« Bob Woodward | Main | Why Iraq Has No Army »
FREE THE SHEEHAN 34!
(Stephanie Allen is a young woman from Buffalo who came down to D.C. for the September 24 March and who decided to get arrested, along with Cindy Sheehan and others, in front of the White House on September 26. The group of over 300 protesters were engaged in peaceful civil disobedience. Their arrests were statements of protest against the war in Iraq, and the lies of the Bush Administration. Stephanie came back to D.C. to have her hearing today. It was also Cindy Sheehan's hearing. Here is Stephanie's report.)
Stephanie has returned from her day in court, which will continue tomorrow. Today was a long day of waiting and riding a roller coaster. No one was sentenced today; some of the cases were dismissed (the arresting officer did not show up) but everyone plans to show up tomorrow.
The defendants want to have their say. The group of 34 had requested that they be arraigned and tried together as a group. After opening arguments by Jon Norris and Mark Goldstone, the attorneys, it became clear that the judge and prosecuting attorney wanted to arraign and try each defendant separately, by arresting officer.
A two-hour recess ensued, while the group re-thought their strategies.
Upon returning to the courtroom, and after the chaos settled, the announcement was made that the group would be arraigned and tried together, but grouped by arresting officer.
It was around 2 pm by this time. This was as far as the trial had progressed in five hours...
Then the arresting officers were sworn in and gave testimony. All of them could identify at least some of the people they had arrested, but this task was made easier by the fact that the arrestees for each officer were lined up directly in front of them, neatly in a row.
One officer, in particular, seemed to be confused about what actions he had taken on September 26, and had difficulty defining what it meant to arrest someone. The testimony was jumbled and the details of the day eluded several of the officers.
By 6:30 p.m., the prosecution had one more witness and none of the protestors had made it to the stand. The judge said "We're almost done; the last witness will testify in the morning."
The group headed out for pizza, discussing the strategy for trying to get at least a little time on the stand for their own messages.
Stephanie has a good vibe about tomorrow. She does not think she will be convicted, nor will Cindy Sheehan. She hopes that regardless of the outcome, when they leave the courtroom, the media will hear from them.
Her energy is good. Should her instincts be incorrect, and a conviction results, she will appeal, "definitely."
This is her first glimpse into the vagaries of the judicial system. She said she never understood how easily you can tell what the judge is thinking. The politics of the process are quite clear too.
"We are very positive; thanks to all who are supporting us!"
Thank you for keeping us updated.
The court system is a strange place to be. I hope for the best for all of you and furthermore, I hope the media sits up and starts reporting the facts!
(Just the facts, ma'am!)
Way to go, Stephanie!
Here's wishes for the best for you and the others who took a stand September 24th.
Maybe you will at least get more press tomorrow.
I'm glad you have good vibes about it.
Clinton Calls Iraq 'Big Mistake'
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111605Q.shtml
Former President Clinton told Arab students on Wednesday that the United States made a "big mistake" when it invaded Iraq, further stoking the partisan debate back home over the war.
Two great article exposing US weapon tactics that affect Iraqi civilians.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111605E.shtml
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article327543.ece
James Fallows is on NPR "Fresh Air" right now, west coast, discussing Iraq.
I like what I am seeing as the reporting on the case. I am encouraged because it would appear that progress is being made through negotiation: a benchmark of our legal system. I am confident that we will prevail and finally justice will prevail over the oppression of this administration.
God bless those that stand up and voice their opinion because that is the very fabric of our great democracy - the power to speak out without fear of reprisal.
He's a little late (Kayakbiker).
A DiAnne-inspired diary, the author tells me:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/16/22162/140
(last night I found out via IndyMedia that there were massive labor protests in Australia & they were like trees falling in the forest with no one there to hear them - or the sound of one hand clapping)
I love France and was sent this rad French Kos diary, which now has all the 500 plus France-bashing comments deleted.
God - you Americans are crazy
by Jerome a Paris
Seriously.
This is the really irrefutable difference between the USA and Europe - you care too much about religion. Even on a lefty website, the amount of time, energy and front page real estate spent discussing religion and spirituality is staggering - and not a little bit disturbing.
Religion deals in absolutes. Politics deals with the shades of grey of human life. Our whole history shows that the two do not mix well - in fact, our whole history is about slowly, but completely separating the two, so that politics can be democratic, and religion can be about individuals practising their faith.
The current mix of the two in the USA, including on the left, is scary.
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest" - Diderot
Europe, home of the Inquisition and, more recently, of that modern cult, communism, knows something about how absolutes lead to the worst human catastrophes. Indeed, America was founded on a large part by those Europeans that fled the religious wars and persecution of our continent.
"The end justifies the means" is the most dangerous argument. When your end is God, or doctrinal purity, or black and white morality inspired by a Superior Being, you end up committing the worst crimes, as they are easily justified by a greater good in the future. When that greater good is in your afterlife, you end up - inevitably -with suicide bombers on one side, and torture and preemptive strikes on the other.
Religion and spirituality belong to the private sphere. If someone finds solace, peace, fulfillment in his/her beliefs and religious practice, that's great. If you find an anchor for your personal values and morality in religious doctrine, that's also a good thing. But religion is NOT THE ONLY SOURCE OF VALUES AND MORALITY.
Bring your values into the political debate, not their source. Do come into politics to promote your values and your morals. But please do not come into politics to get others to adopt the source of these values. That's totalitarian.
And I get worried when, even on DailyKos, so much time is spent on religion - and especially when the debate does not center on the values, but on their sources. The religious right has brainwashed your country enough by making it a "fact" that you cannot have values without (their) religion. It's that link that must be fought, not religion. It's that linkage, that many here on this site seem to accept, that gives the religious right its power.
Religion needs to be kept as an individual matter, and should be taken out of politics. That does not mean that it cannot inspire political ideas or drive individual politicians, but that should be it, and being religious should not be a criteria to be a politician.
Religion brings simple answers to the questions we all face with respect to our own mortality and the meaning of our life. Religion can also provide valuable guidance to live our life in a "good" way. The temptation to make this the only way has always existed, and has been used and abused by religious institutions (Churches) and political leaders to herd people. That happens when some elite, whether born as such or self-selected, gets to decide what is "good" for others. Religion as a political entity, like any other ideology-based movement with higher ideals, brings the ultimate justification for what is "good" and is easy to ride to negate the individual values of peole and take away their liberty.
Europe has learnt this the hard way, and has pretty much taken religion out of public life. That does not mean that people or politicians have no faith, but that most citizens are healthily skeptical or those that put their religion on their sleeves and try to proselytise. Going to church is a social activity and/or a personal choice, not a political one.
Please, America - get religion our of politics as well. And please, Kossacks, do not try to outfaith the religious right, you play right in their game by legitimising the link between faith and values.
Stand by your values proudly, faith or not.
UPDATE
I am sorry I cannot respond to all the comments. I have read all of them (at least as of a few minutes ago...) and thank all of you for your participation. Just a few points to answer some items that have come up several times:
* to those that say that France or Europe are in no position to lecture the USA: I specifically mentioned our sad history with religion (and other ideologies like communism) to make clear that "we" are not better. I am not trying to give any lesson, just to provide another perspective. If you think this is not welcome on dKos, well, what can I say? And if you think I am an uncritical cheerleader of France, go read this: Ordinary police racism in France
* to those that bring up the "French riots": please don't bring your religious fantaisies into our riots. They have very little to do with religion. Or do you believe Fox News and CNN now?
* to those that think that I oppose religion inspiring political action. Read what I wrote. I am not opposing it, I am only saying that that you should fight for your ideas and ideals, not for their underlying source. Ideas inspired by religion are no better (and no worse) than ideas inspired by secular or personal values. If you think your political ideals are more deserving because they are based on your religious beliefs, you are entering the game of the fundamentalists.
And PS: "the Romans are crazy" is a very famous quote from the comic series Asterix the Gaul. It's not an insult.
PS I agree with what he wrote.
November 16, 2005
Vietnam Archive Offers Parallel to War in Iraq
By THOM SHANKER, DAVID STOUT
and JOHN FILES
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 - White House advisers convene secret sessions on the political dangers of revelations that American troops committed atrocities in the war zone, and whether the president can delicately intervene in the investigation. In the face of an increasingly unpopular war, they wonder at the impact on support at home. The best way out of the war, they agree, is propping up a new government that can attract feuding elements across a fractured foreign land.
With an obvious resonance to current events, the National Archives and Records Administration released 50,000 pages of previously classified documents from the Nixon administration today that reveal how all that president's men wrestled with issues that eerily parallel problems facing the Bush administration.
There are many significant differences between the wars in Vietnam and in Iraq - a point that senior Bush administration officials make at any opportunity. But in tone and content, the Nixon-era debate about the impact of that generation's war - and of war crimes trials -- on public support for the military effort and for White House domestic initiatives strikes many familiar chords.
As the Nixon administration was waging a war and trying to impose a peace in South Vietnam, it worried intensively about how the 1968 massacre at My Lai by American troops would hurt the war effort, both at home and in Asia.
My Lai "could prove acutely embarrassing to the United States" and could affect the Paris peace talks, Defense Secretary Melvin R. Laird warned President Richard M. Nixon. "Domestically, it will provide grist for the mills of antiwar activists," Mr. Laird said.
Documents show how the Nixon White House fretted over politics and perception, much as the current Bush White House has during the Iraq war, and that the Nixon administration feared that reports of the mistreatment of civilians could be ruinous to its image.
"The handling of this case to date has strictly observed the code of military justice," Henry A. Kissinger, then the national security adviser, wrote in a memo to the presidential aide H. R. Haldeman. Mr. Kissinger said a court-martial of Lt. William L. Calley Jr., who was implicated in the massacre and ultimately convicted, would alleviate press concerns about a cover-up.
Moreover, President Nixon believed that images could be changed, as the presidential aide John R. Brown III wrote to Mr. Kissinger. "Secretary Laird's press is a measure of the good things a one-time hard-liner can earn by playing the dove for the liberal press," Mr. Brown wrote on Jan. 14, 1970.
With so many academic studies, popular histories and memoirs on the bookshelf - and more than seven million pages of Nixon documents released since 1986 by the National Archives - historians combing over the files on Wednesday said they were more looking for golden needles in a haystack than mining a previously unknown vein of precious metals. The new release of documents included files on early American assessments of Israel's nuclear program, debates about supporting Pakistan during its war with India in 1971 and the superpower rivalry with Moscow.
Some of the Vietnam documents contain details on how the Nixon administration tried to prop up South Vietnam's president, Nguyen Van Thieu, behind the scenes while portraying him publicly as a courageous leader, as President Lyndon B. Johnson had done.
In language that resonates with the positions of the Bush administration with regard to building a new government in Baghdad, the Nixon White House said in May 1969 that it wanted to establish in Vietnam "procedures for political choice that give each significant group a real opportunity to participate in the political life of the nation."
"What the United States wants for South Vietnam is not the important thing," according to an internal White House planning initiative memo. "What North Vietnam wants for South Vietnam is not the important thing. What is important is what the people of South Vietnam want for themselves."
The papers illustrate, too, how as late as 1969 American leaders really did not know that much about the psychology of North Vietnam - or, for that matter, about sentiments in the South.
In March 1969, while the Paris peace talks were under way, American officials worried about how strongly to react to a rocket attack on Saigon. Secretary of State William P. Rogers cabled United States diplomats on the decision not to retaliate militarily against the North.
"Plainly, we shall need to have the most careful and continuing readings of the South Vietnamese temperature," Mr. Rogers wrote, reflecting Washington concerns that the Saigon government would suspect it was being sold out.
Around that time, the State Department suggested that the American negotiator Henry Cabot Lodge soften his language in conveying Washington's displeasure to the Hanoi delegation. "We prefer this language not because it is less ambiguous than the original version but, on the contrary, because it is more ambiguous - and hence more flexible - as to our response," a State Department cable said.
That July, President Thieu fussed over Washington's editing of a speech he was to make recounting all the concessions that had been made to the Communists and calling again for general elections. A secret State Department wire to Saigon and Paris said an aide to Mr. Thieu, in describing his boss's annoyance, "used a phrase which, translated into English, comes out like 'Secretary Rogers has deflowered my speech.' "
President Nixon praised the July 11 speech as "a comprehensive, statesman-like and eminently fair proposal for a political settlement in South Vietnam."
The documents show an internal debate in Washington over what effects the death of Ho Chi Minh, in September 1969, would have. Mr. Kissinger told the president that Ho's death would hurt North Vietnam's morale but would probably not soften its resolve. But a State Department cable to its diplomats around that time, when the department was headed by Mr. Kissinger's rival, Mr. Rogers, had a different perspective. "We are, of course, uncertain ourselves of consequences of Ho's death," it read in part. "We are handicapped in our own analysis by paucity of good intelligence information on North Vietnamese intentions and internal politics."
During the summer and fall of 1969, a great effort was made by the Nixon White House to intervene in a military investigation of a group of Army Special Forces troops who had been accused of killing a suspected double agent in Nha Trang.
In a memorandum to Bryce Harlow, a Nixon aide, on Sept. 26, 1969, Mr. Kissinger counseled him on how to deal with the concerns of Congress.
"The main substantive point you should make," Mr. Kissinger wrote, "is that the president is very concerned about the long-term implications of this case and that he is most anxious to dispose of it in a way which will do the least damage to our national security, the prestige and discipline of our Armed Services and to preserve our future freedom of action in the clandestine area."
"This is clearly a sign of things to come - and we are really going to be hit," Mr. Haldeman wrote to Mr. Kissinger, urging a quiet resolution. "Anything we can do - even at this late date?"
On Sept. 29, the Army secretary, Stanley R. Resor, said that the Central Intelligence Agency, "though not directly involved in the alleged incident," had declined to let its personnel testify.
"It is my judgment that under these circumstances the defendants cannot receive a fair trial," Mr. Resor said. He ordered the charges dismissed.
The suspected double-agent, Thai Khac Chuyen, had been employed by the Special Forces as part of an intelligence operation in Cambodia. After being held in solitary confinement, he was given what one of the accused soldiers, who later confessed to some involvement, called "a wet disposal."
It was alleged that eight soldiers had drugged Mr. Chuyen, shot him and weighted him with tire rims before dropping him into Nha Trang bay.
In October 1969, after all charges had been dropped, the government paid Mr. Chuyen's widow a $6,472 "missing-person gratuity."
Evidence Mounts That Bush Wants New Wars
Do the People of the United States Care Enough to Stop Him?
By Bill Christison
Former CIA analyst
The people and the politicians of this country should rise from their apathy and shout, "No." The time is past for useless analysis and discussion. We Americans, accounting for no more than five percent of the human inhabitants of this globe, should decide here and now whether we are going to be moral or immoral in our future relationships with the rest of the world.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11029.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IMHO:
I haven't read this much paranoid, hate-filled, warmongering rhetoric since I quit reading quotes from Hitler in WWII history.
If our politicians don't stop this madman, I'm afraid the rest of the world will have to do it for the sake of the peace-loving citizens of this nation on our behalf....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael T. Klare | Wag the Dog
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111605S.shtml
Now that the current occupant of the White House is facing roiling political scandals of his own, Michael Klare reasons that he, too, or his embattled adviser, Karl Rove (not to mention his besieged Vice President, Dick Cheney) may be thinking about ways to "wag the dog."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IMHO, this Avian flu thing is one of the wag the dog stories. The local news just had yet another story about "what IF" the Avian flu arrived here in our state.... headed by a neoCon gov. at the moment.... Bunch of sheeples running around paranoid as can be about "what IF" they get the flu (flu of any kind)....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kuwait Oil Field, World's Second-Largest, 'Exhausted'
http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/111605EA.shtml
Kuwaiti oil production from the world's second-largest field is "exhausted" and falling after almost six decades of pumping. Persian Gulf oil producers, which supply about a fifth of world demand, are rushing to find new reserves and build more pipelines and export terminals to compensate for declining output from older reservoirs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wasn't it Halliburton's oil wells in Kuwait that were drilling sideways into Iraq in 1991 that started the first Gulf War???????
Wasn't it Halliburton's oil wells in Kuwait that were drilling sideways into Iraq in 1991 that started the first Gulf War???????
Posted by: NonnyO at November 16, 2005 11:28 PM
YES I thought so, but then I've read that it was actually slant-drilling equipment that Brent Scowcroft sold to them. Halliburton under Cheney certainly had interests there & I'd heard it was his equipment. Joint interest maybe - now I'll review ..
http://www.thirdworldtraveller.com (& many other sources, though I first learned this from my Vietnam Vet housepainter, who claimed to be writing a book on it)
The whole dispute started because Kuwait was slant-drilling. Kuwait was pumping out some $14-billion worth of oil from underneath Iraqi territory. Even the territory they were drilling from had originally been Iraq's.
Even so, this dispute could have been negotiated. But it's hard to avoid a war when what you're actually doing is trying to provoke a war.
The most famous example of that is the meeting between Saddam and the US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, five days before Iraq invaded Kuwait. As CIA satellite photos showed an Iraqi invasion force massing on the Kuwaiti border, Glaspie told Hussein that "the US takes no position" on Iraq's dispute with Kuwait.
A few days later, during last-minute negotiations, Kuwait's foreign minister said: "We are not going to respond to [Iraq]....If they don't like it, let them occupy our territory....We are going to bring in the Americans." The US reportedly encouraged Kuwait's attitude.
Pitting the two countries against each other was nothing new. Back in 1989, CIA Director William Webster advised Kuwait's security chief to "take advantage of the deteriorating economic situation in Iraq to put pressure on Iraq.'' At the same time, a CIA-linked think tank was advising Saddam to put pressure on the Kuwaitis.
A month earlier, the Bush administration issued a secret directive that called for greater economic cooperation with Iraq. This ultimately resulted in billions of dollars of illegal arms sales to Saddam.
==Want more? not hard to find! Google search 68,700 for slant drilling gulf war. (0.21 seconds)
Another interesting topic is the US's discomfort that Saddam was to price oil in Euros not dollars, with OPEC perhaps following suit.
Directional drilling (sometimes known as slant drilling outside the oil industry) is a method used in oil drilling for exploration and extraction of crude oil, where the direction of the drill string is forced out of an essential vertical direction.
In modern petroleum engineering, especially in off-shore operations, directional drilling has become the norm rather than the exception, and the path of the drill can be controlled with great precision, and extended horizontally limited only by the total length of the drill string.
Since slant drilling IS VERY DIFFICULT TO TRACE for outsiders of the operation, the technique has frequently been used TO STEAL OIL from neighbouring oil fields. Several cases are known, the one with the most spectacular consequences being slant drilling performed by Kuwait. This was one of the reasons given by Iraq for invading that country in 1991 (see Gulf War).
(Wikipedia)
(Bush's dad & Bush's dad's war - deja vu)
U.S. Conspiracy to Initiate the War Against Iraq
Even before the first day of the Persian Gulf crisis George Bush and the Pentagon wanted to wage war against Iraq.
What was the character of this war? Iraq neither attacked nor threatened the United States. We believe that this was a war to redivide and redistribute the fabulous markets and resources of the Middle East, in other words this was an imperialist war. The Bush administration, on behalf of the giant oil corporations and banks, sought to strengthen its domination of this strategic region. It did this in league with the former colonial powers of the region, namely Britain and France, and in opposition to the Iraqi people's claim on their own land and especially their natural resources.
Read more at http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-consp.htm
KNOW YOUR HISTORY .. BEFORE THEY REVISE IT
For Bush II's Iraq war - Woodward was not the only one who knew things 2 years ago & pretended not to.
Excerpt from June 2, 2003 Guardian (re US News & World Rept article):
Mr Powell's team removed dozens of pages of alleged evidence about Iraq's banned weapons and ties to terrorists from a draft of his speech, US News and World Report says today. At one point, he became so angry at the lack of adequate sourcing to intelligence claims that he declared: "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit," according to the magazine.
Oh no .. I'm going to bed. I thought that creepy head of PBS quit or was fired. Then someone sends me this. Please tell me they haven't found someone even worse. NPR is one of my sources .. :(
Yesterday, a stunning report revealed right-wing partisans are taking over public TV and radio. They're trying to replace current programs with right-wing content, and they've hired a former Republican National Committee co-chair, Patricia Harrison, to run the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. We must urge Sen. Smith to call for her immediate resignation. Can you call today?
http://civic.moveon.org/call?tg=FSOR_2&cp_id=135&tg=28&id=6360-2857213-Kmn2rXgm7dIO.8GRKGcbdw&t=1
Please no more!!!!! THis is torture!!!
"What we're hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war," Cheney said in his speech at the Frontiers of Freedom Institute's 2005 Ronald Reagan gala.
~ snip
"The end justifies the means" is the most dangerous argument. When your end is God, or doctrinal purity, or black and white morality inspired by a Superior Being, you end up committing the worst crimes, as they are easily justified by a greater good in the future. When that greater good is in your afterlife, you end up - inevitably -with suicide bombers on one side, and torture and preemptive strikes on the other.
~ snip
Posted by: DiAnne at November 16, 2005 10:57 PM
Great diary. Regarding the portion I have pasted above:
I don't think the torture and preemptive strikes from our end are because of religion. I think they are because we have greedy profiteers leading this country. The war in Iraq was never a crusade. People would like to say it was, but it wasn't. Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of the gang are about as amoral as you can get.
How they sucked the religious right in to the mix I will never quite understand. Probably by giving them a seat at the table with the "big kids", and using patriotic songs and trinkets that tie country and God together to play their sentiments.
I remember how I myself was duped in to thinking how wonderful it all was while watching the 2000 inauguration.
Now all I can think of is how long we have to go until these corrupt murderers and liars are out of office.
Great historical review of facts, DiAnne...! I thought I had read that before, but at this point my brain is too busy trying to sort out the lies to remember the truth about the illegal, unethical, and immoral crap by the Cretin's father and his associates as well as the current administration's snafus and fubars..... It's ha-a-a-r-r-r-d work trying to keep track of the lies and remember the factual historical details....
Election Day 2008 can't come soon enough for me! (And if there's another stolen election... I give up!!!)
Cheney calls war critics 'opportunists'
Vice president is latest in GOP to defend war, criticize Democrats
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 7:37 a.m. ET Nov. 17, 2005
WASHINGTON - In the sharpest White House attack yet on critics of the Iraq war, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday that accusations the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify the war were a “dishonest and reprehensible” political ploy.
Cheney called Democrats “opportunists” who were peddling “cynical and pernicious falsehoods” to gain political advantage while U.S. soldiers died in Iraq.
“Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein,” Cheney told the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, a conservative policy group.
Democrats shot back immediately, with the party’s 2004 presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, saying “it is hard to name a government official with less credibility on Iraq” than Cheney.
Administration plans 'sustained' response
Cheney’s speech was part of a GOP effort to push back against criticism on Iraq.
President Bush, whose public approval ratings have dropped to the lowest point of his presidency, has made two speeches in recent days that painted Democrats as hypocrites for criticizing the Iraq war after earlier supporting the idea that Saddam should go.
During a press conference Thursday in Gyeongju, South Korea, Bush was asked about Cheney’s comments. “I agree with the vice president,” Bush said.
“I think people ought to be allowed to ask questions,” the president said. “It is irresponsible to say that I deliberately misled the American people.”
Presidential counselor Dan Bartlett said Bush would keep fighting on the issue. He told reporters with Bush in South Korea that the criticism had reached a critical mass and that it “requires a sustained response.”
more drivel... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10078197/
I think I should have no other mortal wants, if I could always have plenty of music.
It seems to infuse strength into my limbs and ideas into my brain. Life seems to go on
without effort, when I am filled with music.
George Eliot (1819 - 1880)
Hey! We really ARE spreading something over there!
Iraq official defends 'torture' facility
Thursday, November 17, 2005; Posted: 8:35 a.m. EST (13:35 GMT)
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq's interior minister has defended a government facility found to be holding dozens of prisoners, including some showing signs of torture, saying it held "the most criminal terrorists."
Bayan Jabr told a news conference Thursday that only seven of 170 detainees showed marks of torture.
"Nobody was beheaded or killed," a defiant Bayan Jabr told a news conference Thursday, saying the "cellar" was used to house "the most criminal terrorists."
Waving a stack of passports in the air, he added: "These people, they didn't come from Pakistan or Iran. They are our Arab brothers who came to kill your children."
But Jabr pledged to hold anyone who has tortured a detainee accountable. "I will punish them if (an investigation) proves they are responsible for any violations.
"You can be proud of our forces," Jabr said. "Our forces ... respect human rights.
"We are a government and we are responsible for protecting you," he said. "The detainees are the sons of Iraq. Even if they make mistakes, it is not for us to decide this."
Jabr said he personally instructed his officers to take these suspects to the center because they were considered the most dangerous, The Associated Press reported.
The interior minister said an investigation was under way into the torture allegations and that he has discussed the allegations with Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, AP reported.
The disclosures risk damaging the legitimacy of the Iraqi government and Washington's case for going to war, analysts said.
more... http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/17/iraq.detainees/index.html
Propaganda Offensive Royale:
Malaysia Star
Bush Continues Offensive Against Dems' Intel Claims
FOX News
President Bush carried his battle over the build-up to the war in Iraq across the Pacific Thursday, blasting Democrats once again for claiming the White House distorted pre-war intelligence.
Meanwhile (recently):
6-Nov-2005 5 | US: 5 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Ubaydi [nr. Syrian border] - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Ubaydi [nr. Syrian border] - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Ubaydi [nr. Syrian border] - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Ubaydi [nr. Syrian border] - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Ubaydi [nr. Syrian border] - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
15-Nov-2005 5 | US: 5 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Karmah (near) [nr. Fallujah] - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - suicide car bomb
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (northwest of) Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (northwest of) Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (northwest of) Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Ubaydi [nr. Syrian border] - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
Since people don't pay much attention to history (and suffer because of it), they should also notice that the war is going on and BUSH IS IN OFFICE.
Wednesday, November 16th, 2005
Open Letter to George's Mama
...a message from Cindy Sheehan
Dear Barbara,
On April 04, 2004, your oldest child killed my oldest child, Casey Austin Sheehan.
Unlike your oldest child, my son was a marvelous person who joined the military to serve his country and to try and make the world a better place. Casey didn't want to go to Iraq, but he knew his duty. Your son went AWOL from a glamour unit. George couldn't even handle the Alabama Air National Guard. Casey joined the Army before your son became commander in chief. We all know that your son was thinking of invading Iraq as early as 1999. Casey was a dead man before George even became president and before he even joined the Army in May of 2000.
I raised Casey and my other children to use their words to solve problems and conflicts. I told my four children from the time that they were small that it is ALWAYS wrong to kick, bite, hit, scratch, pull hair, etc. If the smaller children couldn't find the words to solve their conflicts without violence, I always encouraged them to find a mediator like a parent, older sibling, or teacher to help them find the words.
Did you teach George to use his words and not his violence to solve problems? It doesn't appear so. Did you teach him that killing other people for profits and oil is ALWAYS wrong? Obviously you did not. I also used to wash my children's mouth out with soap on the rare occasion that they lied... did you do that to George? Can you do it now? He has lied and he is still lying. Saddam did not have WMDs or ties with al-Qaeda and the Downing Street Memos prove that your son knew this before he invaded Iraq.
On August 3rd, 2005, your son said that he killed my son and the other brave and honorable Americans for a "noble cause." Well, Barbara, mother to mother, that angered me. I don't consider invading and occupying another country that was proven not to be a threat to the USA is a noble cause. I don't think invading a country, killing its innocent citizens, and ruining the infrastructure to make your family and your family-friendly war profiteers rich is a noble cause.
So I went down to Crawford in August to ask your son what noble cause did he kill my son for. He wouldn't speak with me. I think that showed incredibly bad manners. Do you think a president, even if it is your son, should be so inaccessible to his employers? Especially one of his bosses whose life George has devastated so completely?
I have been to the White House several times since August to try and meet with George and I am going back to Crawford next week. Do you think you can call him and ask him to do the right thing and bring the troops home from this illegal and immoral war in Iraq that he carelessly started? I hear you are one of the few people he still talks to. He won't speak to his father, who knew the difficulties and impossibilities of going into Iraq and that's why he didn't go there in the 1st Gulf War. If you won't tell him to bring the troops home, can you at least urge him to meet with me?
You said this in 2003, a little over a year before my dear, sweet Casey was killed by your son's policies:
"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?" (Good Morning America, March 18, 2003)
Now I have something to tell you, Barbara. I didn't want to hear about deaths or body bags either. On April 04, 2004, three Army officers came to my house to tell me that Casey was killed in Iraq. I fell on the floor screaming and begging the cruel Angel of Death to take me too. But the Angel of Death that took my son is your son.
Casey came home in a flag draped coffin on April 10th. I used to have a beautiful mind too. Now my mind is filled with images of seeing his beautiful body in his casket and memories of burying my brave and honest boy before his life really began. Casey's beautiful mind was ended by an insurgent's bullet to his brain, but your son might as well have pulled the trigger.
Besides encouraging your son to have some honesty and courage and to finally do the right thing, don't you think you owe me and every other Gold Star parent an apology for that cruel and careless remark you made?
Your son's amazingly ignorant, arrogant, and reckless policies in Iraq are responsible for so much sorrow and trouble in this world.
Can you make him stop? Do it before more mothers' lives are needlessly and cruelly harmed. There have been too many worldwide already.
Sincerely,
Cindy Sheehan
Mother of Casey Sheehan
Founder and President of Gold Star Families for Peace
Founder of Camp Casey Peace Foundation