years was the conviction of an Australian kangaroo trapper, who is now free.”

Continued . . .

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Human rights, US policy, War Criminals | Leave a Comment »

U.S. Perpetuates Mass Killings In Iraq

July 21, 2008

by Peter Phillips | Dissident Voice, July 19th, 2008

The United States is directly responsible for over one million Iraqi deaths since the invasion five and half years ago. In a January 2008 report, a British polling group Opinion Research Business (ORB) reports that, “survey work confirms our earlier estimate that over 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have died as a result of the conflict which started in 2003…. We now estimate that the death toll between March 2003 and August 2007 is likely to have been of the order of 1,033,000. If one takes into account the margin of error associated with survey data of this nature then the estimated range is between 946,000 and 1,120,000”.

The ORB report comes on the heels of two earlier studies conducted by Johns Hopkins University published in the Lancet medical journal that confirmed the continuing numbers of mass deaths in Iraq. A study done by Dr. Les Roberts from January 1, 2002 to March 18 2003 put the civilian deaths at that time at over 100,000. A second study published in the Lancet in October 2006 documented over 650,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since the start of the US invasion. The 2006 study confirms that US aerial bombing in civilian neighborhoods caused over a third of these deaths and that over half the deaths are directly attributable to US forces.

The now estimated 1.2 million dead, as of July 2008, includes children, parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, cab drivers, clerics, schoolteachers, factory workers, policemen, poets, healthcare workers, day care providers, construction workers, babysitters, musicians, bakers, restaurant workers and many more. All manner of ordinary people in Iraq have died because the United States decided to invade their country. These are deaths in excess of the normal civilian death rate under the prior government.

The magnitude of these deaths is undeniable. The continuing occupation by US forces guarantees a mass death rate in excess of 10,000 people per month with half that number dying at the hands of US forces — a carnage so severe and so concentrated at to equate it with the most heinous mass killings in world history. This act has not gone unnoticed.

Recently, Dennis Kucinich introduced a single impeachment article against George W. Bush for lying to Congress and the American people about the reasons for invading Iraq. On July 15, the House forwarded the resolution to the Judiciary Committee with a 238 to 180 vote. That Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq’s threat to the US is now beyond doubt. Former US federal prosecutor Elizabeth De La Vega documents the lies most thoroughly in her book U.S. v. Bush, and numerous other researchers have verified Bush’s untrue statements.

The American people are faced with a serious moral dilemma. Murder and war crimes have been conducted in our name. We have allowed the war/occupation to continue in Iraq and offered ourselves little choice within the top two presidential candidates for immediate cessation of the mass killings. McCain would undoubtedly accept the deaths of another million Iraqi civilians in order to save face for America, and Obama’s 18-month timetable for withdrawal would likely result in another 250,000 civilian deaths or more.

We owe our children and ourselves a future without the shame of mass murder on our collective conscience. The only resolution of this dilemma is the immediate withdrawal of all US troops in Iraq and the prosecution and imprisonment of those responsible. Anything less creates a permanent original sin on the soul of the nation for that we will forever suffer.

Peter Phillips is a Professor of Sociology at Sonoma State University, and Director of Project Censored, a media research organization. Read other articles by Peter, or visit Peter’s website.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Human rights, Iraq, US policy, War Criminals | Leave a Comment »

Nearly Fifty Percent of Americans Think U.S. Should Help Israel Attack Iran

July 21, 2008

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
July 20, 2008

Obama and McCain
It does not matter who ends up in the Oval Office, be it McCain or Obama, because the policy toward Iran will be similar, if not identical.

If we are to believe the results of a Rasmussen poll released on July 20, an astounding number of Americans have no problem helping Israel attack Iran. “Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans say that if Israel launches an attack against Iran, the United States should help Israel. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 46% believe the United States should do nothing while just 1% believe the U.S. should help Iran.”

Moreover, once again demonstrating a complete ignorance of history and an absence of rational thinking — predictable, considering most Americans receive their historical and political education from the corporate media — 47% “believe it is at least somewhat likely Iran will try to provoke some form of attack before November in an attempt to influence the U.S. elections.”

In other words, so important is the American election to the Iranians, they will court the sort of chaos and social disintegration currently underway in Iraq to determine the outcome of the American election, an absurdity at best. But then Americans excel at buying into absurdities, the more ludicrous the better.

It does not matter who ends up in the Oval Office, be it McCain or Obama, because the policy toward Iran will be similar, if not identical. If this poll demonstrates anything, it is that the average voter of the sort polled by Rasmussen is effectively brainwashed and believes there is actually some sort of difference between Democrats and Republicans. Apparently, the Rasmussen voter also thinks the United States is at the center of the universe and all other nations pay close attention to our every political move before putting on their shoes in the morning. In fact, this sort of mindless “American exceptionalism” is resented and held in contempt by millions of people around the world.

In a normal, objective, historically accurate, and non-Bushzarro world, the Rasmussen voter would take into consideration the fact the British and the CIA worked directly with royalist Iranian military officers to overthrow the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddeq and installed the brutal dictator Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi and his SAVAK torturers.

Continued . . .

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Peace Movement, US policy, War Criminals, Zionist Israel | Leave a Comment »

U.S. Position Complicates Global Effort to Curb Illicit Arms

July 21, 2008

By C. J. CHIVERS | New York Times, July 19, 2008

By C. J. CHIVERS | New York Times, July 19, 2008

UNITED NATIONS — Diplomats from the world’s governments met throughout this week on agreements to cut the global illicit trade in small arms, but their work was curtailed in part by the near-boycott of the meetings by the United States.

The tone of the meetings underscored the political complexities of gaining full support for international small-arms agreements from the United States. The American view has balanced recognition of the dangers of illegal proliferation with the government’s own arms-distribution practices and with the American gun lobby’s resistance to the United Nations’ proposals.

Since 2001, United Nations members have endorsed a broad but loosely defined initiative, called the program of action, for a collective effort against illegal arms circulation. The agreement in part encourages governments to tighten controls on manufacturing, marking, tracing, brokering, exporting and stockpiling small arms and to cooperate to restrict illicit flows, particularly to regions perennially in armed conflict. It addresses hundreds of millions of weapons, ranging from pistols to shoulder-fired rockets, that the United Nations says are in circulation worldwide.

The initiative has spotlighted the dire effects of the flood of small arms and led to expanded research into its often chilling consequences.

Continued . . .

Tags:, ,
Posted in Uncategorized, US policy | Leave a Comment »

The US will not prosecute Bush

July 21, 2008

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld will never be tried for war crimes in the US because the country lacks a consensus on torture

The evidence is mounting that top US officials – including President George Bush, vice-president Dick Cheney and former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld – committed war crimes by authorising the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” – ie torture. The war crimes drumbeat has accelerated with the recent release of two books: New Yorker writer Jane Mayer’s The Dark Side and Philippe Sands’s Torture Team, which document the executive decision-making that led the US to set aside not just the Geneva Conventions, but a tradition of respect for the human rights of enemy prisoners that dates to back to George Washington’s prohibition on harming POWs.

Current and former Bush officials are now scrambling to avoid the opprobrium – not to mention the risk of prison time – that would result from criminal prosecution. This week, Capitol Hill was treated to the spectacle of Sands and Douglas Feith, a former Rumsfeld protege who was an architect of the Iraq invasion, testifying side by side before a House subcommittee. In an earlier interview with Sands, Feith claimed to be “really a player” in the engineering of legal workarounds to the Geneva Conventions at Guantánamo. Before the committee, Feith declared his unerring support for Geneva.

The stream of commentary on this topic is waxing as we near the end of the Bush presidency. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof went his fellow pundits one better, suggesting that what the US needs is a South Africa-style Truth and Reconciliation Commission to sort through not just the legal transgressions of the past eight years, but the political manipulations as well.

Hang on a moment. There is no way that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or the second- and third-tier enablers of torture – the Feiths and John Yoos – will be prosecuted for war crimes in the United States.

The obstacle to prosecutions is the absence of a national consensus on the specific issue of torture, or, more generally, the Bush administration’s actions on terror. Certainly there is a consensus that the Bush administration has been a disaster and that the Iraq war was a mistake. But this doesn’t apply to specific terrorism policies, on which the White House still has more or less a political blank check to do as it pleases. (Whether a majority of the public supports those policies is debatable, but Republicans still back Bush, and Democrats are still cowed by the risk of appearing soft on the issue.) See Kevin Drum on why this is not Watergate: a well of political support remains for Bush’s terror policies, “enhanced interrogation” among them.

The matter of criminal culpability lies several steps further on. Even if they concede that torture is a war crime and buy the practical arguments against it – that it generates false information, endangers US soldiers should they be taken prisoner and is disastrous for America’s image and diplomatic efforts – many Americans would still resist prosecuting officials whose motive was averting terror attacks.

This also goes deeper than politics. I hate to sound cynical, but Americans don’t have much interest in accountability, truth or reconciliation. Our national motto is “move on”. The buzzword of the decade is Stephen Colbert’s “truthiness”. Trials or commissions on war crimes would force a reckoning that many Americans don’t think is necessary and/or would simply rather not have.

However, those still hoping to see Bush and his associates in the dock might see promise in another feature of American culture: its disposability. What seems set in stone today, an immutable law of politics, almost certainly won’t be tomorrow. What once seemed an issue of high principle to many conservatives – embracing torture and defending Bush & Co – may quickly become passé once Bush leaves office and other issues come to dominate. The ideal condition for a successful prosecution is not a rising tide of outrage at Bush that would stoke the divisions in US society, but indifference.

Still, the most likely scenario for a torture prosecution is something like what happened to ex-Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. His own country wouldn’t touch him, but an industrious Spanish prosecutor – aided by the work of human rights activists and backed by international opinion – indicted him for torture and war crimes and nearly snared him. If Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld faced a similar indictment from abroad, Americans would be outraged – but not really. The US government would try to head it off, but wouldn’t be able to do much. No one would actually go on trial, but the indictees would see their travel options humiliatingly curtailed and go to their graves knowing the phrase “charged with war crimes” will be next to their names in the history books.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Human rights, US policy, War Criminals | Leave a Comment »

Netroots Nation or Nation of Sheep: Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore Address the Netroots Nation Conference

July 20, 2008
Published on Saturday, July 19, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
by Ronnie Cummins

Saturday morning, July 19. Sitting here at the Netroots Nation conference in Austin, Texas with several thousand other online activists. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Party Speaker of the House, the third most powerful politician in the United States, is up on the podium, doing her best to damp down the mounting criticism of the Democratic Party’s shameful collaboration in funding the war and aiding and abetting the Bush administration’s shredding of the Constitution. Before Pelosi speaks, an announcement is made from the podium that disruptions will not be tolerated–if any of us express our frustrations too passionately with Pelosi and the sell-out Democratic Party leadership we will be arrested.

The first question the Netroots moderator poses to Pelosi is about impeachment. This generates considerable applause and cheers from the crowd. Pelosi, notorious for proclaiming that “impeachment is off the table,” artfully dodges the question and evasively talks about censuring the Bush administration and getting tough on Karl Rove. This generates polite clapping from the front of the room, where all the tables have apparently been “reserved” for Pelosi fans. In contrast I can see groans, grimaces, and shaking of heads from many of us, the netroots rabble, sitting at the back of the hall.

I resist a strong urge to get up and leave. How long will the centrist bureaucrats of Netroots Nation and groups like MoveOn roll-over for lowest common denominator Democrats and Barack Obama? After an hour of rather boring rhetoric by Pelosi, Al Gore makes a surprise appearance on the stage, letting Nancy off the hook.

After a standing ovation, Gore reminds us that the polar icecaps are melting even faster than scientists had expected. The global climate crisis, he goes on, is about to turn into a climate catastrophe. Gore then points out that global warming is of course connected to the energy crisis, reliance on foreign oil, and the economic crisis, as well as the lack of political leadership in the country. Finally, to cheers from the crowd, Gore calls on the assembled netroots to educate the public and get behind his campaign to generate 100% of the nation’s electricity from renewable sources of energy within 10 years.

Pelosi once again joins Gore on the stage and rather unconvincingly tries to present herself and the Democratic majority in the Congress as “revolutionary” on energy matters. This is too much for a number of us in the audience, and finally a man yells out at the top of his lungs, “What about the goddamn impeachment resolution?” The security guards at side of the hall look nervously around, but no one makes a move to arrest the man.

After claiming that she is trying to be “bi-partisan” today, and dodging a question about whether or not she will get behind Gore’s campaign for 100% renewable electricity by 2018, Pelosi rather anti-climatically reminds us that nothing will change unless we “get out there and elect Obama and a Democratic majority in November…”

Whether or not you decide to vote for Democrat Barack Obama, Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney, or Independent Ralph Nader in November, please go to http://www.GrassrootsNetroots.org and join a growing radical populist army who believe we need an alternative to MoveOn and Democratic Party centrists. The doomsday clock is ticking. Let’s fight like hell to make sure that 2008 is not the year where we tried to change drivers, but still went over the cliff.

Ronnie Cummins is National Director of the Grassroots Netroots Alliance.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in US policy, War Criminals | Leave a Comment »

Report: U.S. Africa Aid Is Increasingly Military

July 19, 2008

Advocacy Group Cites Development Needs

By Stephanie McCrummen
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, July 18, 2008; A10

NAIROBI, July 17 — U.S. aid to Africa is becoming increasingly militarized, resulting in skewed priorities and less attention to longer-term development projects that could lead to greater stability across the continent, according to a report released Thursday by the advocacy group Refugees International.

The report warns that the planned U.S. Africa Command, designed to boost America’s image and prevent terrorism, is allowing the Defense Department to usurp funds traditionally directed by the State Department and U.S. aid agencies.

A Pentagon spokesman did not return a call requesting comment. But Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned this week against the risk of a “creeping militarization” of U.S. foreign policy and said the State Department should lead U.S. engagement with other countries.

The Pentagon, which controlled about 3 percent of official aid money a decade ago, now controls 22 percent, while the U.S. Agency for International Development‘s share has declined from 65 percent to 40 percent, according to the 56-page report.

“The danger is this strategy will not achieve the security objectives of addressing the root causes of terrorism,” said Mark Malan, author of the report. “And it certainly won’t address the developmental objectives of U.S. foreign policy.”

Refugees International, based in Washington, provides aid to refugees and advocates for solutions to end conditions that create displacement.

Malan said the militarization has been driven by the U.S. focus on counterterrorism, though the trend dates to the Cold War era. The more fundamental problem, he said, is a lack of consistent, coherent U.S. foreign policy attention to Africa.

For example, the United States has dedicated nearly $50 million to hire contractors to train 2,000 soldiers in post-civil war Liberia, a West African country of 4 million people. Meanwhile, $5.5 million has been dedicated to boosting a weak and unprofessional army of 164,000 soldiers in Congo, a country of 65 million where a decade-long conflict and humanitarian crisis have left an estimated 5 million people dead.

The headquarters of the new African command post, known as Africom, has not been determined, and many African leaders have rejected hosting it. A temporary headquarters is being set up in Stuttgart, Germany, and is expected to begin consolidating responsibility for the continent in October.

Africom in part aims to better integrate U.S. efforts in Africa by coordinating military activities with the State Department and other agencies, but “the State Department is being overwhelmed by the Pentagon,” Malan said.

Continued . . .

Tags:, ,
Posted in US policy | Leave a Comment »

Ashcroft Defends Waterboarding In Front of House Judiciary Committee

July 19, 2008
Published on Thursday, July 17, 2008 by Associated Press

by Lara Jakes Jordan

WASHINGTON – Former Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday “it was not a hard decision” to withdraw Justice Department legal opinions that approved the use of harsh interrogation methods which critics say amount to torture.

Ashcroft, testifying in front of the House Judiciary Committee, said he did not necessarily disagree with the conclusions of the two memos that were written in 2002 and 2003 but later rescinded. But he said the legal reasoning behind both memos was flawed and needed to be corrected.

At the heart of both opinions was a controversial definition of torture. It said “only extreme acts” that cause pain similar in intensity to that caused by death or organ failure should be prohibited in the interrogations of terrorist suspects. Ashcroft, who served as attorney general from 2001 to 2005, had initially approved both memos. They were written in part at least by former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo.

“It became apparent in the further examination of those opinions, when made in another timeframe, that there were matters of concerns that were brought to my opinion,” Ashcroft told lawmakers. “It was not a hard decision for me.”

He added that he relied on his staff attorneys – and Yoo in particular – to give him sound legal advice.

Though the memos were later replaced with a new, narrower policy about what methods would be allowed, that did not “call into question any of the actual interrogation practices that the OLC had previously approved as legal,” Ashcroft said. OLC stands for the Office of Legal Counsel, which writes the Justice Department’s legal opinions for the president.

“When I was informed about concerns regarding overly broad advice, the limits of which were never tested, I directed the OLC to correct it,” Ashcroft said.

Democrats peppered Ashcroft with questions about how often waterboarding was used by interrogators who were following the now-defunct legal opinions.

Waterboarding involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his or her cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning. It has been traced back hundreds of years, to the Spanish Inquisition, and is condemned by nations around the world. Critics call it a form of torture.

Ashcroft said he was aware of three times that interrogators waterboarded terror suspects. He said he does not believe waterboarding, as it was then described by the CIA, amounted to torture.

The Bush administration maintains waterboarding was legal when it was used by CIA interrogators in 2002 and 2003 on top al-Qaida detainees Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. CIA Director Michael Hayden has said waterboarding was used, in part, because of widespread belief among U.S. intelligence officials that more catastrophic attacks were imminent.

Hayden banned waterboarding in CIA interrogations in 2006. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has refused to publicly discuss whether waterboarding is currently legal since it is no longer used by CIA interrogators.

© 2008 The Associated Press

Tags:,
Posted in US policy | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »