Protecting Torturers

Along with the release of partially redacted Bush administration torture memos in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on Thursday, Obama made the following statement (in part):

In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution. The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world. Their accomplishments are unsung and their names unknown, but because of their sacrifices, every single American is safer. We must protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence that they can do their jobs.

Going forward, it is my strong belief that the United States has a solemn duty to vigorously maintain the classified nature of certain activities and information related to national security. This is an extraordinarily important responsibility of the presidency, and it is one that I will carry out assertively irrespective of any political concern. Consequently, the exceptional circumstances surrounding these memos should not be viewed as an erosion of the strong legal basis for maintaining the classified nature of secret activities. I will always do whatever is necessary to protect the national security of the United States.

This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America's ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.

The United States is a nation of laws. My administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals. That is why we have released these memos, and that is why we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again.

The United States has been and continues to be a nation that skirts the laws. And if letting torturers get away with war crimes is one of that nation's "ideals", I expect to see pardons of those who were convicted of the Abu Ghraib torture atrocities from the Obama administration sometime soon.

Outrage mixed with many simply failed attempts to rationalize Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA perpetrators have been sprinkled through the so-called 'progressive' American blogosphere since Thursday in response to this "news". Well it's not news, for one thing.

Leon Panetta was quite clear during his confirmation hearing that his opinion matched that of Obama's when it came to this matter ie. no prosecutions. And what could possibly justify this position?

(Panetta) Having said that, I also believe as the president has indicated that those individuals who operated pursuant to a legal opinion that indicated that that was proper and legal ought not be prosecuted or investigated and that they acted pursuant to the law as it was presented to them by the attorney general.

Not only that, Obama's DOJ will be more than happy to defend you from prosecution too. So, the bottom line is that if some government lawyer writes a rationale that flies in the face of the law, the US constitution and international treaties, your mission (should you choose to accept it) is to act like an imbecile, pretend that you're not breaking any laws and just follow orders because, when push comes to shove, the US government has your ass covered.

Hopeyness is dying on the vine as Naomi Klein skillfully observes. Even Obama's new dog, whatever Michelle is wearing today and/or Obama's visit to Latin America aren't providing the much-needed escapism in the face of this pesky torture stuff.

It's been quite an interesting exercise to watch those who railed against torture while Bush was in office suddenly do an about face and support Obama's refusal to carry out his treaty obligations to prosecute the offenders.

Ironically, back in 2005, Bush said this:

"The only thing I issued was, don't torture. That's the policy of the government," he told a Knight Ridder reporter. "And we don't torture. And if there is torture, we will bring people to account."

And they did. At least as it applied to Abu Ghraib. (Stunning contrast, I know. But somebody had to point it out.)

The new Democratic president, on the other hand, has absolutely no interest in prosecuting anyone for torture and his people may have had something to do with Spain's AG refusing to prosecute the Bush 6.

Obama said he had not had direct contact with the Spanish government about the case but "my team has been in communications with them."

What do you suppose his team had to say about those prosecutions? Go right ahead?

And if you think you'll just hang onto that hopeyness because Obama might actually go after the Bush 6 himself some day, think again. The Bush administration, enabled by numerous Democrats and now sanctioned by this president, ensured that those in command remain untouchable.

The strikes against Obama keep piling up and it ought to be very clear that he will not be the champion of human and civil rights some made him out to be. He is not the second coming of Lincoln or MLK, after all. (Surprise!) Au contraire, political viability is at the top of his priority list.

For someone who touted himself as a Washington outsider who was going to bust in and change the place, (so he said, anyway), his actions to this point have shown that he's just decided to pull up the most politically comfortable chair in town while holding court just like every other politician there. He will not sacrifice his political career for something as apparently inconsequential as the rule of law or human rights. That is not going to change.

Mr "post-racial" and "post-partisan" is now also Mr "post-torture prosecutions". For someone who's already written not one, but two autobiographies in his short life, isn't it kind of odd that he excuses away his unpopular political actions by insisting it's better to look forward all of the time? Just how long does he think that attitude is going to keep him propped up?

And just like those of us who screamed for impeachment were pushed to the back of the so-called 'progressive' bus by the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Dem party online faithful (and operatives), we might as well get used to sitting in the crappy seats for a whole while longer. Because, just as Paul Krugman, Nouriel Roubini, Joseph Stiglitz and others have been excommunicated by those Democrats who have complete faith in the financial gospel according to Obama, Geithner, Summers and the rest of the Goldman Sachs hacks now in government, you can expect to be keeping company with those radical, fringe lefty groups like the ACLU, Amnesty International, the Center for Constitutional Rights and Human Rights Watch if you believe all torturers and those who gave the orders and legal justifications should be prosecuted.

I know who I'd rather be sitting with. How about you?

Related:

You can read the actual memos here.

The Red Cross Torture Report: What It Means
 

Why Obama Must Investigate Bush's Crimes

Manfred Nowak lays it out:

Shoedenfraude

"This is a farewell kiss, you dog," al-Zeidi yelled in Arabic as he threw his shoes. "This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq."
- WaPo

Attack in Syria: A Late October Surprise?

Lest we forget, as much as we may want to, Bush, Cheney and Gates are still busy plotting and carrying out various random attacks on sovereign countries while most of America is focused on the election and the accompanying financial crisis. I have to add though that, even if nothing else was happening, I suspect the majority of Americans wouldn't even blink at the fact that the US military has continually invaded Pakistan's territory in recent months and has now completed an air raid in Syria's boundaries. USA! USA! and all of that... The desire to win something, somewhere is overwhelming.

Depending on who you believe, the attack on Sunday either "killed a major smuggler of foreign fighters into Iraq" according to some anonymous "US official" and/or resulted in the deaths of 8 civilians.

Killing innocent people is a nasty habit the US military has yet to shake as it continually happens in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq - to list the countries that we know of where such "mistakes" involving "collateral damage" take place. We have no idea what other covert operations around the world might be "accomplishing" in this failed war on terror.

I don't think it's a stretch to see this latest US show of militarism in Syria as perhaps a signal favouring the election of Netanyahu over Livni after she admitted this week that she had failed to form a coalition government in Israel and was forced to call an election. Netanyahu has flatly stated that he has no interest in compromising to further the Israeli/Palestinian peace process (such as it is) and if Livni manages to win, media reports characterize the situation as having now delayed that process for at least a year.

While this certainly isn't a good outcome for Bush, who had expressed that he wanted to find some finality on the I/P issue - but who, in reality, along with Condi had stalled progress repeatedly for years - aggression towards Syria could serve as a favour to McCain. We'll have to see how or if he plans to handle this news if his campaign can manage to get the focus off of Palin's wardrobe (an issue she can't seem to let go of).

As Marc J. Sirois writing in Lebanon's Daily Star explains, after analyzing the futility of attacking Iran:

Then came another kind of "surprise." The global financial crisis that broke out earlier this month did not just damage McCain's campaign by exposing his fundamental (and openly acknowledged) ignorance on economic matters ahead of an era in which such abilities are likely to be at a premium. It also forced the US government to take on trillions of dollars in new liabilities in a bid to restore confidence in the markets. Given the gargantuan deficits and debt already amassed by Bush's profligate spending on wars against Muslims, tax breaks for the rich, and subsidies for large corporations, a costly war with Iran is simply no longer a viable option.

For all of these reasons, Syria must look like a more attractive target, especially if Washington can maintain a level of hostilities that is sufficient to pique the average American's "patriotism" but not so intense that it incurs significant costs. There is no guarantee, however, that the Syrians would cooperate with such an approach, even though any form of response in kind on their part would only invite the Americans to escalate disproportionately, especially with their overwhelming advantage in air power.

The ball seems to have gotten rolling in a Syrian village near the Iraqi border shortly before dusk on Sunday. According to Damascus, US troops arrived in helicopters and assaulted a building under construction at a farmstead, killing eight civilians - half of them children.

The Bush administration's official reaction has been painfully slow in coming, but according to an Associated Press report, a US military officer has confirmed that an attack was carried out by special forces. "We are taking matters into our own hands," AP quoted the officer as saying on condition of anonymity because of what the reporter described as the "political sensitivity" - no mention of patent illegality - "of cross-border raids." Pointedly, the comments came in Washington, not from an officer on the ground in Iraq, where the US military professed to be in the dark about the attack in Syria.
[...]
So why now? The timing has got to be instilling a sense of deja vu among senior members of the Syrian regime. They recall with consternation that even after US diplomats publicly acknowledged the value of Syrian intelligence assistance in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Bush and other senior figures kept up their menacing rhetoric about Damascus. [even though they used Syria as a dumping ground for suspects they wanted tortured, like Canada's Maher Arar -catnip]

This looks to be different. Even if Damascus were still a target in Bush's so-called "war on terror," the timing is so vulnerable to accusations of an attempt to influence the election that only a dire threat could possibly justify taking the risk. Even if it turns out that what the Americans hit was indeed tied to the insurgency, therefore, hitting it now makes no sense - unless the real objective is to capture the hearts and minds of undecided voters in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

While Sirois "hope[s] that Obama wins the White House and then makes good on his promise as a conciliatory figure", Obama's fealty to AIPAC may supersede any possible progress with Syria's government on the I/P and Iraq war fronts. The Bush administration's decision to launch this latest attack has only complicated matters but hasn't that been its legacy around the world since day one?

No matter who wins the US election, the dangerously shifting sands in the Middle East will no doubt see the US government involved in extremely complex deliberations for years to come - especially once the Pentagon finally admits that military might is not the answer and that might not happen unless the US finally goes completely bankrupt. A new Great Depression might provide exactly the amount of humility needed to finally reach that point.

But who am I kidding?

Update:

Baghdad condemns 'US Syria raid'

Speaking after a Baghdad cabinet meeting on Tuesday, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh also explicitly criticised the US over the unconfirmed helicopter strike.

"The Iraqi government rejects the US helicopter strike on Syrian territory, considering that Iraq's constitution does not allow its land to be a base for launching attacks on neighbouring countries," he said.

 

Call me paranoid because I am...

So, how did it come to pass that the US economic crisis suddenly came to a head forcing congress to take action when it was right up against its deadline to break so incumbent candidates could go home to run for re-election? And, in Canada, why did our PM suddenly feel the need to call for an election just a week or two before the meltdown happened? Did Harper know what was coming - thinking that Canadians would trust a Conservative government to steer the economic boat (or Noah's ark, as he put it) while conveniently trashing the Liberals' plan to move forward with a green economy - something Harper abhors? And, how is it that the brightest international economic minds who saw this coming were just ignored?

Further, why did the Paulson plan - porked up by congress - fail so miserably that now the US is basically nationalizing its banking system? Why did US congresspeople buy into a plan that Paulson admitted in committee might not work thus allowing the Bush administration to then put together more singularly authoritative patchwork solutions that might also fail?

What's going on here? And why did I have to waste my time learning economic terms that I never wanted to know about in the first place? And just who or what is really going to fix this colossal mess?

Am I the only one who feels like strings are being pulled somewhere behind the scenes by powerful people who have some sort of plan that we, the peons, have yet to find out about?

This isn't really about you and me or 'Joe the plumber' (no tax breaks for plumbers until they really tackle the butt crack epidemic). I think this is about the international powers that be rearranging the financial system in a way to give them far more political power and I don't think you have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that.

Just look at the history here: the secretive Bohemian Grove meetings, the sequestered, undemocratic, so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) gatherings, the exclusive APEC and G8 globalization conferences. What exactly are these politicians planning for our future and why aren't they telling us about it as they hide behind the cloak of 'national security concerns'? Is it really a stretch to think that there's something coming down the pike that the public will be powerless to avoid? How many people would have believed that the neocons' PNAC agenda would be fulfilled? Yet, here we are.

And where are we?

Canada has re-elected Stephen Harper (at least his is a minority government) who will just go along with whatever the economic powers that be dictate. The US presidential campaign has stifled the minority voices of dissent by exalting two candidates who are also more than willing to follow whatever Paulson and Bush want in terms of a fix even though these are Bush's final hours and his judgment has been abominable.

Unless those of us who seriously question the big picture monitor every single step and gravitate towards the voices who are warning us with loud, ringing alarm bells about what's really going on (those so-called scary 'radicals' who are always marginalized by the status quo), we will all be left following the hypnotic pied pipers of capitalism into yet another extremely disastrous era.

It's taken far too long for the majority of the US public to finally admit that Iraq is un-winnable and it will take even longer for it to accept the fact that the Afghanistan war and the so-called war on terror are black holes as well - especially considering the fact that both presidential candidates have promised to ramp up military efforts there, no matter what. And the sustained public outcry against torture? Where is it, exactly? Muted, just like all voices of dissent that dare to expose the war crimes of an administration that has bludgeoned the rule of law to the point that public complacency has now become acceptable - replaced by the idea that if we just show up and vote, everything will change. That's not enough. It never has been.

So, in the end, will we just allow ourselves to float dreamlike through this restructuring of the global economy hoping it all works out in the end? Or will those of us who have very justifiable paranoia about these massive shifts in policy - just as we did when the Bush Doctrine came to be realized - continue to provide some consciousness to this situation?

Seek out the dissident voices and pay attention. I may still not completely understand what a credit default swap is but I sure do know what it feels like when I'm being screwed over. How can anyone who's lived through the last 8 years not? We may not know the destination but that doesn't mean we shouldn't watch the map that's being laid out before us very carefully.

“Sometimes paranoia's just having all the facts.”
-William S Burroughs

Write Your Own Caption

"Our entire economy is in danger. That's why I'm announcing tonite that I'm selling the White House on eBay™."
 

How Not to Spend $700 Billion

So...I watched the Paulson bailout plan hearings today and, for those who didn't, here's what happened.

Paulson:

a) doesn't know if the plan will work.
b) doesn't know exactly how the plan might work.
c) doesn't know who would oversee the plan.
d) doesn't know why he needs $700 billion ASAP (he just does - don't ask questions)
e) doesn't know who the next treasury secretary (aka the Forces of Darkness Economic Overlord) might be.
f) doesn't care.
g) doesn't realize what a completely unprincipled, power hungry moron he is.

On the upside, I learned a new word today: "traunch"

Oh...and in related news, guess who's under FBI investigation?

Senior execs from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers and AIG

The bureau is trying to determine whether anyone in those financial institutions, including their senior executives, had any responsibility for providing "misinformation," CNN reported.

A federal law enforcement official confirmed the FBI is now looking at 26 cases of potential corporate fraud related to the collapse of the U.S. mortgage lending industry.

Maybe Bush can pardon them before he leaves office. That would be the right (wing) thing to do.
 

Quote du Jour: Bush Learns How the Economy Works

From his press briefing on Saturday:

Q Democrats are insisting that the federal bailout package include help for homeowners facing foreclosure, other assistance for middle-class citizens such as possibly expanding the jobless benefits. Is that completely out of the question?

PRESIDENT BUSH: We're going to work with Congress to get a bill done quickly. I called leaders of both chambers, both parties, yesterday to thank them for the initial statements coming out of the meeting that they had with Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke. I found a common understanding of how severe the problem is and how it is necessary to get something done quickly, and I think we will.

President George W. Bush listens as Colombian President Alvaro Uribe speaks to a reporter Saturday, Sept. 20, 2008, during a joint press availability in the Rose Garden at the White House. White House photo by Eric Draper And we'll continue to work with them. It is essential that the package be robust and strong to address the problem. I know -- look, I'm sure there are some of my friends out there saying, I thought this guy was a market guy; what happened to him?

Well, my first instinct wasn't to lay out a huge government plan. My first instinct was to let the market work until I realized, upon being briefed by the experts, of how significant this problem became.

And so I decided to act and act boldly. It turns out that there's a lot of interlinks throughout the financial system. The system had grown to a point where a lot of people were dependent upon each other, and that the collapse of one part of the system wouldn't just affect a part of the financial markets; it would affect the average citizen -- and how. Well, it affect[sic] their capacity to borrow money to buy a house or to finance a college loan. It affect[sic] the ability of a small business to get credit. In other words, the system risk was significant, and it required a significant response, and Congress understands that. And we'll work to get something done as quickly and as big as possible.

The man just found out about those "interlinks" today?

Ummm...holy fuck??
 

Quote du Jour: Bush, again

Bush in Baton Rouge:

And finally, the people in Louisiana must know that all across our country there's a lot of prayer -- prayer for those whose lives have been turned upside down. And I'm one of them.

Let's Play "Spot the Irony"

 

With its actions in recent days Russia has damaged its credibility and its relations with the nations of the free world. Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.

- George W Bush

Olympic-sized Shame

It will be, and should be for everyone watching, nearly impossible to really enjoy the 2008 Olympics knowing the horrendous backdrop in which it is set - a modern-day China that is centuries behind in the way its government treats its native peoples and those it has colonized in places like Tibet.

As Johann Hari writes in Britain's The Independent:

...many of us want to believe we are being tolerant – and even anti-racist – by sticking our fingers in our ears when it comes to the conflict within China. Why? Because our silent societal taboo: we aid and abet the Chinese dictatorship every day. Through our government. Through our corporations. And – crucially – through our choices at the till. At some semiconscious level, we don't want the Chinese people to be allowed to speak and assemble and think freely – because it would mean we had to pay more.

How many times have you chosen a store item, seen the label "Made in China", felt a tiny twinge of guilt - aware of the many human rights abuses of the Chinese government - yet bought the item anyway because it was cheap? Companies like Wal-Mart count on that appeal:

...there is no question that the chain is helping accelerate the loss of American jobs to low-wage countries such as China. Wal-Mart, which in the late 1980s and early 1990s trumpeted its claim to "Buy American," has doubled its imports from China in the past five years alone, buying some $12 billion in merchandise in 2002. That's nearly 10% of all Chinese exports to the United States.

That's what human rights have become in this world: cheap.

And we further cheapen them not just by the shopping choices we make but by turning the other way when faced with the stark reality of oppression and cruelty dressed up in the guise of healthy capitalism or fighting for our freedoms in the wars we endlessly fund and excuse.

The subjugation of human rights is big business. While the current outrage in the US is over the furor about the Iraqi government oil profits not being directed to reconstruction (guess what, Americans? you destroyed the place, you didn't impeach the warmongers, you fix it), have you heard anyone lately complaining about the fact the the CIA's "black budget" is classified?

Although figures are not available after 2000, the Inspector General calculated the CIA has siphoned $1.7 trillion in 1998, $2.3 trillion in 1999 and $1.1 trillion in 2000. This entire CIA funding process, of course, has dubious constitutional authority, but is allowed by various Congressional enactments and secret approval given by the Executive branch and high-ranking congressional leaders.

Trillions of US dollars unaccounted for - used for foreign coups, torture programs, secret prisons, kidnappings, murders, and covert ops that no one will ever know about - and Americans are complaining that the Iraqi government has $80 billion stashed away for its future?

So, while George Bush is predictably performing political theatre by scolding the Chinese government over its human rights abuses - (is this the face of a man who's seriously concerned about human rights?) - a message from a president who once mused about how things would be so much easier if he was a dictator (and he's been a de facto one anyway, considering the lack of congressional willingness to oversee his long list of abuses and crimes) - the shade is still very much drawn over what the CIA and world leaders do behind closed doors in the name of "furthering capitalism" or "protecting national interests" while pretending to care about rights. Code phrases for patting each other on the back while looking the other way as ordinary people are severely harmed by whatever policies they choose to cook up without ever consulting the very people they're supposed to represent. See: Energy Policy, Cheney ie. the death of the Kyoto Protocol and the massive enrichment of oil tycoons and war profiteers thus resulting in US corporate monsters like Exxon-Mobil running teevee ads suddenly trying to convince everyone how "green" they are. It's all one gigantic propaganda farce.

China is just another link in that chain and far be it for any corporation's employees to actually state what's really going on, as CNN's Jack Cafferty found out earlier this year when he was forced to semi-apologize for stating the truth about China's governmental "goons and thugs" - an apt description of most world leaders at one time or another. And, as Cafferty noted, China owns so much US debt that although the USA likes to tout itself as Number One in every possible way, it's actually becoming a subsidiary of China's wealth. How's that for back door colonization?

The biggest dollar surplus country today [2006] is China. Globalization is in fact just a code word for dollarization. The Chinese Yuan is fixed to the dollar. The US is being flooded with cheap Chinese goods, often outsourced by US multinationals. China today has the largest trade surplus with the US, more than $100 billion a year. Japan is second with $70 billion. Canada with $48 bn, Mexico with $37 bn and Germany with $36 bn make the top 5 trade deficit countries, a total deficit of almost $300 billion of the colossal $480 deficit in 2002. This gives a clue to US foreign policy priorities.

What is perverse about this system is the fact that Washington has succeeded in getting foreign surplus countries to invest their own savings, to be a creditor to the US, buying Treasury bonds. Asian countries like Indonesia export capital to the US instead of the reverse!

The US Treasury and Greenspan are certain that its trade partners will be forced to always buy more US debt to prevent the global monetary system from collapsing, as nearly happened in 1998 with the Russia default and the LTCM hedge fund crisis.
[...]
But debt must be repaid you say? Does it ever? The central banks just keep buying new debt, rolling the old debts over. The debts of the USA are the assets of the rest of the world, the basis of their credit systems!

The second key to the Dollar System deals with poorer debtor countries. Here the US influence is strategic in the key multilateral institutions of finance—World Bank and IMF, WTO. Entire countries like Argentina or Brazil or Indonesia are forced to devalue currencies relative to the dollar, privatize key state industries, cut subsidies, all to repay dollar debt, most often to private US banks. When they resist selling off their best assets, tehy are charged with being corrupt. The growth of offshore money centers in the Caribbean, a key part of the drug money cycle, is also a direct consequence of the decisions in Washington in the 1970's and after, to deregulate financial markets and banks. As long as the dollar is the global currency, the US gains, or at least its big banks.

This is a kind of Dollar Imperialism more slick than anything the British Empire even dreamed of. It is a part of the current America "Empire" debate no one mentions. Instead of the US investing in colonies like England to earn profits on the trade, the money comes from the client states into the US economy. The problem is that Washington has allowed this perverse system to get out of all control to the point today it threatens to bring the entire world to the point of collapse. Had the US instead promoted long-term policy of investing in the economic growth and self-sufficiency of countries like Argentina or Congo, rather than bleeding them in repayment of unpayable dollar debts, the world would look far less unstable today.

Again, the US government - Republicans and the precious Democrats - have allowed this situation to become what it is today. That's why Bush's little scold has absolutely no meaning. All of the major world powers are in these abuses together. No need to wonder why the genocide in Darfur continues or why a leader like Hugo Chavez poses such a threat to this world order.

While the mainstream media has now been forced to at least provide some coverage of China's human rights abuses, aided by groups like Amnesty International which has thankfully been on the case for decades, the spotlight is at least now shining on the continual suffering in Tibet, the plight of parents under house arrest who lost children in the Sichuan province earthquake now forbidden to speak to foreign journalists about how the Chinese government's shoddy building standards contributed to those deaths, the continuing oppression of members of religious groups like Falun Gong, the ever-present deadly threat of unbelievable pollution, the jailing of political dissidents and the seemingly never-ending list of other governmental abuses of the Chinese people - all aided and abetted by western governments.

In the days to come, however, we will again be treated to clips of Chinese Olympic volunteers learning proper etiquette (no spitting!) so as not to insult foreign visitors while the networks will go out of their way to no doubt show the tourist attractions of China as if that can provide cover for the horrendous reality so many Chinese people suffer daily. People like those forced out of their homes (in an effort not unlike the US eminent domain scheme) in order to beautify the country as Chinese government leaders attempt to save face.

There's nothing small about the Olympics but even the massive spectacle of a show put on by the Chinese government can't hide its true shame. In the end then, we are all victims - the athletes, the spectators who just want to watch some friendly competition - knowing that, as Amnesty International reports (video), China's human rights situation has become worse since it was awarded the games. The idea that the Olympics would bring positive changes for the Chinese people is a myth.

Let the (political) games begin continue...
 

The Kucinich Impeachment Resolution: Justice Delayed

I feel a long-awaited sigh of relief tonite as I listen live to the speaker of the US house of representatives read into the congressional record the resolution detailing the numerous articles of impeachment introduced by Dennis Kucinich (D-MI) and seconded by Robert Wexler (D-FL).

Regardless of the eventual disposition of this motion, one cannot deny the historical importance of this moment.

On this evening, 2 democrats have defied speaker Nancy Pelosi's spring, pre-election 2006 pronouncement that "impeachment is off the table".

On this evening, 2 Democrats have refused to continue to be complicit in the marching orders of their party elders to enable George W Bush's war crimes by refusing to hold him accountable.

On this evening Robert Wexler, who has been a staunch Obama supporter and adviser, refused to tow Obama's line on impeachment that he made clear almost one year ago:

Obama, a Harvard law school graduate and former lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago, said impeachment should not be used as a standard political tool.

"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority," he said.

"I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus."

Illegal war fueled by manufactured propaganda.
Torture.
Illegal wiretapping.
Torture flights.
Secret prisons.
etc etc etc

Just what exactly is a "grave breach", Senator Obama? Could anything be more grave than killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and sending almost 4,000 US troops to their deaths? Torture isn't a "grave breach"?

You call the proper response to that - your duty as a US senator to defend and uphold the constitution - a "circus"?

How dare you?

Very few Democrats have raised their voices over the years to support impeachment as a result of their party putting the politics of convenience and avoidance above principles, basic human rights, and justice.

The Democratic party has failed to take up the responsibility, on behalf of the American people and all of the victims of the Bush administration's war crimes, to ensure that no one is above the law and that those who place themselves there through the creation of a unitary executive theory which holds that the administration is accountable to no one be punished severely.

Similarly, online Democratic party shills like Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos who proclaimed in December, 2006 that any talk of impeachment was "impeachment porn", whose bullying followers did everything they could to drive off impeachment supporters from that site and whose enlightened and so-called "progressive" political commentary about Kucinich's presidential bid amounted to an insultingly grunting "ugh" are also complicit in willfully allowing this administration to get away with what seems like an endless list of criminal activities while imploring salivating fans to send more money now! to a completely useless Democratic party.

And don't even get me started on how the mainstream media has utterly failed the American people on the impeachment issue as well. Dog forbid they should tell the truth and risk losing precious access to their government sources shills.

Integrity is a rare commodity. Too many people have been bludgeoned into complacency.

So, here we all are.

And I say "we" on behalf of citizens in all countries affected by the inaction of the Democratic party to do its job. We Canadians have had to live through and continue to be outraged by the incredible injustices the Bush administration has perpetrated on Maher Arar and Omar Khadr. We continue to lose soldiers in the other forgotten and mismanaged Bush war - Afghanistan. And we have yet to discover just how many of our citizens have really suffered as the result of the policies of this criminal gang and its so-called "war on terror". The impact will be felt for years, if not decades.

History will not be kind to Bush and it won't be kind to the Democratic party which chose to look the other way.

Which side of justice and history will you be on?

And now I'm off to watch the movie "Recount" - the story of the ridiculous 2000 election fiasco that brought all of us the George W Bush dictatorship in the first place. That seems like a ironic end to this nite, n'est-ce pas?
 

Quote du Jour: Bush & God

From The Independent:

...the former Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath says Mr Bush told him and Mahmoud Abbas, former prime minister and now Palestinian President: "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."

And "now again", Mr Bush is quoted as telling the two, "I feel God's words coming to me: 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God, I'm gonna do it."

When asked to comment, God said, "I didn't ask him to do anything. Don't blame what this guy does on me."
 

Sunday Food for Thought: Softening Torture

Dan Eggen, writing for the Washington Post on Sunday, uses the term "permissable assaults" in his headline to his story about the newly-released John Yoo torture memo.

Thirty pages into a memorandum discussing the legal boundaries of military interrogations in 2003, senior Justice Department lawyer John C. Yoo tackled a question not often asked by American policymakers: Could the president, if he desired, have a prisoner's eyes poked out?

Or, for that matter, could he have "scalding water, corrosive acid or caustic substance" thrown on a prisoner? How about slitting an ear, nose or lip, or disabling a tongue or limb? What about biting?

These assaults are all mentioned in a U.S. law prohibiting maiming, which Yoo parsed as he clarified the legal outer limits of what could be done to terrorism suspects as detained by U.S. authorities. The specific prohibitions, he said, depended on the circumstances or which "body part the statute specifies."

But none of that matters in a time of war, Yoo also said, because federal laws prohibiting assault, maiming and other crimes by military interrogators are trumped by the president's ultimate authority as commander in chief.

Eggen notes this "dry discussion", as he phrases it but also adds, "No maiming is known to have occurred in U.S. interrogations".

Tell that to Maher Arar, Omar Khadr and several other prisoners of the Bush administration who have lived to tell of their torture. And it is torture. The use of the word "maiming", along with the word "assault" only serves to soften the offences that Yoo attempted to minimize on behalf of the bloodthirsty, fearful, and paranoid administration. Parsing words in the legal sense is only presented by Yoo in order to circumvent the relevant Geneva Conventions which prohibit such abhorrent treatment of prisoners while the passage of the 2006 Military Commissions Act, supported by some so-called Democrats in the house and senate, granted CIA interrogators immunity from prosecution for torture - a blank slate to continue at will no matter who succeeds Bush.

There was a huge public outcry following the airing of the Abu Ghraib torture photos but it seems the American public has simply given up on the idea of prosecuting the Bush administration for its war crimes. The fact that the release of the latest Yoo memo was just another 30-second story in the MSM last week shows the world that there is no longer any mainstream interest in what is the worst kind of inhumanity (along with the placing of the killings of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis during the illegal occupation on the back burner while too many Americans are much too eager to believe that the so-called surge is actually working.)

Horror has become commonplace.

The Bush administration years are a textbook case on how totalitarianism is allowed to take root in a nation. Very simply, a compliant public surrenders.

Bush's biggest war hasn't been the so-called war against terror. It has been, instead, the war against domestic rebellion in the Unites States in the face of his dictatorial power grabs. And he has succeeded.

Through his application of the unitary executive theory, the rights-suppressing Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, invasion of privacy, relentless fear mongering and his willingness to detain people without due process while justifying the circumvention of the most basic human and civil rights with the help of lawyers like John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales, the message George W Bush has sent is clear: he is the law.

Meanwhile, the American citizenry has decided to just wait him out - hoping that a new administration will not retain or add to the powers Bush has declared to be within the scope of the presidency. A dangerous gamble, no doubt, no matter who wins the White House. The balance among the three branches of the US government has shifted to the point that there is no longer, for all practical purposes, any way to ensure accountability. Who can the people trust when the Democrats refused to even attempt to impeach anyone in the face of such obvious crimes? No one.

So that's where America stands today - waiting to move on from these horrors while having no concrete assurances that that will even take place. And it's the waiting and the silence that are the problems. As Benjamin Franklin declared and as we are so often reminded: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

And those who refuse to stand up to their government when it tortures get exactly the government they deserve. Waiting solves nothing and turning a blind eye is cowardice.
 

Quote du Jour: War is just so 'romantic'...

At least that's what Commander Codpiece thinks:

President Bush spoke of his dream to work on the frontline in Afghanistan during a video conference with US military and civilian personnel in the war-torn country.

"I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said.

"If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed.

"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," President Bush said.

I wonder if "romance" was on the minds of the Conservatives and Liberals when they voted to send more Canadian soldiers to their deaths in Afghanistan on Thursday. And to think they actually applauded when that motion passed. Disgusting.

Meanwhile, this vote was held before NATO announced its 5 year plan for that country. Surely that has been in the works for a while and it would have been useful information to have when it came to considering how to vote on this 2 year extension. Instead, the 2 major war parties (one just tremendously afraid of sparking an election - who cares about the life and death issues involved?) decided to carry on the Canadian mission until 2011, regardless of the fact that they have no idea how much it will cost in terms of dollars or Canadian lives. Peter MacKay even went as far as to say the troops would be "delighted" when they heard what they'd just been committed to. Delighted? I guess that's about as close as MacKay can come to saying it's nothing short of "romantic" to know that you could be killed at any moment, as his buddy Bush did.

If war is so romantic and delightful, why aren't those two warmongering mouthpieces over there enjoying the war up close and personal - with guns - on the frontline?

Update: March 14, 2008 - Welcome cursor.org readers! Just a reminder that the new winter soldier hearings are happening right now. Those veterans and related speakers deserve your support. Check out the link to find out how you can listen live. Archives and a blog that's open for comments are also available at Pacifica's site.
 

Only 332 days left of this...

Video: Olbermann to Bush, 'You're a fascist'

Watch it:



Read the transcript.

In part:

As recently ago as 2006, we spoke words like these with trepidation.

The idea that even the most cynical and untrustworthy of politicians in our history, George W. Bush, would use the literal form of terrorism against his own people was dangerous territory. It seemed to tempt fate, to heighten fear.

We will not fear any longer. We will not fear the international terrorists, and we will thwart them. We will not fear the recognition of the manipulation of our yearning for safety, and we will call it what it is: terrorism. We will not fear identifying the vulgar hypocrites in our government, and we will name them. And we will not fear George W. Bush. Nor will we fear because George W. Bush wants us to fear.

Afghanistan: What's wrong with this picture?

Take a look at all of those US flags - up against Pakistan's border.

Yes, that's right. While Robert Gates and Condi Rice (who just arrived in Afghanistan for a surprise visit) have both been threatening the demise of NATO if Afghanistan becomes a "failed state" by not having other countries sending in more combat troops because they won't be bullied into it, US troops are busy fighting along the Pakistani border because their useless commander-in-chief has been busy propping up Pervez Musharraf to the tune of $10 billion the past few years. And what, exactly, has he gotten in return?

Musharraf, who has been protecting the notorious AQ Khan from international scrutiny, is now reportedly relaxing Khan's house arrest rules. The Bush administration has forgiven Musharraf every step of the way for his refusal to take control of Waziristan and if you're wondering why the US military won't commit more troops to Kandahar, where our Canadian troops are dying, it's probably because they'll be too busy training Pakistan's army.

Michael Vickers, assistant defense secretary for special operations and low-intensity conflict, said training sites are being chosen for a five-year program to train and equip the Frontier Corps, a paramilitary unit, to confront al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan's northwestern tribal region.

"That is just getting under way," he told reporters at a briefing. "There may be other training assistance as well, subject to continuing discussions with the Pakistanis."

The training is part of a new $750 million U.S. development effort to make Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) less hospitable for al Qaeda and the Taliban. Washington has given Pakistan $10 billion, mainly in military aid, since the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001.

As usual, this is too little way too late considering the situation in Afghanistan. But, both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have been planned for on the fly at the behest of Donald Rumsfeld:

As the United States prepared to respond to the attacks of September 11, Rumsfeld pushed a reluctant military to think unconventionally about going to war in Afghanistan. Dissatisfied with the plan for a large-scale invasion that he received from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Rumsfeld turned to the Pentagon's Special Operations forces.

"He is willing to start military operations in Afghanistan before most of the military thinks that we're ready to do so. And [a] small number of special forces soldiers combined with CIA support for indigenous Afghan resistance forces brings about spectacular results," Krepinevich says.

When the president's attention turned towards Iraq, Rumsfeld pushed his war planners to think outside the box. Emboldened by his success in Afghanistan, the secretary once again pushed aside Pentagon critics and demanded an unconventional war plan.

"Rumsfeld thinks you can re-invent [the] war plan," The Washington Post's Bob Woodward tells FRONTLINE, "And anything that smacks of the old way or something that looks conventional to him, he asks questions about. Doesn't necessarily oppose it, but will ask questions about it, and is looking to make this quicker, with less force and with less casualties."

So, if the Afghanistan war is lost, it certainly isn't NATO's fault. And, just how much of a difference will 1,000 more soldiers make?

This is all on the Bush administration and no amount of guilt-tripping by Gates and Rice at this point is going to change that.

“I do think the alliance is facing a test here,” Ms. Rice said in a visit to London. “Populations have to understand that this is not just a peacekeeping fight.”

Can she possibly be any more condescending?

In Canada, as expected, the Conservative government will table a motion on Thursday for parliament to consider Canada's future role in Afghanistan beyond February, 2009. Stephane Dion said this week the debate will be "civil". Just how do you debate civilly with a bullying government armed with Bush talking-points and insults that any opposing opinion equals siding with the Taliban? While Dion hopes to play chess with Harper - hoping he'll accept a non-combat role extension - "The NDP and the Bloc Quebecois have said flatly that they will vote against any extension of the mission."

As I wrote here last week, there's much more to this debate than whether or not the troops will continue fighting. There's an economic component that's important to both the Conservatives and Liberals in terms of US/Canada relations and I believe that's what's fueling the Harper/Dion meetings this week ie. how to stay on the so-called good side of the US without getting dinged financially.

But that's not what the general public will hear about in this upcoming "debate". It will be all about NATO's credibility and the idea that Canada is responsible for saving it.

Somehow, the Afghanistan people have been forgotten in all of this.

Related:

The war that can bring neither peace nor freedom; The crisis of the Afghan occupation is a reminder of its fraudulent claims, growing cost in blood, and certainty of failure

Pakistani News Channel Goes Off Air

Intrigue takes Afghanistan to the brink
 

Gaming the Afghanistan War for Political Power

So, Stephen Harper is putting on a grand show of political theater by "threatening" to pull our troops out of Afghanistan if NATO allies won't commit the 1,000 more troops recommended by the Manley panel. In response to Harper's efforts (at least that's how the media is spinning it), Robert Gates sent a "strongly-worded letter" to NATO allies pushing them to send in more troops - one day after a report has concluded that "NATO is not winning in Afghanistan" and after Gates had already said the US would not contribute any more troops. The phone call to Bush by Harper was just for show.

As per that new report:

NATO forces in Afghanistan are in a "strategic stalemate," as Taliban insurgents expand their control of sparsely populated areas and as the central government fails to carry out vital reforms and reconstruction, according to an independent assessment released yesterday by NATO's former commander.
[...]
"Afghanistan remains a failing state. It could become a failed state," warned the report, which called for "urgent action" to overhaul NATO strategy in coming weeks before an anticipated new offensive by Taliban insurgents in the spring.

A second, newly-released report comes to the same conclusion.

Defence secretary Robert Gates also had this to say:

In the letter, Gates warned of a looming division of the NATO alliance and of a loss in its credibility, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper reported.

During Bush's State of the Union speech earlier this week, he announced that some 25,000 US troops would be withdrawn from Iraq this year yet he won't send any more than the 3,200 troops he recently announced will be sent to Afghanistan (1,000 of whom are going into the south where Canada needs help) but, let's take a bigger look at the political game going on here that's costing our soldiers their lives over there.

Back in 2003, neocon Bill Kristol wrote this piece for PNAC warning that NATO had to be reformed. In it, he bluntly stated this:

When President Bush came into office, common wisdom held that, if NATO did expand again, the expansion would be quite limited in scope and number. But it was the president's vision of a "Europe, whole and free" that has led NATO to this day. Moreover, this past summer, at Prague, the administration put forward a number of constructive proposals for reforming and re-energizing NATO. And, finally, and principally at the behest of our European allies, President Bush went to the United Nations in September 2002 and secured U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. The Bush Administration is not responsible for the current crisis in the alliance.

But he then goes on to note the power struggle between the major EU countries and the US, placing the blame squarely on them for NATO's possible demise.

It's quite obvious that political power in the world is shifting. To think that Bush's illegal war in Iraq and his neocon posturing had nothing to do with diminishing American power and, now, its currency, is typical neocon reasoning.

Kristol continued:

Who, or what, is [to blame]? The answer to "who" is France-and secondarily, Germany. The answer to "what" is the new post-9/11 world to which the U.S. has reacted in one way, and France and Germany in another.

This is not the place for France-bashing. But it is the place to tell the truth. At best, the government of France is uninterested in the trans-Atlantic alliance. At worst, it wants to weaken it. France's priority lies with the European Union and/or the UN-not NATO. And there is no question that many in Paris desire to see a France-led European Union as a counterweight to U.S. power. Germany, a troubled nation with economic and demographic difficulties, and an understandable aversion to the exercise of military and nation-state power, has followed France's lead. The European Union as a whole has embraced a view of the world that is post-nationalist, post-historical, and extremely reluctant to use military force even in a just cause.

The United States is different. The "distinctly American internationalism" the president has articulated in speeches and in the White House's National Security Strategy-and with which I am in basic agreement-is quite far removed from the "European" view of the world in both the nature of the threats we face and certainly what strategies to employ to deal with them.

Kristol then proposed his vision to deal with the differences but if you look at how the Bush administration has acted since that time (if it truly believed that strengthening NATO would work as a counterbalance to the new EU coalition) its behaviour - especially its abandonment of the Afghanistan mission which was supposed to be the central front in the so-called war on terror as it cozied up to Musharraf - its actions have been anti-NATO. And now, with Canada's request for just 1,000 more troops being met with Bush's refusal to send them in, one can't help but conclude that our soldiers are just pawns in a larger geopolitical struggle.

The question is: how long will we allow to to be used a such while the US and the EU play their political games?

And, as this Canadian Press article notes:

There is a three-letter answer for those searching for a simple, cold-hearted, calculated interest Canada holds in Afghanistan - a dusty, isolated backwater some 10,000 kilometres away.

It all revolves around the U.S.A. After 79 deaths and hundreds of wounded since 2002, Canadians could be forgiven for setting aside the laudable desire to help the Afghan people for a moment to ask: what's in this for us?

Canada has many altruistic reasons for being in Afghanistan, but the one unifying thread that passes through many clear-eyed examinations of Canadian self-interest is its vital relationship with the giant neighbour to the south.

Many experts agree: anything that adds to an American sense of security and puts Canada firmly on side as an ally translates into billions of dollars in benefit for Canadians.

"The reason we're in Afghanistan today is that's where the Taliban supported Al-Qaida as they hatched up the September 11 attacks on the United States," said Bill Graham, a former Liberal foreign affairs and defence minister who played a key role in decisions to deploy Canadian troops.

"We have to help the Americans have a sense that Canada is part of their security solution, and not a part of their problem, or the economic consequences to Canada are significant."

So, just how much are our soldiers' lives worth in the whole scheme of things and what gives our government the right to use them for economic assurances?

The bottom line is that they're being used and our commitment there needs to end sooner rather than later.
 

Video: Bush's State of the Union '08