Protecting Torturers: Pt 2 - Rahm Makes it (More) Official

Rahm Emanuel on ABC's This Week:

GEORGE: Does [President Obama] believe that the officials who devised the policies should be immune from prosecution?

RAHM: Yeah. What he believes is, look, as you saw in that statement he wrote, and I’m just gonna take a step back, we came up with this and worked on this for about four weeks, wrote that statement Wednesday night after he had made his decision and dictated what he wanted to see, and Thursday morning I saw him in the office and he was still editing it. What he believes it that people in good faith were operating with the guidance they were provided, they shouldn’t be prosecuted.

GEORGE: But what about those who devised the policy?

RAHM: Yeah, but those who devised the policy, he believes that they were uh should not be prosecuted either. And it’s not the place that we go — as he said in that letter, and I really recommend that people look at the full statement — not the letter, the statement — in that second [to last] paragraph. This is not a time for retribution. It’s a time for reflection. It is not the time to use our energy and our time in looking back and in a sense of anger and retribution. We have a lot to do to protect America, but what people need to know: This practice and technique, we don’t use anymore. He banned it.

This doesn't surprise me at all but it has come as quite the sideswipe to Obama supporters who believed that he would eventually...sometime...when he wasn't busy...later...get around to actually holding somebody responsible for these horrendous acts.

There's no denying now that Obama's not interested in doing so at all.

The latest reasoning from those starry-eyed supporters (as spied over at Daily Kos? Maybe Obama doesn't want prosecutions but (somehow miraculously) AG Holder will defy him and go ahead with prosecutions anyway.

Obamafiles, meet reality. Justice means never having to say you're guilty.
 

Marines Investigated for Deaths of 8 Iraqis

Via Reuters:

SAN DIEGO (Reuters) - Up to 10 U.S. Marines are under investigation for the deaths of eight Iraqi prisoners during the November 2004 battle for Fallujah, marking the third war crimes probe of Marines at California's Camp Pendleton, a government spokesman said on Thursday.

There is obviously something very wrong going on at Camp Pendleton and it's incredible that these Marines are only now under investigation since this happened in 2004.

Ed Buice, a spokesman for the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, said he could not disclose details of the inquiry at the U.S. Marine Corps base.

But he said none of the Marines under investigation are being held in detention.

Why not? They've been holding people suspected of war crimes in Gitmo for 5 years.

Nat Helms, a Vietnam veteran who has written a book about the Marine Corp's battle for Fallujah in Iraq's Anbar Province, provided an account of the deaths on his Web site -- defendourmarines.com -- writing that eight Iraqi prisoners were executed.

According to Helms, Marines held eight unarmed Iraqi men in a house during the battle and executed them after receiving orders to move to a new location.

And defend the marines, he certainly does. Apparently he thinks this is some kind of witch hunt in order to influence the Haditha massacre trial against innocent warriors who were just doing their jobs. But, according to this quote in Helms' article from former Corporal Ryan Weemer (who ended up having to reveal what happened when he took a polygraph exam when he applied to work for the secret service), this is what happened:

In this case the eight men were allegedly taken prisoner while unarmed, Weemer revealed to NCIS investigators. They were of military age, dressed in so-called "track suits" favored by the insurgents at Fallujah, and running from a firefight, he claimed. The Iraqi men were placed under guard by squad members while the fight raged around them.* After a brief time the squad was ordered to move out. The Marine in charge radioed headquarters for instructions about what to do with the suspected insurgents. The laconic response - "They’re still alive?" - came back on the radio.

The leader took it to mean kill the Iraqis, Weemer said. Moments later the squad was ordered to move on. Guns were aimed, triggers were pulled, and the Iraqis died. The bodies were left where they lay.

* At that point they became prisoners of war so which soldier, in their right mind who's studied the Geneva Conventions about the proper handling of POWs, would think he actually had the right to kill these men?

That's what they have to answer for.

Marty Graham, the Reuters reporter who wrote the article above continues with: "The allegation is another embarrassment for the U.S. military fighting in Iraq and Camp Pendleton, one the Marine Corps' largest installations in the United States."

I'm sorry - "an embarrassment"?? Just look at the track record of these Camp Pendleton marines:

In June 2006, seven Marines and a U.S. Navy corpsman were charged in the April 2006 killing of a 52-year-old grandfather in Hamdania, Iraq.

According to testimony, the man was kidnapped from his bed and killed in a scenario planned to make his death look like he was planting a bomb.

All but three of the troops have pleaded guilty to reduced charges, while the remaining three Marines pleaded innocent to charges including kidnapping and murder and are awaiting court martial.

In December 2006, eight Marines from the same platoon being investigated in the Fallujah killings were charged in the November 2005 killings of 24 residents of Haditha, Iraq.

Four officers face charges for failing to investigate and accurately report the Haditha killings and three Marines face murder charges. Charges against a fourth Marine were dismissed in exchange for testimony.

This is a systemic, criminal abuse of military power and force - not an "embarrassment".

Perhaps the fact that I'm watching the documentary Ghosts of Abu Ghraib as I write this has a bearing on my anger towards these latest revelations. But, as someone in that film said, "If there were no photographs, there would be no Abu Ghraib".

And in this latest investigation, if Weemer hadn't had to tell the truth during that polygraph exam, we wouldn't know about these killings either.

That's the thing to think about: what else has gone on that we don't know about and perhaps never will? Who else is covering up possible war crimes?
 

40% of US Troops Believe Torture is Justified

This is what happens when a torture-supporting Bush administration won't endorse an all out ban on the practice:

WASHINGTON — More than one-third of U.S. soldiers surveyed in Iraq said they think torture should be allowed if it helps gather important information about insurgents, the Pentagon disclosed Friday. Four in every 10 said they approve of such illegal abuse if it would save the life of a fellow soldier.

They apparently never got the memo that says torture doesn't work.

The Pentagon released these numbers as part of its survey into the mental health problems faced by the troops, but a predisposition to torture would seem to have more to do with whether or not the commander-in-chief and his war cabinet really believe torture is a violation of human rights. This president has not made that clear since he issued a signing statement last fall after the torture bill was passed by congress that, in effect, lets him decide what's acceptable as far as detainee treatement goes. He did not ban torture. He gives it lip service while congress gave CIA agents immunity from prosecution for torturing people. What's a soldier to think in that instance?

...experts said, the new findings raised concern about the possibility of more incidents such as the November 2005 massacre of civilians at Haditha or the mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib as tours grow longer to accommodate the present buildup in forces.

"What it says to me is we should get out of Iraq before a real disaster happens for us," said Cindy Williams, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology researcher who specializes in military-personnel policies. "Iraq is already in chaos, but for us to stay there and continue to wreck our Army over this is a big mistake."

Although the present military strategy emphasizes the need to make the Iraqi populace feel safe, fewer than half of the service members questioned said that all noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect.

About 10 percent of U.S. service members surveyed reported they had mistreated civilians in Iraq, such as kicking them or damaging their possessions needlessly.

Well, I don't what Williams considered the Abu Ghraib torture to be if not a "real disaster". And since that time, only cosmetic changes have been made to the army's training manual while soldiers who have been in the field far too long - powder kegs just waiting to explode - have never been given a strong enough message that abuse and torture not only violate the Geneva Conventions, but that they are inhumane practices. Period.

At a news conference to discuss the report, Pollock urged that the responses about the use of torture be viewed in the context of the war.

"These men and women have been seeing their friends injured, and I think that having that thought is normal," Pollock said. "But what it speaks to is the leadership that the military is providing, because they're not acting on those thoughts. They're not torturing the people."

How do we know if that's true? We don't. Not in an age where the Pentagon and CENTCOM do everything they can to either lie, fabricate or misinform people about what's really going on in Afghanistan and Iraq. They spend millions on propaganda programs so the public will never know the truth. Just look at how long it took for Vietnam war stories to make it to the public's radar screen. These spokespeople are not to be trusted.

And check out this contradiction:

Pollock acknowledged that the longer tours would increase stress. But in the wake of the report, she said, the military was doing more to train leaders to support troops and reduce stress.

The report recommends that after a deployment, soldiers be given between 18 and 36 months at their home station before being sent overseas again. The demand for soldiers in Iraq, however, has meant that few combat units are allowed to remain home for more than a year.

Pollock acknowledged that, for now, there was no possibility the Army could give soldiers that much time at home.

Ergo, the army is fueling potential Geneva Conventions violations by refusing to treat its soldiers according to what would be in their best interests. The military is creating this nightmare scenario once again.

And just look at how convenient the timing of the release of this report is for Bushco:

The survey was taken between Aug. 28 and Oct. 3, 2006. Although the report was completed in November, months before the decision to extend Army tours, the Pentagon did not release it until Friday.

Why?

So they could back up Bush's so-called surge plan which has only endangered even more lives on all sides.

That's what the so-called "commander guy" thinks of the soldiers doing his dirty work. They're just throwaway pawns. And if the congressional Democrats were able to find a collective spine they would demand that this war cease immediately instead of playing political games with peoples' lives.

The only things anyone can count on in this sorry chapter of imperialistic hubris are that more stories of torture and abuse will come out and that, by the time this so-called president leaves office, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will still be raging on.

(h/t to Stageleft)
 

Random News & Views Roundup

Busy day here so just enough time for a quick roundup...

- It may just be a bit easier for ET to phone home in 2009. Introducing Iris.

- The DND has missed a court deadline and has asked for a 3 month extension in the lawsuit filed by the BC Civil Liberties Association and Amnesty International about the plight of detainees in Afghanistan.

Mr. Champ said the government's letter asked the groups to support the request for an extension. The letter says the Defence Department is currently busy with multiple investigations into allegations of detainee abuse, and that it is difficult to get documents from Kandahar, where the Canadian army is waging counterinsurgency operations against Taliban militants.

How difficult can it be? They have fax machines, don't they?

- It's a conspiracy:

The Liberals and the Green party on Friday confirmed they have agreed to work together to try to oust Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay from his riding in the next federal election.
[...]
Dion, who said the move shows his party is serious about addressing climate change, said the Liberals will not run a candidate in the riding where May intends to seek her party's first federal seat.

In exchange, the Greens have agreed not to run a candidate in Dion's Montreal riding.

Layton had to chime in, of course:

Earlier Friday, NDP Leader Jack Layton said the deal was undemocratic and denied Canadians the right to choose who will represent them in Parliament.

Get over it, Jack. Do you want Mackay gone or not? This is politics. Deals happen - all the time. You, of all people, should know that. Predictably, the tories are whining as well because they never ever ever make such deals, as we all know.

- This is interesting: Females outnumber males online in U.S., study finds

An estimated 97.2 million females aged 3 and older will be online in 2007, or 51.7 per cent of the total online population in the U.S., according to a report by eMarketer.
[...]
A Statistics Canada study of adults conducted in 2005 found a minuscule difference in usage between the sexes, with 68 per cent of men versus 67.8 per cent of women counting as internet users.

By the way, we online women are not "geeks". I prefer to think of myself as "technologically-enlightened".

- When you read stories about prison abuse in the US like this one, you can't help but remember that convicted Abu Ghraib torturer Charles Graner was a former US prison guard as well - perfect for the job in Iraq, obviously.

- Bombings, gunbattles on rise in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the German defence minister declares No signs of Taliban "spring offensive". Maybe he doesn't follow the news...

- Let's just broaden the Iraq war, shall we? Turkish Army Seeks OK for Iraq Raids:

ANKARA, Turkey -- Turkey's military asked the government Thursday to approve attacks on Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq, signaling growing frustration over a lack of action against the guerrillas by Iraqi and U.S. forces.

Such action could put an overstretched U.S. military in the middle of a fight between two crucial partners, the Turks and the Iraqi Kurds, and Washington urged Turkish restraint. A recent surge in Kurdish attacks in southeastern Turkey has increased the pressure on Turkey's military to act.

When WH press briefing sockpuppet Dana Perino was asked about this development on Thursday, she said she would have to brush up on the happenings in the region. I suggest she do that PDQ.
 

Into the 5th: Stories From Iraq

March 19, 2003
President Bush Addresses the Nation
The Oval Office

10:16 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.
[...]
Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory.

My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.

March 19, 2007

Betrayed: The Iraqis who trusted America the most, The New Yorker:

Most of the people Othman and Laith knew had left Iraq. House by house, Baghdad was being abandoned. Othman was considering his options: move his parents from their house (in an insurgent stronghold) to his sister’s house (in the midst of civil war); move his parents and brothers to Syria (where there was no work) and live with his friend in Jordan (going crazy with boredom while watching his savings dwindle); go to London and ask for asylum (and probably be sent back); stay in Baghdad for six more months until he could begin a scholarship that he’d won, to study journalism in America (or get killed waiting). Beneath his calm good humor, Othman was paralyzed—he didn’t want to leave Baghdad and his family, but staying had become impossible. Every day, he changed his mind.

From the hotel window, Othman could see the palace domes of the Green Zone directly across the Tigris River. “It’s sad,” he told me. “With all the hopes that we had, and all the dreams, I was totally against the word ‘invasion.’ Wherever I go, I was defending the Americans and strongly saying, ‘America was here to make a change.’ Now I have my doubts.”

Laith was more blunt: “Sometimes, I feel like we’re standing in line for a ticket, waiting to die.”

ABC News: Voices From Iraq 2007: Ebbing Hope in a Landscape of Loss, ABC News:

Eighty percent of Iraqis report attacks nearby — car bombs, snipers, kidnappings, armed forces fighting each other or abusing civilians. It's worst by far in the capital of Baghdad, but by no means confined there.

The personal toll is enormous. More than half of Iraqis, 53 percent, have a close friend or relative who's been hurt or killed in the current violence. One in six says someone in their own household has been harmed. Eighty-six percent worry about a loved one being hurt; two-thirds worry deeply. Huge numbers limit their daily activities to minimize risk. Seven in 10 report multiple signs of traumatic stress.
[...]
The survey's results are deeply distressing from an American perspective as well: The number of Iraqis who call it "acceptable" to attack U.S. and coalition forces, 17 percent in early 2004, has tripled to 51 percent now, led by near unanimity among Sunni Arabs. And 78 percent of Iraqis now oppose the presence of U.S. forces on their soil, though far fewer favor an immediate pullout.

Iraqis see hope drain away, USA Today:

Some Iraqis say they regret having borne children to be brought up amid such hardship.

Zina Abdulhameed Rajab, a Shiite doctor, is so alarmed by the children she has treated who were injured on their way to school that she is keeping her 2- and 4-year-old sons at home. Her mother has moved in to help babysit.

"Whenever I watch my kids laughing or playing, I can't be so happy from inside my heart because I don't know what the next day will bring," she said. "I really regret the birth of my kids here."

She added: "I wish I could put them back inside me so I would know all the time where they are and how they are doing."

The regrets of the man who brought down Saddam, The Guardian:

His hands were bleeding and his eyes filled with tears as, four years ago, he slammed a sledgehammer into the tiled plinth that held a 20ft bronze statue of Saddam Hussein. Then Kadhim al-Jubouri spoke of his joy at being the leader of the crowd that toppled the statue in Baghdad's Firdous Square. Now, he is filled with nothing but regret.

The moment became symbolic across the world as it signalled the fall of the dictator. Wearing a black vest, Mr al-Jubouri, an Iraqi weightlifting champion, pounded through the concrete in an attempt to smash the statue and all it meant to him. Now, on the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, he says: "I really regret bringing down the statue. The Americans are worse than the dictatorship. Every day is worse than the previous day."

From hope to despair in Baghdad, BBC News:

After Baghdad fell, I would satellite reports back to London about attacks in which one or two people were killed. It was big news in those days. Last Thursday, a bomb exploded near the end of the street in central Baghdad where the BBC has its office. Eight people were killed and 25 injured, and we had rather good pictures of it.

But I did not ring London to offer a report about it. To get on the news, or the front page of the newspapers nowadays, a lot of people have to die. I would say the current figure is 60 or 70; and it certainly wouldn't be the lead.

This is not because editors do not care; it is because it happens so often it scarcely seems like news.

Third of Iraqi children now malnourished four years after US invasion, Reuters AlertNet:

Vatican City – Caritas Internationalis and Caritas Iraq say that malnutrition rates have risen in Iraq from 19 percent before the US-led invasion to a national average of 28 percent four years later.

Caritas says that rising hunger has been caused by high levels of insecurity, collapsed healthcare and other infrastructure, increased polarisation between different sects and tribes, and rising poverty.

Over 11 percent of newborn babies are born underweight in Iraq today, compared with a figure of 4 percent in 2003. Before March 2003, Iraq already had significant infant mortality due to malnutrition because of the international sanctions regime.

The Killings in Haditha, CBS News, 60 Minutes:

(CBS) On Nov. 19, 2005, United States Marines killed 24 apparently innocent civilians in an Iraqi town called Haditha. The dead included men, women and children as young as 2 years old. Iraqi witnesses said the Marines were on a rampage, slaughtering people in the street and in their homes. In December, four Marines were charged with murder.
[...]
Wuterich does not believe 24 dead civilians equates to a massacre.

"No, absolutely not… A massacre in my mind, by definition, is a large group of people being executed, being killed for absolutely no reason and that’s absolutely not what happened here," he says.

The day after the killings, bodies were wrapped to conceal the sight of 24 civilians: 15 men, three women and six children killed by shrapnel and gunshot.
[...]
"As you understood them, what were the rules for using deadly force?" Pelley asks.

Wuterich says the biggest thing was PID -- positive identification.

"It means that you need to be able to positively identify your target before you shoot to kill," he says.

The kind of targets they were permitted to shoot to kill included, "…various things," Wuterich says. "Obviously, anyone with a weapon, especially pointed at you… Hostile act, hostile intent was the biggest thing that they had to have, so if they had used a hostile act against you, you could use deadly force. If there was hostile intent towards you, you could use deadly force."
[...]
"Normally, the Iraqis know the drill when you’re over there. They know if something happens, they know exactly what they need to do. Get down, hands up, and completely cooperate. These individuals were doing none of that. They got out of the car [and] as they were going around they started to take off, so I shot at them," he tells Pelley.

As the men ran from Wuterich, he says he shot them in the back.

"How does these men running away from the scene, as you describe it, square with hostile action or hostile intent? Asks Pelley.

"Because hostile action, if they were the triggermen, would have blown up the IED. Which would also constitute hostile intent. But also at the same time, there were military-aged males that were inside that car. The only vehicle, the only thing that was out, that was Iraqi, was them. They were 100 meters away from that IED. Those are the things that went through my mind before I pulled the trigger. That was positive identification," Wuterich tells Pelley.

Other witnesses, including Marines, dispute that the men were running. Wuterich is charged with lying that day to a sergeant, saying the Iraqi men fired on the convoy.

When the vehicle was searched, what was found?

"I believe nothing. I don’t remember partaking in the search," he said. "But, as far as I know, there wasn’t anything found."

And the men were not armed.
[...]
In two minutes, one Marine and five Iraqis were dead, but the killing had just begun Next, Frank Wuterich would lead his men to kill 19 more Iraqi civilians...

Gen. Petraeus and a High-Profile Suicide in Iraq, Editor & Publisher:

Col. Ted Westhusing, a West Point scholar, put a bullet in his head in Iraq after reporting widespread corruption. His suicide note -- complaining about human rights abuses and other crimes -- was addressed to his two commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, now leader of the U.S. "surge" effort in Iraq. It urged them to "Reevaluate yourselves....You are not what you think you are and I know it."

Bush to Ask for Patience in Iraq War, The Guardian, March 19, 2007:

Bush was expected to issue a plea for more patience in the war, which has stretched longer with higher costs than the White House ever anticipated. The president was to make a statement in the Roosevelt Room.

``It can be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that our best option is to pack up and go home,'' Bush was to say, according to an administration official who saw an advance text of his remarks. ``While that may be satisfying in the short run, the consequences for American security would be devastating.''
[...]
Democratic lawmakers say the public put them in charge of Congress to demand more progress in Iraq - and to start getting the U.S. troops out.

The timeline for troop withdrawal under the House bill would speed up if the Iraqi government cannot meet its own benchmarks for providing security, allocating oil revenues and other essential steps. The administration opposes setting such timelines.

The House plan appears to have little chance of getting through the Senate, where Democrats have a slimmer majority. Even if it did, Bush has promised to veto it. But the White House is aggressively trying to stop it anyway, fearful of the message the world will hear if the House approves a binding bill to end the war.

Whose Oil is it Anyway?
Bush Warns U.S. Security Will Suffer if Troops Withdraw From Iraq, The Washington Post, March 19, 2007

It's all about "good days and bad days" to Bush.

Identify one "good day" in Iraq since this war began, Bush. I dare you.