The major oil and gas reserves in the Middle East, Central Asia and Afghanistan can certainly do that, and with ease. It’s just a coincidence that the US army has cornered this huge, priceless swath for the “enduring freedom” of its people. The Thieves of Baghdad are on a roll.

No other region in the world can even attempt to offer a supply alternative of such scales. All the pipelines leading out of this region, in every direction, are now under the US sphere of control. Many pipelines on the drawing board will be redrawn.

It’s also a coincidence that right from the onset, even before 9/11, President George W. Bush’s team had placed oil and energy at the forefront of US foreign and domestic policies.

It is yet another coincidence that some imbecile miscalculated along the way, in the manner affecting the actors below in the following ways:

Saudi Arabia:

In a position to pump more oil at high prices, enriching the Kingdom in the process. With blooded American soldiers next door, the monarchy’s hand is strengthened against a restive population, provided they acquiesce to American demands. They have long played this game well, and the new terror alerts are not a coincidence as there are lots of petrodollars flowing into the kingdom right now. As soon as those global terror alerts sounded, “suspected Al Qaeda” militants killed 17 foreigners in the oil city of Khobar. You would expect Khobar to be better guarded, with a history going back to the killing of 19 US soldiers in 1996. The latest attack didn’t have an effect on Saudi pumps as oil installations are better protected there then western oil professionals.

As promised by US authorities, there will be an escalation in terror attacks against America and its allies within and without. Just after the recent strike, a statement purportedly from Al Qaeda was yet again posted on “Islamist sites” over the Internet. The tools of the Patriot Act somehow can’t penetrate the borderless world of cyberspace to track down the source of these statements while cheap software can show you the IP address of an email source. This is made easier in Saudi Arabia, which has a major nodal point to monitor Internet traffic in and out of the country, a result of its fixation with porn.

When US leaders pillory the Saudi regime as a “breeder of terrorism,” they have a point but no American president has yet been elected to put an end to this. Or for that matter any British or Israeli leader, though, ironically, there are plenty of Arabs and Persians itching to deal with this “breeder of terrorism.”

Oh yeah, and Bush can’t control the anger of indignant republicans, just as he didn’t know the US army would be making a surplus of crazy snafus in Iraq, when everyone was “sure” of Saddam Hussein’s WMD.

Saudi Arabia is the country that produced 15 of the 19 Sept 11 hijackers, something the Axis of Warmongers, and their pliant media, are eager to overlook, except when its time to pressure the Saudi monarchy.

Israel:

Tel Aviv is longing to reopen a colonial era pipeline from Iraq's Kirkuk oil fields to the Israeli port of Haifa. The old pipeline was built by the British in the 40s and is now in a decrepit state. It was shut down by neighboring Arab nations after Israel’s war of independence in 1948. New investments worth billions, with a brand new pipeline will solve Israel’s energy needs and meet oil demands from the Mediterranean region and beyond. Overtures were made to Jordanian officials awhile back to allow a profitable right of passage.

When clinically viewed, a new pipeline would benefit the Arab countries involved, their oil firms, US oil corporations and Israel. Ahmad Chalabi had a marked pro-Israel stance and his political stars should be watched in days to come.

The project is currently unviable as the Arabs would be implacably hostile to it, unless President George W. Bush’s crusade turns out to be the mother of all wars, which developing events and his pseudo-religious mania might make a reality.

Back in 1975, Henry Kissinger had signed a deal to guarantee Israel much-needed oil in a crisis, and there is a crisis in Israel every day. Renewed every five years, the deal is backed by a special legislation that requires the US to stock up oil for Israel even if it “entails domestic shortages.” The deal cost $3 billion (£1.9bn) in 2002 to US taxpayers. (Guardian, April 20, 2003). You might guess where some of that reserve oil is going now this summer.

Senator Charles E. Schumer (D- NY) was livid that for “every penny increase at the pump, $1.36 billion comes out of consumers' pockets”…while “the administration continues to fill the (US strategic) reserve with hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil daily despite the fact that it's almost 95% full.”

Even Democrats place more premiums on Israeli reserves than domestic ones.

Why is the United States subsuming its interests to Israel and risking the wrath of its citizens unless there is a very, very good reason?

Tel Aviv meantime is itching for a fight against the two adversaries below and not the “breeder of terrorism”.

Iran:

Bush or his successor will be “sure” of this nation’s support of terrorism and their WMD. Watch for more “propatainment,” delivered blockbuster-style from the US media. Iran has a large reserve of fossil fuel and is the second largest oil producer in OPEC. It is the only regional power that can resist American hegemony with some effect. Militarily, it is completely encircled by the US army, Pakistan, and a traditionally hostile Saudi Arabia. Iran is effectively neutralized and new Central Asian pipelines have been designed to bypass Iran, Syria and Russia. It can no longer use oil as a weapon although Persians don’t go down that easily, without a bloody fight. Expect another mission creep to follow. Teheran’s position is severely weakened.

Syria:

Bush or his successor will be “sure” of this country’s terror and WMD infrastructure as well. Doesn’t have the resources of Iran and will be lucky if it’s only bypassed in any future development. Future military confrontation likely, with further provocations from Israel, as Damascus is an unflinching bulwark against long-held US-Israeli plans for the Middle East.

Syria might likely be included in a new Axis of Evil alongside Iran. The US is withdrawing 37,000 troops from the Demilitarized Zone in South Korea, away from a nation that could supposedly nuke the Californian coast through its Taepodong-2 missiles.

Iraq:

Invasion planned long before Sept 11 with an audacity that still hasn’t sunk into the American public. Till today, many of them think Saddam plotted 9/11. Oil flowing out but regular supply never guaranteed. A “coalition of the willing” is battling there, ready to destroy other vestiges of Arab resistance.

Turkey:

The oil from Kirkuk is now transported through the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Around 14,500 local Iraqis are paid £70 a week by private security firms to guard this economic lifeline (Daily Telegraph, May 17). Without this Kurdish oil, Ankara’s geo-political strength will weaken considerably, at a time when the Turkish economy is recovering from its doldrums. Here is the perfect opportunity to wrench concessions out of Turkey.

Afghanistan:

Sits on a huge natural gas reserves. It was once estimated by the Soviets (70s) to be around 5 trillion cubic feet. Status quo can remain as long as nobody else starts drilling there. The “coalition” army hardly ventures out of Kabul and other major bases. Hamid Karzai may be the benevolent face of the “new” Afghanistan but he is after all, more than a friend to the American government and US oil corporations. Karzai once worked closely with Afghan-American Zalmay Khalilzad on a plan to tap Central Asian gas through Afghanistan. Even the Taliban warmed up to the idea. The CentGas project later died down due to 9/11, and the subsequent instability in Afghanistan. It would have been the cheapest route for Central Asian gas.

Khalilzad was later named Bush’s Special Envoy for Afghanistan.

The war on terror here has given the US a pretext to erect military bases in Central Asia and no one asks why the greatest power on earth doesn’t find it safe to concentrate its bases on Afghan territory. An Afghan stalemate would make this Central Asian presence indefinite.

Russia:

Pumping more oil than ever, and is reaping good profits. It’s losing its monopoly on Central Asian oil, with the aforementioned pipelines planned to divert oil into the Caucasus. The Russians are hopping mad at this but are not really in a position to militarily challenge US encroachment in the region. It can barely hold on to Grozny alone; forget other places in the Caucasus, where its army is conveniently pinned down by terrorist activities, backed by, who else, the Afghan Mujaheedin-CIA creation Osama bin Laden!

Attempts at solving the conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh, Dagestan and Abkhazia has proved unsuccessful so far. Guess who is going to be play the Tooth Fairy?

China:

Global demand for oil is currently insatiable and China’s expanding economy needs a lot of it. Whoever controls the oil supply to China, controls its economy, and the extent of its growth rate. If its economy is pressed, Beijing will focus on what it’s best at – producing cheap goods of inferior quality; items termed by Singaporean leaders as “cheap and of high quality.” The reality is many who say this do not buy wholly Chinese tech products. Many ethnic Chinese stores in Kuala Lumpur are already rejecting Made-in-China electronic goods. US shopping malls stock glossy Chinese products that sell for a song and break at a whim. The only products of “high quality” are those manufactured with a foreign label, foreign innovation and a strict quality control, a reality that can be lost inside Motorola, but not among foreign buyers who are switching to Nokia, Samsung and Siemens cellphones.

If things get worse, it might be interesting to see how the oil-rich Spratly Islands in South East Asia is played up. Many Asean nations are laying claim to all or parts of it, with a greater degree of validity than China. The UN’s Law of the Seas conventions only allows a 200-nautical mile limit to maintain Exclusive Economic Zones, and not something approaching 800 miles or beyond.

Osama bin Laden:

Nobody outside the loop knows where he is or whether he still exists, or what happened after his last genuinely public “video conference”. His name is slowly being substituted by the term “Al Qaeda” in major reports, giving the impression of endless terror from an invisible, multi-headed Hydra. Not really in media oblivion but could be on his way.

Tony Blair:

Expendable. What else do you expect? If the British electorate doesn’t kick him out, “New Labour” - itself a corporate buyout - will replace him with Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of Exchequer. Brown knows his soldiers are not very expendable. The Brits enjoy a bloody good fight, but only when they need to.

George W. Bush:

Good likelihood of staying. His trump card is “terror”. It is his only public card. This is the United States, where people think God talks to this man, who claims to have substituted “Christ” for whatever he worshipped at his Skull and Bones shrine at Yale University. His deity certainly wasn’t Jim Beam or San Miguel; otherwise, the United States would have had an Oktoberfest all year long, complete with oom-pah-pah dins instead of distant gunfire and deaths. What do you prefer? Perhaps another fellow cult brother called John Kerry? Still outraged by Clinton’s consensual indiscretion, are you, perhaps more than the Abu Ghraib photos?

Soldiers traditionally expendable to meet corporate targets.

The rest of us:

This won’t be the end of what looks like a global domination plan. If the US army stays long enough in the region, expect a series of mission creeps to follow. The only excuse for them being there is terror. Watch out for more, dwarfing yesterday’s attacks in Khobar.

Alerts now stretch from Boston, Islamabad to Panama City, and do not forget Southeast Asia with its Jemaah Islamiya. Only the US government has such a reach though foreign governments have been “recruited” – an appropriate term – to avert terror attacks of a 9/11 scale. (AP, May 27). Don’t you think Sept 11 worked wonders for US mega corporations?

It’s summer time, when consumer demands and oil consumption will be at its annual peak. Businesses need that oil and it will be supplied at a cost that can be measured more in the number of deaths than dollars.

The US army has completely triangulated the planet’s oil belly from Incirlik (Turkey) to Manas (Kyrgyzstan) to Masirah (Oman). It will be there for global economic stability and that’s how our perverse systems work.

Oil is an issue that the masses, when desperate, will understand. We can’t have runaway oil prices, can we, even if there are free alternatives from greasy chicken kung pao. You can speed away on highways and rock away across the country like how Healing Waters Band did! It is a little late for that now.

Kuala Lumpur, May 30 2004.

Copyright 2004 @ Mathew Maavak.

In watching "The Day After Tomorrow" I felt a bit like someone who had sat in on one of my lectures had written the movie. Silly I know, but for example, Monday night I had just talked about global warming, melting Arctic, the ocean conveyors stopping, and plunging us into an ice age. I had just talked about wild weather and the drowning of coastal cities. I had even talked about the possible rapidity of such a change using the very example of the flash frozen mastadon. So as I watched, I knew that in many areas, the writers and producers of "The Day After Tomorrow" were drawing on an increasingly supported body of evidence.

So why all the negative play in the media? Maybe because the powers that be want to keep Americans questioning whether global warming, much less dramatic climate transformation is "real" or not? Most likely. Afterall, if we are contributing to the problem, and it is accepted that we are contributing to the problem, then there might be massive pressure to DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE PROBLEM. That would fly directly in the faces of those with vested interests to keep polluting and consuming, and those are very powerful "interests."

A question that has been raised is "Will this movie make people look at the weather differently?" I certainly hope so. Watching the weather reports drives me nuts because weather casters stay virtually silent on the macro level of weather. About as close as they come is to talk about el nino and la nina in the Pacific. What they leave out is that these ocean patterns have not historically changed every year. The western US is in its sixth year of a drought. Forest fires this year are expected to exceed what we have known in the past, and the fire season has already started - almost four months early. No analysis provided. The Arctic is melting rapidly, and we get stories about how having the pole as open water will reduce shipping costs. Now that's looking on the "bright" side.

Will people start wondering about weather "anomalies" in a larger context? I hope so and I think so. The seed of doubt will have been planted. Maybe that is why the media is trying so hard to discredit the fact basis of "The Day After Tomorrow."

By the way, I enjoyed the movie. There are even moments of tongue in cheek humor - but I don't want to give them away.

According to an economic snapshot released by the Economic Policy Institute on May 27, 2004, the "recovery" is expectedly unbalanced.

The imbalance is dramatic. Corporate profits for the last 8 recoveries was 13.9% with labor getting about 9.9%. Now three years into the "recovery," corporate profits are at 62.2%, labor at 2.8%, and private wages are negative .6 percent. Does the wave of recent insider trading reflect a concern on the part of insiders that a recovery without wage or employment growth is a bubble about to burst? Perhaps.

On 5/25, Paul Lim published Wall street of worry in U.S. News & World Report. He notes:

" But in recent weeks, sentiment on the Street has changed dramatically, and for the worse. Today, investors are acting less like contestants on Fear Factor and more like Tony Soprano, riddled with so many anxieties they've become paralyzed."

...

The big fear now is that the market is looking a lot like it did in the 1970s, when growing uncertainties in the Middle East and a combination of rising oil prices, inflation, and interest rates kept stock prices stuck in a rut that lasted more than a decade. Back then, it took the Dow about 15 years to work its way permanently past 1000. Could history be repeating itself as the index tries so hard to push past 10,000?"

He goes on to add to the list of "worries" with: "a US induced civil war in the Middle East", the possible "cooling" of China's economy. He quotes James Stack, editor of the InvesTech Market Analyst newsletter. "The geopolitical and economic environments are throwing almost every conceivable worry at the investor."

And then there is another thing these big profit takers may be aware of the relationship between black ops and the housing market. You see, according to Catherine Austin Fitts (who worked on Wall Street and then went on to be Assistant Secretary of Housing in 1989 and has gone on the expose the inner workings of finance) the government mortgage insurance and housing programs are used to finance black ops at the DoD. This is why the GAO keeps coming up with unaccounted for multi-trillions of dollars in the Pentagon budget ( America's Black Budget & the Manipulation of Mortgage & Financial Markets). So she sees the bubble busting and discusses it thusly:

I think there are two scenarios. One is the bust, which is this thing keeps going as long as it can be financed by the U.S. governmental apparatus, and at some point, you know, as the Japanese and everyone else says we're not buying any more of this, we're not taking more dollars, the thing busts. And when it busts, what you're going to have is, it's going to be 1929 but worse. Because in 1929, there was a lot of social capital in America. It was a much kinder, gentler place I think than it is now. And you had many more people that knew how to grow their own food, or knew how to function. So one scenario is the bust.

The other scenario though Jim is the Orwellian scenario, which is we've reached a point, and I've written many articles about this, where rather than let financial assets adjust, the powers that be now have the control of the economy through the banking system and through the governmental apparatus, they can simply steal more money, keep financial assets, you know whether it's the stock market pumped up, the derivatives going, or the gold price manipulated down. And they simply liquidate all living things rather than let the economy go bust. In other words, you can adjust to your economy not by letting the value of the stock market or financial assets fall, but you can use warfare and organized crime to liquidate and steal whatever it is you need to keep the game going. And that's the kind of Orwellian scenario whereby you can basically keep this thing going, but in a way that leads to a highly totalitarian government and economy ... corporate feudalism.

I wrote a couple of articles that tie into this in an interesting way -Freddie Mac Scandal (11/22/03) and a follow-up article, Back to Government Sponsored Enterprizes (11/23/03). You see, the GSEs have been struggling with bad accounting and over-extension as well. That's the typical pattern according to Fitts. It also helps put the "scandal" into perspective.

In another related arena, and a different type of profit-taking, there is a new practice by the credit card companies. They are regularly running credit checks on their card holders. If you miss a payment to someone else - say the electric company - they can jump your rate up to their maximum (29% in most cases). This is a big deal in this time of low credit card rates and debt consolidation onto credit cards. According to a news report I heard the other night, the average credit card rate is around 12%. It is a big deal to have your rate more than doubled. Most card holders think they are safe if they pay their credit card bill on time, but the new practice (apparently perfectly legal) may hit many struggling to make ends meet very hard.

With a war and covert operations (like Copper Green that underlies the growing stories of detainee abuse) the demand for those secret dollars is higher than ever. Low mortgage interests rates have encouraged more people to borrow, but that is contracting as the rates edge upward. Since many went for variable rates, a dramatic increase could lead to massive defaults. All of that decreases the funds available for "diversion," and could move the housing "bubble" a might closer to bursting as well.

So where is the economy heading? From what I'm seeing, it doesn't look like a rosy future for the majority of us. If the big "boys" are cashing in then the rest of us better hold onto our wallets.

While Chalabi is in disfavor, conservative Bush advisers lobby for him anyway (NYT, 5/29/04). But protestations aside, Allawi is a double nephew to Mr. Chalabi. It looks like currying western favor (US and UK) runs in the family. Also like Chalabi, he wasn't above providing "questionable intelligence" to the US. (DowJones), or making side deals that gave him a hefty income:

Late in October, when Allawi held the council's rotating presidency, three U.S. firms that had done work for him submitted their reports to the Justice Department's Foreign Agent Registration. They were:

-Brown Lloyd James Ltd, a New York-based public relations firm, $12,000 a month.

-The Washington law office of Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP, lobbying at $100,000 a month. Theros said that after two months that was changed to an hourly rate that should result in $50,000 monthly payments.

-Theros & Theros LLP, the consulting business of Theros and his father, Patrick, a former ambassador, $10,000 a month.

Theros, whose firm hired the other two, said the money spent by Allawi was "the going rate here in Washington."

One has to wonder if there is something tongue-in-cheek in the DowJones article as it ends: ... "Allawi probably learned from his rival's (Chalabi's) successes that he needed lobbyists and publicists to try to influence the U.S. policies that would set the course for Iraq's future." Iraq's future?

I'm sure that Iraqi's are probably well aware of Allawi's connections, so the "distancing by the US" is for US consumption - not theirs. Does it bother anyone that CIA "assets" (read spys) keep getting appointed to high positions and pushed for the top leadership positions? Does it bother anyone the heavy corporate connections keep emerging? Is it any wonder that people see their governments as puppets of the US?

There is a tremendous danger here when the US media promulgates lies and disinformation such as is happening with Allawi (and Chalabi, and Karzi, and Hussein, ad nauseum). It leaves the US public with a very different picture of reality than the peoples of the nations that experience such "intervention." But this is part of the covert processes of empire and the US has been doing it for decades. It has helped to create the current environment we are in. An environment of hate and fear. An environment where most in the US think we have been "helping out" and fighting for "freedom and democracy" and the rest of the world sees the US as puppet masters unconcerned with the misery inflicted in the cause of "US interests."

UPDATE
5/29/04 Cockburn, Independent/UK, Exiled Allawi was Responsible for 45-Minute WMD Claim

Sources
1/24/04 DowJones, DJ Iraq Council Member Spends To Win Influence In Washington

2/12/04 Al Arab, U.S. Iraq Appointee a Fraud and a Danger

11/13/03 Arab Media Watch, Keeping it in the family

2003 GlobalSecurity.org, Iraqi Governing Council

5/29/04 AP, Longtime Exile Selected Interim Iraq PM

5/29/04 AFP, US does not rush to embrace Allawi despite his CIA ties

5/29/04 Hoge & Weisman, NYT, Surprising Choice for Premier of Iraq Reflects U.S. Influence

5/29/04 Huggler, Independent/UK, Iraqi with MI6 links is new prime minister

5/29/04 Bumiller, NYT, Conservative Allies Take Chalabi Case to the White House

Tornadoes and flooding in the midwest of the US (o'Driscoll, USA Today, 5/25/04) are a case in point. Areas are flooding that have never flooded before. Tornadoes are everywhere - some small, but many large. The West and Southwest of the US is bracing for a record fire season as snow pack evaporates and everything dries out much ahead of normal.

Hispanola - the home island of Haiti and the Dominican Republic - are a shambles from rain, flood, and mud slides. It is estimated that over 2,000 people are dead (Brodzinsky, Guardian, 5/27/04). Entire villages are buried under mud flows. And Haiti, still struggling with the (US backed) overthrow of its legitimate government, and an economic crisis of epidemic proportions, struggles to respond.

In the far north, Inuits are starving. The ice that has been there since times of legend is opening up - stranding hunters and polar bears. This change will certainly drive the polar bears (and other species) into extinction within 20 years, and the Inuit culture with them.

It seems increasingly likely that the massive melt of the Arctic will trigger the beginning of an ice age. No one can predict how big, but at the rate of Arctic warming the Earth is nearing a "tipping point." The oceans are rising, and the climate will get more erratic - and violent. Coastal cities (where most of population and commerce live) could be wiped out.

There may still be time to mitigate the depth of the coming change. Certainly there is time to mitigate some of the chaos, death, and societal destruction but it means acting now. Weather blips? Be not deceived.

5/25/04 O'Driscoll, USA Today, Central states brace for more tornadoes

5/27/04 Brodzinsky, Guardian/UK, Island flood toll soars to 2,000

5/24/04 Doyle, Reuters, Fast Arctic Thaw Portends Global Warming

5/04/04 Wolf, Uncommon Thought Journal, Environmental collapse - sooner not later

I am wondering why Ashcroft and Mueller are doing the press conference instead of the head of Homeland Security (Tom Ridge). Not sure what that signals.

The last time they increased the threat level, they said it was on strong intelligence. Unfortunately, I guess they pushed on their "high value" detainee too hard and he told them what he thought they wanted to hear. Unfortunately, what they wanted to hear wasn't the truth so it turned out to be a false alarm. Hopefully, they were a bit smarter this time. Maybe we will get more details at the press conference. I'm sure we will be told to be watchful, and I still have duct tape from the last time around.

Seriously though, I am concerned about an attack. It would be nice if the warnings were a bit less ambiguous than "We're going to get you." But then we are supposed to be watching for folks who smell of chemicals, have dangling wires from their persons (and are maybe carrying an atlas). They should be easy to spot don't you think? Well, at least if something does happen (and unfortunately it will eventually), at least we will have been warned.

So stay tuned at 2:00 edt and perhaps there will be more information by then. Hopefully the broadcast networks will see fit to cover this one. (They apparently didn't find Bush's speech on Monday "newsworthy" as none of them covered it - only cable news did.)

Update: Ridge is downplaying the pending threat, and is not raising the terror level. For an Administration known for its phenomenal ability to stay "on message" this is interesting. Is Karl Rove on vacation?

On May 23, Raymond Whitaker and Justin Huggler had an article in the Independent 'Spray and slay': are American troops out of control in Iraq?. In it they state:

"'The Independent on Sunday' has uncovered proof of US troops deliberately and indiscriminately shooting civilians. Here we examine new evidence that suggests the lawlessness in the American military was never confined to the prison camps and torture rooms but extended to the streets and homes of Iraq."

This was brought further to light by the reports of the massacre of the wedding party at Mukaradeeb. This event was obviously planned and not happenstance. It is estimated that over 11,500 Iraqi civilians have been killed by Coalition Forces since the invasion of Iraq last year. The reports of firing on civilians, and random looting and pillaging by some US troops point to a growing attitude that all Iraqis are "the enemy."

The attack on the wedding party in Mukaradeeb is reminiscent of another tragedy from an earlier war - My Lai. Stan Goff has an excellent article at CounterPunch (5/24/04) Open Season in Iraq - MAMs (Military-Age Males) Are Back that discusses a policy of targeting Military Aged Males.

Six months after My Lai, an enlisted man by the name of Tom Glen

... " sent a letter to General Creighton Abrams, commander of US forces in Vietnam. Without specifically mentioning My Lai, Glen said that murder had become a routine part of American operations. The letter was shunted over to American Division, and then to the office of the same officer who had been leading the South Vietnamese arson campaign five years earlier, since promoted to major. He was now the deputy assistant Chief of Staff of the division--a functionary who was directed to craft a response to this report of widespread atrocities against Vietnamese civilians."

The letter was dismissed by the officer who responded with "In direct refutation of this portrayal," wrote the officer dismissively and with no investigation whatsoever, "is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." That officer was Colin Powell.

Goff states that the policy of killing MAMs is back. The official response to the event was:

"How many people go into the middle of the desert to hold a wedding eighty miles from the nearest civilization," scoffed Major General James Mattis of the 1st Marines. "There were more than two dozen MILITARY-AGED MALES."

As Goff rightly points out: "Makr al-Deeb is a real village in a real civilization."

Every day the fighting continues. Every day
we hear the report that 32 "insurgents" were killed here, 6 "insurgents" were killed there, 23 Saddam "loyalists" were killed in the attack. Given the reports, one has to ask exactly who these "insurgents," "loyalists," and "terrorists" are. Are they simply "MAMs"? Are they a wider group of civilians as in Mukaradeeb? Isn't the struggle to "liberate" the people of Iraq lost, when anyone who is Iraqi is seen as the "enemy"? Isn't whatever positive might be gained lost when the there is total disregard for life and humanity?

The war in Iraq bears striking resemblance to Israeli operations against Palestinians. The mind set seems to be in both cases that all are enemies, future enemies, or those who will bear future enemies. It is the mind set of genocide in the name of safety and there is nothing moral or noble about it. It is just evil.

Modernizing the Warrior through Army Transformation:

Future Force Warrior (FFW) is the Army's flagship Science and Technology initiative to develop and demonstrate revolutionary capabilities for Future Force soldier systems. An integrated system of systems approach is being employed to support the Army transformation to a soldier-centric force. The Future Force Warrior is a major pillar of the Future Force strategy, complementing the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program.

FFW notional concepts seek to create a lightweight, overwhelmingly lethal, fully integrated individual combat system, including weapon, head-to-toe individual protection, netted communications, soldier worn power sources, and enhanced human performance. The program is aimed at providing unsurpassed individual & squad lethality, survivability, communications, and responsiveness -- a formidable warrior in an invincible team. FFW will also be developed to be fully integrated with FCS.

Lethality Vision: FFW family of lightweight weapons with advanced fire control, optimized for urban combat, and synchronized direct and indirect fires from Future Combat System.

Survivability Vision: Ultra-Lightweight, Low Bulk, Multi-Functional, Full Spectrum Protective Combat Ensemble.

Sensors & Communications (C4ISR) Vision: Netted FFW small unit/teams with robust team communications, state-of-the-art distributed and fused sensors, organic tactical intelligence collection assets, enhanced situational understanding, embedded training, on-the-move planning, and linkage to other force assets.

Power Vision: 72-hour continuous autonomous team operations, high density, low weight/volume, self-generating/re-generating, reliable, safe power source/system.

Mobility Sustainability and Human Performance: Unconstrained vertical and lateral movement at full up combat/assault capability during mission execution. Optimized cognitive and physical fightability, on-board physiological/medical sensor suite with enhanced prompt casualty care.

Executive Order - Appointments During National Emergency

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and in order to further respond to the national emergency I declared in Proclamation 7463 of September 14, 2001, I hereby order as follows:

Section 1. Emergency Appointments Authority. The emergency appointments authority at section 603 of title 10, United States Code, is invoked and made available to the Secretary of Defense in accordance with the terms of that statute and of Executive Order 12396 of December 9, 1982.

Sec. 2. Judicial Review. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any person.

Sec. 3. Administration. This order shall be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

December 17, 2003.

While we still can't get what the chain of command was at Abu Ghraib prison was, and outrage over the lack of legal accountability for "civilian" interrogators continues, the US (and Britain) have covered themselves with the same lack of accountability. In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Sanchez claimed that the soldiers were to follow the "rules of engagement." No one has bothered to ask what those rules are. Meanwhile, Rumsfeld had approved "Copper Green" to operate outside the rules of the Geneva Convention and international human rights law. General Abizaid opined to the same committee that "Our doctrine is not right. It's just not right." When these are put together, it becomes clear that the abuse and violations are not just systematic - they are intentional.

The ICRC report is damning in a number of regards.

(pg4) ..." allegations of ill treatment perpetrated by the CF (coalition forces) against persons deprived of their liberty" ... "went beyond exceptional cases and might be considered as a practice tolerated by the CF."

...

(pg 8) "Certain CF military intelligence officers told the ICRC that in their estimate between 7-% and 90% if the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake. They also attributed the brutality of some arrests to the lack of proper supervision of battle group units."

...

(pg 14) "These methods of physical and psychological coercion were used by the military intelligence in a systematic way to gain confessions and extract information or other forms of co-operation from persons who had been arrested in connection with security offenses or deemed to have an 'intelligence value'."

...

(pg 20) Incidents in which people were shot or killed while in detention "were investigated summarily by the CF. They concluded in all cases that a legitimate use of firearms had been made against persons deprived of their liberty."

The ICRC reports highlights consistent abuse and brutality during the arrests of persons, both by the CF, and by Iraqi police acting under US orders. It reports a consistent lack of notification of either individuals detained or their families of what the crime is or where "persons deprived of their liberty are detained. THe report refers to this as "de facto disappearance" (pg 8).

Between the ICRC report and the various news reports coming out of operations in Iraq there seems to be an "anything goes" attitude. There are few if any consequences for denying the humanity of Iraqi's, or treating them in what under any circumstance would be an immoral way. In fact, at Abu Gharib where the compound was taking mortar and RPG fire, prisoners were held in fenced areas in tents with absolutely no protection or access to bunkers (Pg 23). With few exceptions the ICRC report documents a pattern of casual disregard for Iraqi's being arrested and detained.

The "private contractors" are not under military, Iraqi, or US law. US soldiers are only under military law - should it choose to be used. Apparently the same holds true for British troops as well. The "Coalition" has defined itself outside the bounds of international law. They have sought and received a "get out of jail free" card from the CPA (order 17) and now as a condition of UN involvement in Iraq after June 30.

So Coalition Forces (and their employees such as the Iraqi police and army) are free to do whatever they want. Stop whoever they want. Break into the homes of whoever they want in the middle of the night. Arrest and detain (and disappear) whoever they want. Confiscate the property of whoever they want. Beak, kick, hit with rifle butts, deprive of medicine and medical care whoever they want. Heck, they can even kill whoever they want - and bring in members of families to do the same. No consequences. No rules. Very little "supervision."

US troops are being used as rampaging invaders. There is no honor in this. We are told that the purpose is to "liberate" the people of Iraq. Which ones, when virtually any Iraqi can be ill treated with impunity? Win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq? Hardly. Establish a "model" state in the Middle East? A model of what? An example more likely that "you too can be crushed to dust should the US choose to do so."

Yes, I would agree with General Abizaid "Our doctrine is not right. It's just not right." The strategy of a pillaging empire is definitely not a sound doctrine.

The article posted at Veterans for Peace is The 14 Characteristics of Fascism is a reprint of an article by Lawrence Britt from the Spring 2003 Free Inquiry magazine. Britt's article is well worth reading in full, but I would like to talk about them from my own perspective.

1 - "Powerful and Continuing Nationalism"

2 - "Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights"

3 - "Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause"

4 - "Supremacy of the Military"

5 - "Rampant Sexism"

6 - "Controlled Mass Media"

7 - "Obsession with National Security"

8 - "Religion and Government are Intertwined"

9 - "Corporate Power is Protected"

10 - "Labor Power is Suppressed"

11 - "Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts"

Please note that the book is upside down. Not to mention that Bush proudly proclaims that he never reads a paper (or probably anything else than the Bible) and gets all his information from his "trusted" advisors. What more can you say?

Of course, we also have Ashcroft spending $11,000 to "drape" the statue of Justice as an example.

12 - "Obsession with Crime and Punishment"

13- "Rampant Cronyism and Corruption"

14 - "Fraudulent Elections"

In many ways the US has always had close ties to fascism. The cultural theses of exclusivity, superiority, and racism make the US particularly susceptible. That is why democracy is an ongoing struggle and not a done deal. The public has been rallied over and over to join together to fight for "freedom" and "liberty." Repeatedly, those struggles have been oppression of others for the benefit of "America," and particularly certain "Americans." People in the US look to Nazi Germany as the modern example of fascism. People need not look so far.

Chalabi was a crook, to be blunt. He was convicted of embezzlement in 1989 in Jordan after the collapse of Petra Bank, which he had founded (Harnden, 11/04/03) . In fact, he could not go to Jordan without being arrested. Currently he is suspected in the UN oil-for-food fiasco (Swibel, Chalabi Raid Complicates Oil-For-Food Probe, 5/20/04). But a little thing like crooked business deals are no big deal for the Bush team.

Chalabi is the head of the Iraq National Committee (INC), and was selected by the US to sit on the Governing Council. He provided (bogus) information which the Bush neocons wanted to hear, and was on a hefty commission. It is estimated that the INC got $33 million from the US, and Chalabi was being paid roughly $300,000 a month (Stakeout After Classified Senate Operations and Intelligence Committee Brief - transcript, DoD 5/20/04). However, Rumsfeld implied in his testimony to a Senate Committee that these payments have been going on a long time:

SEN. WARNER: Question from over here. Question - right here.

Q: Why was Chalabi getting paid some $300,000 plus by the U.S... [Inaudible]?

SEC. RUMSFELD: There have been a number of entities in Iraq that had been - being paid money by the United States over a period of years. The Congress passed the - I think it was called the Iraqi Liberation Act back in the late 1970s -- but both houses of the Congress, signed by President Clinton -- and it provided funds for that purpose. Stakeout After Classified Senate Operations and Intelligence Committee Brief - transcript

Gosh, that's news! I didn't know that Clinton was President in the 1970s. Perhaps, it was a slip of the tongue since everything from 9/11 onward was Clinton's fault you know.

Suddenly, this fair haired "hero" is off the feed line, and his house is raided. Purportedly by an Iraqi-led raid based on Iraqi intelligence (Coalition Provisional Authority Briefing transcript, DoD 5/20/04). One has to wonder about this since the Iraqi police and intelligence services are working under the authority and direction of the US at this point. And ... I thought that "intelligence" is what Chalabi and the INC were being paid for. Fox News is reporting suspicions that Chalabi was possibly a spy for Iran (5/20/04), though working with Iran covertly wouldn't be something new and different.

Of course there is that other "little" issue of the trial of Saddam Hussein. Chalabi's nephew was named as the "Director General" of the court ( Iraq's Saddam Tribunal Set Up, KATC, 4/20/04).

Hmm. How far might Chalabi's influence spread in the new Iraq? With $33 million, and imported army, more than a year of US direct support and assistance, and at least $335,000 a month, he might be a force to be reckoned with.

The timing seems odd. Is this just "one more error" on the part of the neocon puppet masters playing Bush? Or is this going to turn into a scapegoat situation? "Curveball" who provided plenty of false information to the Administration to implicate Hussein and paint him as an "imminent threat" was tied to Chalabi. Information from Chalabi himself was certainly well off course (and self serving?). Can the Bush Whitehouse claim that they trusted this man and he is the cause of the woes of Iraq? Or is he an offering to whatever new power broker is emerging in Iraq? Time will tell I guess.

For Your Enlightenment
Disinfopedia, Ahmed Chalabi

10/20/03 Hersh, New Yorker, THE STOVEPIPE

11/18/02 Dreyfus, TAP, Tinker, Banker, NeoCon, Spy - Ahmed Chalabi's long and winding road from (and to?) Baghdad

5/20/04 Allam & Moran, KC Star, Chalabi cuts coalition ties after home raid

5/20/04 FoxNews, CIA: Chalabi Possibly Spied for Iran

5/20/04 Swibel, Forbes, Chalabi Raid Complicates Oil-For-Food Probe

5/21/04 China View, Chalabi's INC received at least $33 million -report

5/20/04 Payvand's Iran News, U.S. Ends Payments To Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress

5/20/04 US DoD, Stakeout After Classified Senate Operations and Intelligence Committee Brief - transcript

5/20/04 US DoD, Coalition Provisional Authority Briefing transcript

4/20/04 KATC, Iraq's Saddam Tribunal Set Up

5/05/04 Achcar, CounterPunch, Self-Deception and Selective Expertise - Bush's Cakewalk into the Iraq Quagmire

It’s the oil crisis that is now making headlines, and if it exacerbates, there won’t be any pockets of humanity unaffected by the present global turmoil. You can ignore distant wars, but not your pockets, when they are gradually relieved of their weight in cash, unless remedial measures are taken soon.

Oil prices have reached record highs and any optimism, for the time being, is tenuous. Unlike other previous crises, which followed the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the 1979 Iranian Revolution, this one does not have a purely political dimension. This one is different.

Giant, expanding economies like India and China, representing 40 per cent of humanity and their enormous markets, are demanding more oil, and existing pumps will have to be primed up to meet this demand. If this cannot be met, at a satisfactory level of supply and cost, the global economy will likely receive a nasty shake-up. Unlike political showdowns, there is no effective solution to mass market demands, except to meet those demands. Only a weakened economy will dampen the need for fuel.

The pressing need for fuel may jolt the global economy more than the war in Iraq, or its erratic oil supply.

The US cannot lead a global economic recovery as it did in the past, where it can spur growth even if certain nations implode economically. If Indian and Chinese economies lose momentum, the loss of markets, and the availability of cheap goods and labor, is going to dent any hopes of a speedy recovery.

It’s just not the Asian giants. The largest eurozone economy is reeling as well. The German economy, already in a depressing state, is losing investor confidence. The traditional motor of eurozone is sputtering under “surging oil prices, prospects of interest rate rises and weak domestic demand.” (AFP, May 18).

So far, know one is predicting a repeat of the 1930s Great Depression, which actually struck an Asian giant first before the United States. Tokyo’s 1927 banking crisis would affect Wall Street in two years, setting the stage for a bloody showdown costing millions in lives. Black gold is a bankable product. When supply collapses, pandemonium reigns.

Stock markets everywhere are taking a battering. India alone lost US$40 billion in investments in one single-day on May 17 and only recovered when Sonia Gandhi declined the Prime Minister’s post in favor of Manmohan Singh, the “architect of India’s economic reforms.” Some nations like Malaysia reacted fast, with its Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi initiating a plan to buffer any economic fallout. Turmoil elsewhere is no longer confined to TV screens, humanitarian missions and moral support. The public has to be reassured before the panic buttons are pressed.

Reassurances are important as financial and mob psychologies work in similar ways. Any swing in moods can be catastrophic and they belie whatever fundamentals of politics, society or economics in place. It took one assassination – that of Iraq’s Governing Council head Ezzedine Salim – to trigger the first wave of the oil panic, though war-torn Iraq cannot be counted on as a reliable supplier of oil at present, even if it does have the second largest proven reserves in the world.

Our emotive reactions to the recent events in Iraq are losing its spark, and news from Abu Ghraib and Fallujah are being consigned to the inside pages. Realistically, you can’t compare denuded wallets, and the prospects of an empty stomach to barbarically nude photos.

OPEC’s overproduction and its promise to pump more oil seem to balm neither our fears nor the oil markets. Sustained high production alongside sustained high prices will be destabilizing. Prices of commodities will increase, inflicting an adverse impact on consumer spending and the demand for oil. This will affect supply at the source. A full-blown oil crisis only goes away after it runs a full cycle, leaving discontent of sorts in its wake.

Futures oil contracts do not indicate a rosy outlook either.

“Futures contracts of U.S. light crude for June delivery reached $41.85 a barrel in New York, before retreating to $41.55, up 17 cents from Friday's close. It was a new record close on the New York Mercantile Exchange. In London, July contracts of North Sea Brent reached $38.50 a barrel on the International Petroleum Exchange,” settling at $37.90 by the evening. (AP, May 17)

Market psychology is capricious. “In spite of OPEC's efforts to micromanage oil supplies, the current robust demand for crude has caught it by surprise.” (AP, May 17)

Political maneuvering, on the other hand, can be predicted with uncanny precision. A confident and ready army can brazenly flex its sinews of war to sag the morale of its rival. Some things can be brandished in the open but not high finance, which prefers to operate in secrecy. Its tentacles permeate through apertures of opportunity and it can withdraw just as quickly, grasping a booty. Warring blocs may sign a peace accord with full publicity of its political clauses. The financial dimension in any conflict disappears. Only those with unmeasured power know where it is, and what it can do. This is the real power play and that’s a reason why it’s hard to predict market behavior. The world has been caught in a financial trap too many times.

Since higher oil prices lead to lower spending and lower profits, corporations will be vulnerable to takeovers. If US investment houses can dip into their huge cash reserves, they might find easy pickings in India and China, if the situation persists. Many Japanese and South Korean conglomerates were gobbled up by US firms after the 1997 East Asian Crisis. Watch out for some bitter pills prescribed by the IMF, if a domino reaction takes place.

(The Indian stock market collapse was partly triggered by the ballot-boosted communist parties’ precipitous statements against public sector disinvestments. Ironically, they might end up causing just the opposite, with foreign investors better positioned to bargain their way into the Indian market).

US airlines, always the front line victims in any oil price hike, are under finding it hard to take off. Many came out barely afloat after Sept 11, and the current jet fuel prices are likely to plunge some into bankruptcy. “Jet fuel makes up 12 to 14 percent of airlines' operating costs and is their second-biggest operating expense after labor.” (Reuters, May 19).

According to the Air Transport Association, every “dollar increase in the price of oil” represents “US$425 million in additional expenses for the airline industry.” (AFP, May 19). Passing the cost to passengers, who would want to trim their expenses, wouldn’t help much. Businesses that rely heavily on air transportation will be heavily hit. The trickle down effect will snowball.

Only the United States is in a position to dictate the level of oil supply. With an army battling in Iraq, and camped right to Saudi Arabia, the US has effectively cornered the two largest proven oil reserves in the world. Under pressure, the Saudi monarchy will oblige any request, and their current oil producing capacity will take preeminence over any farsighted plan to drill oil elsewhere in “three to four years” time.

If this scenario works out, there will be a question mark over how US authorities are going to deal with the Iraqi insurgency. Undoubtedly, some countries will turn a blind eye to any drastic change in the prosecution of war, even if “self-rule” is granted to the Iraqis as promised.

Whatever the outcome of the US elections, Pax Americana will pre-dominate. How the American consumer will fare is uncertain, and perhaps irrelevant to the US corporate army, who, by themselves are ready for their own foreign wars.

The number of Americans filing claims for unemployment aid grew unexpectedly last week. Optimism predictions are still plentiful, and can yet win over market psychology.

In the meantime, President George W. Bush refuses to dip into the nation’s reserves, citing the War on Terror as a precaution. The US Strategic Petroleum Reserve is estimated “at 660 million barrels, equivalent to more than two months of imports. They are stored “in salt domes on the Gulf Coast, and were “created after the 1973 oil embargo…” (AP, May 19).

Bush is sympathizing with the people, a marked contrast to his serial denials. “I fully understand how that affects American consumers, how it crimps the budgets of moms and dads who are trying to provide for their families,” Bush said. “How it affects the truck driver. How it affects the small-business owner.” (AP, May 19)

To show he meant business, Bush released the first installment of a five-year, $1.2 billion research grant to develop hydrogen-powered cars. That came in pretty slow. When it was first announced more than a year back, then Democratic presidential hopeful Joseph Lieberman called it a “pipe dream.” Sales of fuel conserving hybrid cars have shot up, but the likes of Lieberman, found in both the Democratic and Republican camps, not to mention the White House, prefer to see US soldiers guarding Iraqi oil pipelines instead, and perhaps dying over them.

Ask yourself this question. If hydrogen powered cars were not feasible, why invest in their development now? Why not earlier, when private carmakers were already selling them?

It’s a win-win situation for the Bush administration, or his successor. If the situation is contained, the US army can be strategically pinned down in the Middle East. No one will prevent Bush’s buddies from ravaging Alaskan wildlife reserves for oil this time either.

Kuala Lumpur, May 20, 2004

Copyright @ 2004 Mathew Maavak

Politics hey? Bush is continuing to top off the strategic reserve while costs sky rocket. He is using the cost increase to promote his energy bill (which loosens environmental protections on exploration and exploration and extraction - including drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge). Meanwhile the lions share of the increases are actually linked to Bush's policy regarding mergers at oil refineries (Bush Refinery Policy Blamed for High Fuel Prices, Record gas prices in Nevada; Sen. Reid blames industry greed, Shell denies greed spurs the closure).

And the oil companies are making a killing:

In his floor speech, Reid singled out first quarter profits for some of the biggest oil companies:
- BP, up 165 percent
- Chevron-Texaco, up 294 percent
- Conoco-Phillips, up 44 percent
- ExxonMobil, up 125 percent

Of course, the oil-soaked administration (including Bush) are winning hand over fist.

Even if Bush's energy policy was sound (which it is not), it would do absolutely nothing about current prices. It would not do anything about the expected increases throughout at least the rest of the summer.

The oil price run up is all about politics - Bush style politics. From possible agreements with the Saudis, to his so-called "energy plan."

5/18/04 Press Briefing by Scott McClellan " Q The Democrats are out there today saying that the high gasoline prices, high oil prices are having an effect on everything from the airlines -- which have to spend an extra $180 million a day for every penny the price of fuel goes up; consumers are feeling the pinch, as well. Does the President accept the Democrats' argument that high gas prices are having a detrimental effect on the economy?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I think the American people deserve more than cheap political rhetoric. The American people deserve leadership and action. This President has led and acted. This President, when he came into office, worked to develop a comprehensive energy plan that would reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. He has led and acted, and he has called on Congress to act.

Unfortunately, Senate Democrats have held up moving forward on a comprehensive energy plan. They have obstructed the process. So we continue to find ourselves in the same situation year after year. The reason we are in this situation is because we are dependent upon foreign sources of energy. The reason we are in this situation is because there has been years of inaction. This President has acted. This President has put forward a plan. And this President has called on Congress to act, and that's what Congress needs to do, so that we don't continue to go through this issue year after year. "

So if prices stay high, Bush and his primary industry profit. If the political pressure is to pass Bush's "energy" plan (made with the help of Enron) then Bush and Co. still win. If gas prices erode the economy further, and drop Bush's poll numbers lower, then he will bring the prices down with a couple of phone calls, and a dramatic move where he takes the credit and he wins again.

Of course, his continued economic, and eventual political profit from this all depends on an electorate that doesn't know what the heck is going on.

But there is a looming issue that few want to look at - disappearing reserves. In a Sacramento Bee article, Shell denies greed spurs the closure, Les Clark who runs an independent oil producers association said: "Most folks know oil won't be there forever."

That is the one thing we can surely count on.

5/17/04 Update - Finally found these tidbits:
5/12/04 McHugh, Army Times, Army screens 118,000 inactive reservists for possible call-up

The Army has begun screening members of the Individual Ready Reserve to determine who would be available to be called to active duty if needed, a spokesman said Wednesday.

The soldiers are not formally attached to any specific reserve unit but would be assigned to an active or reserve unit if needed.

5/14/04 Bend.com, Army Reserve policy change triggers Guard issues - Many inactive soldiers face involuntary assignment unless they re-enlist

May 14 - SALEM - A quietly released change in the way the Army tracks and controls Army Reserve soldiers in inactive status has led to a recruiting spike over the past several days for both the U.S. Army Reserve and the Oregon Army National Guard, officials said Friday.

5/13/04 Army Public Affairs, Screening of Obligated Individual Ready Reserve Soldiers for Possible Assignment to Army Reserve Units

The Army's Human Resources Command - St. Louis (HRC-STL), is identifying Individual Ready Reserve Soldiers with a statutory Military Service Obligation (MSO) remaining for possible assignment to an Army Reserve unit. These Soldiers may be assigned to position vacancy requirements within designated Reserve units based upon the needs of the Army.
At this time, there have been no involuntary assignments of IRR Soldiers to any Army Reserve units. The HRC-STL is identifying IRR Soldiers for possible assignment. HRC-STL is responsible for the management of all Army IRR soldiers and has standard business processes in place.

The Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) consists of over 118,000 trained Soldiers who may be called upon to fill vacancies in Army Reserve units and may replace Soldiers in Active and Reserve Units. Part of the Army's Ready Reserve, the IRR involves individuals who have had training, served previously in the Active Component or the Selected Reserve (such as a member of an Army Reserve unit), and may have some period of military service obligation remaining. Unlike new recruits, these are seasoned, experienced Soldiers who can contribute significantly to Army readiness. All Soldiers have a statutory eight-year military service obligation (MSO), which is established at the time of entry into military service (Active or Reserve).

The IRR, as it exists, is mandated by Congress under Title 10 of the U.S. Code. In accordance with implementing instructions contained in Army Regulation 135-91, members of the IRR can be required to join an Army Reserve unit if they are statutorily obligated and have a skill needed by the Army.

If a member of the IRR desires to volunteer to join a Reserve unit, they may call the Army's Human Resources Command - St Louis at 1(800) 318-5298, or send an email to the appropriate office. More information on volunteering for mobilization is available within the Mobilization area of our site.

Additional questions and answers regarding this will be placed at a later date on the HRC-STL Web site: www.hrc.army.mil.

According to Hersh's article, Rumsfeld set up a "Special Access Program" (SAP) which is another word for a "black" or covert program and picked Stephen Cambone (appointed Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in 3/03) to head the program. Cambone is a Rumsfeld "favorite son," and from the description in the article, an extremely zealous one. The SAP goes under a number of code names - one of which is "Copper Green."

Apparently, Rumsfeld got frustrated with Special Operations units in Afghanistan having to clear action through the CIA rather than to be able to strike immediately. The response was the establishment of a covert project that allowed immediate action by operators, and created a "no rules apply" environment in the interrogation of Al Qaeda suspects. In the spring of 2003, this approach was applied in Guantanamo, and then carried to Iraq in the late summer of 2003 (in the person of General Miller).

According to Hersh's sources:

"Rumsfeld's goal was to get a capability in place to take on a high-value target--a standup group to hit quickly," a former high-level intelligence official told me. "He got all the agencies together--the C.I.A. and the N.S.A.--to get pre-approval in place. Just say the code word and go." The operation had across-the-board approval from Rumsfeld and from Condoleezza Rice, the national-security adviser. President Bush was informed of the existence of the program, the former intelligence official said."

The project recruited operatives from the elite forces of the military and intelligence communities, gave them secret identities, and a hidden budget (not traceable by Congressional oversight). "Fewer than two hundred operatives and officials, including Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were "completely read into the program,".

As the situation in Iraq continued to deteriorate, the SAP extended from "high value targets" to "dead enders" (folks who took $300 from unspecified people to shoot at convoys), and ultimately (from other reports folks just in the wrong place at the wrong time). It was decided to "Gitmoize" Iraq.

The solution, endorsed by Rumsfeld and carried out by Stephen Cambone, was to get tough with those Iraqis in the Army prison system who were suspected of being insurgents. A key player was Major General Geoffrey Miller, the commander of the detention and interrogation center at Guantánamo, who had been summoned to Baghdad in late August to review prison interrogation procedures. The internal Army report on the abuse charges, written by Major General Antonio Taguba in February, revealed that Miller urged that the commanders in Baghdad change policy and place military intelligence in charge of the prison. The report quoted Miller as recommending that "detention operations must act as an enabler for interrogation."

"Miller's concept, as it emerged in recent Senate hearings, was to "Gitmoize" the prison system in Iraq--to make it more focussed on interrogation. He also briefed military commanders in Iraq on the interrogation methods used in Cuba--methods that could, with special approval, include sleep deprivation, exposure to extremes of cold and heat, and placing prisoners in "stress positions" for agonizing lengths of time. (The Bush Administration had unilaterally declared Al Qaeda and other captured members of international terrorist networks to be illegal combatants, and not eligible for the protection of the Geneva Conventions.)"

As I have speculated in earlier articles, it seems highly unlikely that such abuses were confined to Iraq (or even Abu Ghraib). This is confirmed in the Hersh article: "The commandos were to operate in Iraq as they had in Afghanistan. The male prisoners could be treated roughly, and exposed to sexual humiliation." And obviously from the quote above - at Guantanamo and other, perhaps more secret, facilities.

Side note Interestingly, MSNBC did a special report on the CIA's secret prison system which has now "disappeared" from the MSNBC site. There is a related article however that was in the Washington Post on 5/10/04) (Secret World of U.S. Interrogation - UTJ permanent link). There is also an interesting piece - The CIA and Torture, On the Record - which is worth reading.

The taking of pictures of abuse and torture was also not confined to Abu Ghraib. An article in the UK Observer (5016/04) states that this is used at Guantanamo as well. This provides outside confirmation of Hersh's claims that the basis for interrogation methods for the "special treatment" is based on ""The Arab Mind," a study of Arab culture and psychology, first published in 1973, by Raphael Patai, " which claimed "The segregation of the sexes, the veiling of the women . . . and all the other minute rules that govern and restrict contact between men and women, have the effect of making sex a prime mental preoccupation in the Arab world,...". One of Hersh's sources claimed "the bible of the neocons on Arab behavior."

JAG apparently went to the New York City Bar Association's Committee on International Human Rights, asking them to challenge the Bush Administration about its standards for detentions and interrogation." This tidbit was brought up in a slightly different context by the LA Times 5/14/04 article - U.S. Military Lawyers Felt 'Shut Out' of Prison Policy, and the subject of the UTJ 5/14 piece - Are Rumsfeld's Interrogation Rules OK.

Hersh's article clearly points to other issues that have been raised here at Uncommon Thought regarding the disdain for rules and controls by the Bush Administration, and their propensity for operating secretly. As is evident with "Copper Green," they are also finding ways to create government financed and unmonitorable ways to fund these activities - and to institutionalize their "loops" which seem to exclude everyone that would normally be involved. The issue of the "private interrogators" involved at Abu Ghraib also raises issues.

First, of course has been the concern about contractors being "outside the law" and outside of accountability as well. However, there are increasing rumors that these "private contractors" are not so private, but special forces and other elites from the military and intelligence communities covertly assigned to private corporations. This fits in perfectly with Hersh's description of this particular SAP. However, it also points to the collusion of private corporations in a secret operation - namely Titan and CACI. It raises the immediate question of the military-industrial complex and the web of relationships between private corporations, government appointees, and military contacts. It is perhaps an excellent example of it, but that is a topic for further research. What is clear here, is that it is unlikely that these "investigators" could have been put in place without some sort of exchange and influence with the corporations involved.

Links to the Hersh "Annals of Security" series
Torture at Abu Ghraib

Chain of Command

The Gray Zone

Ok, this would seem to be big news, but thus far isn't getting much play. Here we have dump trucks hauling nuclear waste. To where? For what? Is this a safe process? And a leaky dump truck at that?

Stronium-90 can be absorbed by contact, breathing, or ingesting it. It seeps into ground water. If you got to Tests Confirm Contamination of Hwy. 95, you can play the TV news report of the incident. It is claimed in the report that there was no urgency to close the Highway 95 because there was little threat to vehicles passing over it. Why? Because of the "porous road surface."

Wait a minute. Enough of the material leaked out of the truck for them to notice it was missing. How much exactly leaked, and over how great a distance? Wouldn't it be both picked up by passing vehicles as well as made airborne and dispersed by them?

The EPA site says that it is best to determine possible contamination by humans as soon as possible as 70-90% passes out of the system relatively quickly. There were no reports from WLTV that any action was being taken other than closing Highway 95, and determining levels of contamination.

One would think that dump trucks might not be the safest way to transport nuclear material - either for environmental or national security reasons.

+++ Below are the reports from WVLT and some deeper information on Bechtel+++

Side Info on Bechtel
Bechtel apparently has a contract with ORNL, or with the transport of nuclear materials. Bechtel is a major Defense Contractor also operating in Iraq.

"Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel Group) is the largest civil engineering company in the world. With headquarters in San Francisco, Bechtel ranks as the 6th-largest dompany in the United States. As of 2002, Bechtel had 47,000 employees working on 900 projects with $11.6 billion in revenue Bechtel Corporation)."

George Schultz sits on the Board of Bechtel. He was Secretary of State (1982 to 89, and Secretary of the Treasury from 1972 to 1974. He served as Nixon's Secretary of Labor from 1969 -70, and then as Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1972-74. He is a member of the board for Charles Schwab, and a member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (George Schultz). This committee has close links to the Project for a New American Century (yes them), and the American Enterpirse Institute - both sources of foreign policy input for the current administration (Committee for the Liberation of Iraq).

WVLT print reports

5/15/04 WVLT, Knoxville, Tests Confirm Contamination of Hwy. 95
Officials of the U.S. Department of Energy, the State of Tennessee and Bechtel Jacobs Company are continuing to respond Saturday to the incident involving the leakage of radioactive contaminated water onto Highway 95 north of Bethel Valley Road and south of Bear Creek Road on Friday.

Surveys of the road's surface were completed around 3:00am Saturday morning. Tests confirm the road's surface is contaminated in several places.

A recovery plan to address the removal of the contamination is being developed and is being coordinated with the State of Tennessee. State and local officials are continuing to monitor the situation at the site and Highway 95 remains closed.

A Citizen Hotline is open and available to the public. If you have concerns or traveled in the area of Highway 95 north of Bethel Valley Road to the intersection of Bear Creek Road on Friday, you should call 362-8600 with any questions.

5/15/04 11:27am

5/16/04 WVLT, Knoxville, Delayed Response Brings Investigation The Department of Energy and contractor Bechtel Jacobs are still not saying why it took nearly five hours to shut down an Oak Ridge highway, contaminated by radioactive material.

High 95 between Bethel Valley and Bear Creek Roads will remain closed the rest of the weekend, as crews continue digging up and repaving parts of the road that were contaminated.

Photos show radioactive material dripped out the back of a dump truck, Friday, around 11:00am, but the Department of Energy didn't contact TEMA about the emergency until almost four hours later.

The delayed alert has led to an immediate investigation by the DOE and TEMA, but that's all anyone will say. no one is willing to provide a real explanation why it took so long for TEMA to be informed and Highway 95 to be shut down.

"We don't know, we'll have to look back and see what time that we were called, and what time every other organization was called," said Roane County spokesperson Scott Stout.

Meanwhile, Bechtel Jacobs will continue conducting vehicle inspections for any car or truck that drove through the area after the leak, before Highway 95 was hut down.

Just go to Portal 3, on Manhattan Boulevard in the East Tennessee Technology Park between 1:00 and 4:00pm, Sunday afternoon.

5/16/04 1:11am

"The pattern I'm seeing is that they are not being evaluated very thoroughly," said Kaye Baron, a clinical psychologist in Colorado Springs. Baron treats soldiers in her private practice and helps the Department of Veterans Affairs evaluate the mental health of soldiers leaving the Army.

Baron said the Army is not properly diagnosing or treating soldiers who have mental problems. Instead, some are pushed out of the Army, making them feel worse.

"Why is the military discounting the problems? Why are they disposing of people? Do they not have the resources? Are they in denial? Is it corruption? I'd like to know," Baron said. "My belief is that we should honor these soldiers and acknowledge that these people are going to be affected."

Among the incidents:

Two soldiers deployed from Fort Carson apparently committed suicide in Iraq, according to soldiers and data compiled by United Press International. Another two Fort Carson died in Iraq in incidents reported as "non-combat-related" weapons discharges -- a term employed by the Pentagon to refer to accidents or suicides.

In March, Special Forces Chief Warrant Officer William Howell shot himself in the head in front of his Monument, Colo., home just three weeks after returning to Fort Carson from Iraq. Before taking his own life, Howell beat his wife and threatened her with his .357-caliber revolver before putting the gun to his own temple and firing.

Interviews showed other frightening behavior:

"I wake up sometimes with a fat lip," said the husband of one soldier during an interview with the couple at a restaurant north of town. Since returning from Iraq last summer, his wife not only punches and hits him in her sleep, she recently "freaked out" during the day, punching and biting him in the belief that he intended to kill her.

Soldiers interviewed at Fort Carson insisted on anonymity for fear of retribution. They said they knew that the Army charged one Fort Carson soldier, Staff Sgt. Georg-Andreas Pogany, with cowardice last year after he apparently asked his chain of command for help with what he said was a panic attic in Iraq. That charge was dropped, but his legal status, career and medical care remain in limbo.

Like Pogany, some soldiers at Fort Carson are worried that some of the emotional turbulence may be long-term side effects from Lariam, an anti-malaria drug heavily used among troops deployed from the base. The Food and Drug Administration warns that Lariam may cause long-term depression, psychosis, aggression, anxiety, panic attacks and sleeping problems, and it warns about reports of suicide among users. Combat stress -- post-traumatic stress disorder -- also can produce those symptoms. Howell, the Special Forces soldier who committed suicide, took Lariam in Iraq.

One Special Forces soldier at Fort Carson said mental problems are occurring even in elite units returning from war, but soldiers will not admit it. "Everybody has it," this soldier said. "If somebody says they don't have it, they are lying."

"In Special Forces, you are supposed to be in an elite crowd. When you are in that type of field, you don't show any weakness, even when you are being torn up." He said he can't sleep and drinks too much. "We all came back with drinking problems," he said of his unit. He said his temper is frightening and that he sometimes has the urge to tackle problems "the way that I did over there" -- by killing.

Fort Carson spokesman Richard Bridges said Fort Carson would not respond to any questions on this article and would not allow a reporter on the base. The Department of the Army referred questions to Army Forces Command in Atlanta. Jack Coffey, a spokesman for Army Forces Command, did not respond to requests for comment made by phone and in writing.

Bridges has told reporters that soldiers must receive seven hours of counseling for a deployment. None of the soldiers interviewed by UPI said they had received seven hours of counseling. The Special Forces soldier said he had received his first mental health debriefing months after returning from war.

Steve Robinson, executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center and a retired Army Ranger, has visited returning troops in the United States and Europe. Post-traumatic stress disorder rates among troops from the first Gulf War ran around 6 percent, he said, but he estimates PTSD among veterans from Iraq at 14 percent and climbing. With well over 100,000 troops returning from Iraq this year, Robinson predicted a "wave" of serious issues among troops back home.

"We have not seen but the froth of the wave of people who will come back with mental problems," he said.

A soldier at Fort Carson with the 52nd Engineer Combat Battalion said he is suffering from anxiety attacks, sleeplessness and intense anger he said he did not have before serving in Iraq. He said the Army has diagnosed him with a major depression disorder. "I don't feel depressed," he said about the Army diagnosis. "But I guess I don't have to feel depressed to be depressed."

He claims that in Iraq a physician's assistant -- not a psychiatrist -- handed him anti-depressant drugs and sleeping pills. He also claims he was threatened because of his anger problems. "When I went to Combat Stress they told me that if I had one more outburst they would (put) me out (of the Army) with a personality disorder," the soldier said.

The wife of another soldier in that unit complained that her husband had become increasingly violent since returning from Iraq and recently tore off the top of the stove. "He threw the stovetop at me. He's always had a temper, but not like this," she said.

The mental issues at Fort Carson appear similar to problems across the country apparent in interviews at other bases, media reports and Pentagon data.

At least seven soldiers, including Howell, returned from Operation Iraqi Freedom and committed suicide, according to the Army. At least 23 soldiers committed suicide in Iraq and Kuwait during 2003. Another two soldiers have committed suicide there this year.

Two of the suicides in the United States occurred at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, the Army's flagship hospital. Soldiers there recently report at least two other suicide attempts among soldiers back from Iraq. Walter Reed spokesman Jim Stueve referred questions to the Army Surgeon General. The Surgeon General's office did not comment.

Army Reservist Lt. Brandon Ratliff, a veteran of Afghanistan, shot himself in the head last month after he lost a promotion promised to him by a city agency in Columbus, Ohio. At least six others who served in Operation Enduring Freedom, the broader "war on terrorism" including Afghanistan, have committed suicide after returning.

Other returning soldiers have turned their anger outward, with frightening and sometimes bizarre consequences.

Police say Master Sgt. Kenneth Lee Schweitzer walked into a bank in Keokuk, Iowa, in April, fired a large-caliber handgun into the air, demanded cash, and then drove to the local police department and surrendered. Schweitzer, an Iraq war veteran from the 101st Airborne Division, reportedly told police he wanted to be put in jail because he "just couldn't take it anymore." He reportedly chose a one-story bank so he could safely fire his weapon toward the ceiling.

Also in April, a soldier in the 82nd Airborne Division based at Fort Bragg, N.C., was charged with felony child abuse in the severe beating of his 2-year-old daughter. Authorities said alcohol did not appear to be a factor, the Fayetteville Observer reported. He had been in Iraq for a month earlier this year. It was not clear why his tour was so short.

Soldiers who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom have allegedly committed a total of four homicides since returning:

- In Columbus, Ga., four Fort Benning soldiers are charged in connection with the killing of a fifth a few days after returning from Iraq in July; police said one soldier stabbed the victim dozens of times, even piercing his skull.

- In Tampa, Fla., a soldier who returned from to MacDill Air Force Base last spring was charged with killing his girlfriend six weeks later. A police detective described the scene as gruesome, with "blood from one end of that apartment to the other" and the victim stabbed in the thigh, right arm and left eye and shot in the left arm, left cheek and left ear, according to the Denver Post.

- A third homicide is cited in an Army advisory team report on mental health problems among U.S. troops in Iraq. It occurred four months after the soldier's return, the report says: "The soldier allegedly shot and killed a man who was vandalizing his vehicle and committed suicide soon thereafter. Both soldiers had a history of psychiatric treatment." The report notes "the possibility that (Iraq)-related factors" played a role.

- Most recently, an Army sergeant back from a year in Iraq is charged with drowning his wife in April near Fort Lewis, Wash. His family told reporters that he had changed in Iraq, where he drove heavy equipment.

The Special Forces soldier interviewed near Fort Carson predicted more problems as returning soldiers have trouble readjusting to civilian life. "Give it two months, when all these people are back," he said.

Baron, the clinical psychologist in Colorado Springs, worries that some soldiers' problems may last a long time. She estimates she has evaluated more than 700 veterans over the past 18 months, including around 50 back from Iraq in the past few months.

"This war is going to cause a detriment to our society," she said.

Think of it. At least 1,600 different photos were taken by US soldiers to amuse their children and grandchildren, if they are ever asked, “Daddy, what did you do during the Iraq war?” Both mom and dad can boast of campaign medals, and a pictorially certified ability to mix war with pleasure, in case corporate Jones next door gets too cocky.

The other terrible thing was the beheading of Nicholas Berg.

President George W. Bush said that "there's no justification" for the execution of Berg. Those who beheaded him wanted to “ ‘shake’ America's resolve in bringing democracy to Iraq.” (AP, May 12).

Reality check. I don’t think the United States ever brought, encouraged or maintained democracy anywhere except Western Europe after WWII. Read it here.

"Their intention is to shake our will," Bush said. "Their intention is to shake our confidence…Yet by their actions they remind us of how desperately parts of the world need free societies. ... We will complete our mission, we will complete our mission." (AP, May 12).

There goes our kinderfuhrer again.

We have two very disturbing sets of images here, enough to make heads turn, distracting our gaze from some very creeping issues. The pictures are real, and gruesome, and that’s what makes them potent. Rowan Wolf recently did an excellent job of analyzing this attempt at perception management.

Bush is in trouble, but don’t ever think for a moment it’s over the recent bestial acts. Don’t ever think it’s over democracy or a moral dilemma. This was the man who holds the American gubernatorial record for the highest number of state executions. He sure enjoyed Karla Fay Tucker’s execution when he mimicked her plea for mercy. That mockery was mirrored in the faces of those army perverts recently.

Fact is the oil issue is just not going away.

“Rapid global economic expansion is fueling the biggest increase in world oil demand growth for 16 years,” according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). In its monthly Oil Market Report the Paris-based agency raised its forecast for incremental oil demand in 2004 by 270,000 barrels a day to 1.95 million bpd on the 80.6 million bpd world market.”

US oil prices set “13-year high of $40.38 a barrel” on May 12, and OPEC is vacillating at present. “The price spike has come during the second quarter, when world oil demand is at its lowest seasonal ebb, raising concerns about prices later in the year, as demand rises again.” (Reuters, May 12).

The IEA says “further investment in oil exploration and refining” is “needed to sustain higher consumption. The high oil price was a significant factor behind the record US monthly trade deficit for March…US petrol inventories” on May 12 “fell unexpectedly in the latest weekly report.” (FT, May 12).

The US has a large inventory, a huge buffer stock for contingencies like war, or a 70s-style oil blackmail. The situation now is more complex. Supply lines can be secured but what can you do when demand outpaces supply? You may control a war. Controlling demand for oil from countries like China, or even within the US is next to impossible.

“An increase in drilling and investments in refining capacity is required if the demand projections are to be sustainable," the IEA report said.” (FT, May 12).

Here is a chance for Bush to ramrod his drilling plans over environmental objections, and other social concerns. The US people are “softened up” now. When they need oil, the war can take on a different perspective, if managed well. The world economy is on the rebound, and US consumerism is still upbeat, but only barely so. Huge oil prices can burn a good summer vacation to ashes when demand is at the yearly peak.

Jim Placke from the Cambridge Energy Research Associates in Washington claims we have reached a “critical point…If you don't start going out to explore for and produce new resources, (then) three to five years from now when you need them they're not going to be there.” (FT, May 12).

A real problem indeed! Imagine the looming chaos in a “most optimistic scenario.” It won’t be quite like the following.

"People enjoy bigger cars and SUVs and then scream bloody murder when there are higher gas prices," said Fadel Gheit, an oil analyst with Oppenheimer & Co. (Detroit Free Press, May 11)

Murder? Whose? Oil refineries cannot cope and for the time being, neither can OPEC. Was this predicted a long time back and a war planned over it? US dependence on oil seems suspiciously deliberate but its short-term needs are real.

Still, the war president took time off to discuss the prison-abuse scandal and other aspects of the Iraq war on May 12 with Angolan President Jose Eduardo dos Santos. Bush makes no difference between a poor Angola and those browbeating international bigwigs. Forget the fact that Angola was ravaged during the Cold War with the connivance of the US and Apartheid South Africa

It is incidental too that “Angola is one of the largest exporters of oil in sub-Saharan Africa,” (AP, May 12) and is pumping oil below par along with “Brazil and Oman.” (Reuters, May 12).

That Venezuelan enfant terrible Hugo Chavez and other recalcitrant leaders of oil producing nations better beef up their personal protection squads.

“Higher energy costs fueled the biggest producer price gains in over a year in April. Wal-Mart the world's biggest retailer raised the prospect that higher fuel costs could hurt its sales.” (Reuters, May 13).

This is BIG news. Wal-Mart was named the top Fortune 500 Company only a few weeks back. Throughout the United States, “retail sales slowed in April as consumers cut back on car and clothing purchases, and “first-time jobless claims… came in higher than expected.” The first gulf war occurred 13 years back. The trickle down effect on the US economy is going to be enormous. The super rich will have a tough time passing the buck. When the rest of the world starts feeling the pinch, you can guess one of the outcomes…

Here is another thing that is worrying the war president.

“Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost more than $50 billion next year… “ The war bill will be close “to $75 billion in the budget year that starts Oct. 1.” (AP, May 13).

Coupled with those unnerving photos, war outrageous, terrorism and the threat of an impending economic disaster, the American public can be “softened up” for anything. Violence will escalate assuredly, and Rumsfeld has vouched for that yet again in Iraq.

Bush badly wants “unfettered control” of the extra $25 billion. With that beheading, making Americans feeling unsafe everywhere, why not? This request came at the right time.

“The White House's $25 billion request has scant detail but says the president could transfer funds to any defense or classified accounts just by telling lawmakers five days in advance.” (AP, May 13)

Such unrestrained executive powers and the timing didn’t bother Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, who supports the $25 billion request at a time when Republicans are getting cantankerous. Don’t blame it on the Skull and Bones old boys network alone. Yale is one of those Ivy League institutions that crank out more duffers than scholars. The worst, it seems, is Harvard, where many selections border on the fraudulent, quite like the US presidency, I should say.

The latest developments raise a lot of questions even if one loathes calling it a “softening up” process.

Berg’s videotaped decapitation was posted on May 11 by an al-Qaeda-linked Web site. How many times have we heard of Al Qaeda linked websites, right in the face of the US Patriot Acts? US authorities have the tools to intrude into every home and machine, and can set a trace, through various means, that could lead all the way to Osama Bin Laden’s lair. The RIAA demonstrated such tools so expertly when they tracked down grandmas and kids with pirated shareware music. Read it (here)

Is there a genuine moral outrage?

The Denver Post, disclosed recently that “three Army soldiers from a military-intelligence battalion were accused of assaulting a female Iraqi inmate at Abu Ghraib. After an administrative review, the three were fined ‘at least five hundred dollars and demoted in rank’.”(The New Yorker, Chain of Command, By Seymour M. Hersh (May 9).

The punishment must have been unbearable. Five hundreds bucks can’t get you anywhere in Kuala Lumpur for too long.

On January 16th, three days after the Army received the pictures, its Central Command issued “a blandly worded, five-sentence press release about an investigation into the mistreatment of prisoners.” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was informed, and he informed the president as well. “Images” of the tortures…“were being swapped from computer to computer throughout the 320th Battalion,” prompting General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to persuade 60 Minutes II to “delay its story.” (New Yorker, May 9)

Marine General Peter Pace, the Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the delay was caused by the structured chain of command that works “in a very systematic way.” It takes time “to read all of the documentation, get legal advice [and] make the decisions that are appropriate.” (New Yorker, May 9)

Was this same chain of command that informed Bush about Iraq’s WMD, 9/11 complicity, Uranium purchases, Al Qaeda links etc? They sure acted fast, even before 9/11 with all their quack intelligence, documentation and legal advice.

Watch out for “rumblings within the top brass” and recriminations among elected officials. They were not informed, and they are angry. While this drama is played out, watch the oil situation and that stupid economy. Our head are being turned in the wrong direction.

Here is another thing that doesn’t add up unless you think the whole charade was meticulously planned, right after that Texan lassoed the presidency even when he fell off his horse.

“Right from the outset, Pentagon planners opted for the most optimistic scenarios in Iraq, with only ‘handful of combat brigades’ needed in Iraq in mid 2004.” There are 130,000-odd US troops there now. (New Yorker, May 9).

Only military fools would opt for “most optimistic scenarios” in Iraq. Is this devious planning or a criminal miscalculation? Whatever the case, the soldiers there are close to becoming sitting ducks, while believing their superiors, serving a mediated hysteria, and in death, boosting righteous political proclamations back home.

No-nonsense Rumsfeld will not be distracted by the “isolated pockets of international hyperventilation.” He is the one who urged the top brass to “break the ‘belt-and-suspenders’ mindset in the “military, ” some time back. (New Yorker, May 9)

He wanted more Iraqi bones and souls broken. For Sept 11? “Bin Laden” has been substituted with “Al Qaeda” these days with strange irregularity in the Press. One brilliant plan would be to drop Bin Laden’s body in the center of Baghdad just before the November elections. That’s your WMD! Then, everything will fall into place. The US army would have captured 9/11’s mastermind - dead - and prove prior Iraqi collusion. Something “more terrible” is going to happen in September or October.

Here is something curious: Months earlier, “Major General Geoffrey Miller, the commander of the task force in charge of the prison at Guantánamo,” brought in “a team of experts to Iraq to review the Army program. His recommendation was radical: that Army prisons be geared, first and foremost, to interrogations and the gathering of information needed for the war effort.” (New Yorker, May 9)

What in the world were they doing all the while? Everything other than “gathering information needed for the war effort”? Serving the US porn industry? This was not a POW camp. There is hardly any other task in a war in such situations.

“We have changed this (culture of abuse)—trust us,” Miller told reporters in early May.

Tony Blair’s envoy Ann Clwyd, doesn’t seem to agree. “The Labour MP said she had visited Abu Ghraib prison and raised concerns with the general in charge - although this was not the officer now being investigated. ‘I was particularly concerned that so many prisoners are being held there over a long period of time, that their families quite often don't know they are even there,’ she said.” (BBC online, April 30).

Who exactly was that general in charge?

A properly trained team of army interrogators can extract information without force. They just need a good psychiatrist to teach them some proven methods that are probably illegal, yet non-violent nor damaging to the internee. Army boys can do it cheaper too.

Instead, “private companies like CACI and Titan Corp that “pay salaries of well over a hundred thousand dollars for the dangerous work in Iraq, far more than the Army pays, and were permitted, as never before in U.S. military history, to handle sensitive jobs.” (New Yorker, May 9) CACI’s interrogator-extraordinaire Steven Stefanowicz has been “reassigned to administrative duties.” That’s not really his realm of expertise.

These had nothing to do with extracting information I guess and we can expect a repeat of the Lt William Calley show trial. Remember he was a lieutenant. That was no trial as the Geneva convention are meant for others, not the US, especially since it was drafted in 1864 by Henry Dunant, a Swiss whose name sounds suspiciously French. What was happening in the United States around that time? Freeloading slaves who were running riot with joy? No other democracy has consistently produced war criminals befitting a trial at The Hague. Their self-denials contort the mind.

“In March 2003, when several U.S. soldiers had been captured, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz reminded the Iraqis “that there are very clear obligations under the Geneva Convention to treat prisoners humanely. We treat our own prisoners, and there are hundreds of Iraqi prisoners, extremely well. We feed them, we take care of them, they're very safe with us." (Chicago Tribune, Abuses in Iraq highlight standards for treatment May 12)

That’s great. Lets hear it for Wolfie. He should have added that there are pretty white nurses at Abu Ghraib as well, who are into kinky stuff, decked in army uniforms. They are intellectual too, erecting physical contortions to check whether the Giza pyramids could hold BDSM chambers.

Now, amidst all this sordid drama, you need to laugh a little more for your own sanity, and who else but John Kerry can provide that?

The mysteries of Giza cannot be unraveled at Abu Ghraib, it seems. His solution? Why Republican Sen. John McCain will be his Defense Secretary, should he win the election. McCain must have been a trifle embarrassed, issuing a "No thanks, no thanks,” for the magnanimous offer. Kerry wants Rumsfeld to resign. McCain was the one who asked us to take a “deep breath and get all the facts,” when Rumsfeld was getting pounded. McCain also wants Bush re-elected. (Reuters, May 12).

Ask yourselves again. Does Kerry want to get elected?

The fun stops when Kerry does nothing over the Nicholas Berg case.

The unfortunate man was jailed for almost two weeks in Iraq and “US officials repeatedly questioned him in custody”. Notice that he was wearing that orange jumpsuit – a standard issue at US prisons - when he was murdered. “Also unknown is where and under what circumstances Berg disappeared. He was last in contact with US officials in Baghdad on April 10, and his body was found recently in Baghdad. Iraqi police” supposedly “arrested Berg in Mosul on March 24 because local authorities believed he may have been involved in ‘suspicious activities’.”

It stretches one’s imagination that the Iraqi police can arrest an American citizen for “suspicious activities”. His father, Michael Berg rightfully asks, “Who do they think they're kidding?”

According to his father, Berg said “U.S. officials took custody of him soon after his arrest and he was not allowed to make phone calls or contact a lawyer.”

That’s the kind of freedom Bush is promising the Iraqis. “Yet by their actions they remind us of how desperately parts of the world need free societies.”

“Political psychologist Stanley Renshon of City University of New York said it was ‘a matter of strategic stupidity’ for the terrorists to release the Berg video now.” It is giving Bush an invaluable hedge. “Brookings Institution presidential specialist Thomas Mann,” concurred, more or less, saying, “Americans will be outraged at Berg's killing” and might “demand retribution.” (AP, May 12).

Berg was working “at night on a (communications) tower” in where else but the Abu Ghraib area. (AP, May 12).

Yes, it was Olympian stupidity for the terrorist to kill a man detained by US authorities, and whose family filed a suit against the US government for detaining him illegally, soon after they were questioned by the FBI at their home in West Chester, Pennsylvania. This man’s late sister was married to an Iraqi. He met his Iraqi relatives and was popular with employees at Baghdad’s Al Fanar Hotel, where he stayed.

“Berg was a ‘nice guy’ who ‘always smiled and said hello,’ unlike other foreign guests. ‘Once he told me, 'I'd like to learn Arabic.'”(AP, May 12). This was said on condition of anonymity.

This contradicts official the official version.

"The people we talked to at the hotel didn't remember him being there,” according to State Department spokeswoman Kelly Shannon.

The Iraqi police don’t remember detaining Berg either.

Bizarre indeed and a monumental stupidity for “Jihadists” not to have used his Jewish faith as a pretext for murder. When it comes to geographical and cultural stupidity, one nation towers way above others.

“In a writ filed April 5 in US District Court in Philadelphia, the Bergs said the State Department told them their son ‘is currently detained in Mosul, Iraq, by the United States military’ and that American diplomats ‘no longer’ had ‘any authority or power to intervene’ on his behalf. Berg was released the day after the suit was filed.” (AP, May 12).

No longer had any power to intervene? The occupying power’s writ is the only one that officially runs in Iraq.

The big questions: Why was he detained? What were the “suspicious circumstances” in his case? Did he stumble upon something very damaging to the US military and needed to be silenced? How can an American citizen be treated this way and be released right after a suit is filed? How in the world, can one even convince the world that the Iraqis arrested him?

With tools available under the Patriot Act, his emails can be intercepted and stored. Let’s see them. As his family suggested, they could have just packed him off to a waiting military plane and sent him back to the US. Officials claim there was just such an offer.

A popular guy, he was teaching Iraqis how to email. Did he do that from his favorite Room no 602? That could be significant as tapping would be easy; he would predictably use that room.

Let’s see. You have brutalized Iraqis, GI fall guys, and a decapitated American whose cold-blooded killing can be viewed on the net. Imagine our outrage.

The macabre video was titled "Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi slaughtering an American.” A real terrorist masks his identity, not just his face. I haven’t seen Zarqawi’s picture before but the figure in that video was beefy and muscular. The CIA claims it’s him. He came in at the right time to remind Americans of the enemy’s greater barbarity. In moments like this, Al Qaeda, makes a predictable appearance that does propaganda wonders for Bush.

Berg also looked a little calm. He didn’t appear as the frightened lamb for slaughter. The man in the orange US prison suit didn’t know he was about to die? If he knew or even suspected, he will not allow himself to die that way. He will scream expletives and flail right till the end. Or say a prayer. He was doing neither. Berg was learning Arabic, and would have learnt enough to sense his death sentence. Among the first words he would have learnt in Iraq would be “die”, “kill”, “body”, “shoot”, “revenge”, “run” etc.

"More bad things will come out, unquestionably… I've stopped reading newspapers,” Rumsfeld told his troops in Iraq. "You've got to keep your sanity somehow. I'm a survivor." (AP, May 13).

Yeah, Herr Rumsfeld is a survivor all right, while others die! Wherever he goes “bad things” happen.

Is something bad happening to Saddam? The Iraqis will celebrate that but we want to hear his whole story first, ok? Feed him regularly with memory-enhancing medication and make sure he remains sane. It would be odd if his defense lawyers remember a good deal more than the man himself or for that matter, pesky journalists.

There are other bad things in store.

There is a high premium now for captured female soldiers. I had alluded this earlier at the Fall Guys Syndrome Pt II piece. The carnal mind in a battlefield picks its victims well. The torture inflicted is going to be barbaric; the social trauma back home will be great. The US army will have no choice but to expend enormous resources to rescue a woman soldier. There will be many Jessica Lynch hunts from now on, only this time they will be real. This leaves the army little room for maneuver, exposing vulnerable flanks for the enemy to exploit. Those sadistic wenches in US uniform still don’t realize what they have unleashed…

May 15, Kuala Lumpur
Copyright@ 2004 Mathew Maavak

Founder, Panoptic World
Tracking Trends in Our Evolving Society
www.maavak.net

Well, I am relieved to learn that it was all consensual, having feared that gang sex without consent was what had attracted the secret gathering of scores of America's highest officials to spend hours gawking at pornographic videotapes. Equally reassuring was the Senator's observation that everyone was naked. The level of depravity would be hard to imagine were soldiers having group sex with their clothes on. I suppose rumors of such a remarkable occurrence might have boosted attendance at the sessions.

I have to remind myself sharply that these astute observations come from the lips of an American Senator before getting too picky about fine points. Senators receive lifetime sinecures from wealthy benefactors who aren't in the business of rewarding brains or independence or critical thought.

It is hard to imagine a more pompous and foolish group than America's existing and recent-past stock of Senators. Whenever I hear Senator John Warner, I think he should change his name to something along the lines of Senator Quackenbush or Blunderbuss. Either of these names seems more fitting for a man who regularly delivers obvious trivialities with baritone gravity. The man is a walking Mount Rushmore figure with the brain of a gnat.

Another light unto the world, Senator Norm Coleman, added, "It was pretty disgusting, not what you'd expect from Americans. There was lots of sexual stuff, not of the Iraqis, but of our troops."

I'm sure glad he added that clarification about not involving Iraqis, but you have to wonder how anyone could entertain the notion of handcuffed men, beaten and peed-on, with hoods tied around their necks managing "sexual stuff."

You wouldn't expect much in the arts of seduction from a chunky-faced throwback who hails from a trailer park and probably enjoys ripping heads off chickens while watching The Price is Right. The idea of her having sex with prisoners recalls a Lina Wertmüller film in which a sadistic and disgustingly-ugly German prison-guard takes off her uniform and leather straps and boots and orders her pitiable Italian prisoner - played by Giancarlo Giannini, who has attempted to win a few crusts of bread by flattering her - "Now, you fuck!" Poor Giancarlo.

Why would a Senator say it's not what you expect from Americans? He could be in trouble back home if he's interpreted as questioning the red-bloodedness of American troops. Senator, have you forgotten how the troops used to relish duty in the Philippines or Thailand where they qualified as doing patriotic duty while engaged in the kind of predatory sexual tourism other people get arrested for? After turning about half the female population under fourteen within a twenty-mile radius of Subic Bay into prostitutes, America was finally thrown out by the Philippines' government.

Coleman also might reflect on the heritage of his own august institution. The late Senator John Tower had to give up his cabinet post after revelations about years of chasing women around desks in a state of stupefied drunkenness. Senator Bob Packwood became known for greeting attractive female visitors by thrusting his tongue into their mouths and reaching under their skirts. Senator Ted Kennedy is reported once as having ducked under his linen-and-crystal-covered table for a quick one with a female reporter in a fancy Washington restaurant. A KGB report, recorded in a history of the Cuban missile crisis, tells of Robert Kennedy asking his Soviet Intourist guide to send a prostitute to his room.

A few more names confirm the illustrious moral character of the American Senate: David Dorenberger, Dan Quayle, Trent Lott, Roman Hruska. Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Bob Smith, Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Robert Torricelli, and Carol Moseley Braun - certainly not all associated with "sexual stuff," but offering an interesting mix of fraud, lunacy, and dangerous stupidity.

Then there's the simple statistic that the United States has the highest rate of illegitimacy of any developed country.

One of the world's leading pompous windbags, Senator Joe Lieberman, was quoted as saying, "It just deepens the conclusion that this was a cell block that had gone wild." I'm grateful to the Senator for pointing that out. It must have been difficult for a man of Lieberman's high character to endure hours of depraved lunacy in order to reach such a profound judgment. It shows real dedication to the job.

I may risk being labeled a quibbler, but I do have to ask why the grotesque pictures already in the public domain aren't more than sufficient evidence for the Senator's point? Maybe in Senator Lieberman's state, piles of naked men in hoods, dog leashes on prostrate men, and black-and-blue corpses stuffed into plastic bags with ice cubes are regarded as something less than wild? It must have required that extra bit about group sex to put things over the top for Senator Lieberman. Killing has never been known to bother him greatly, but he's always touchy about sex.

The interesting part of Lieberman's comment is his use of "cell block." Note how that neatly limits responsibility. It's not the prison as a whole, not the army, not the brutal occupation, and not the bloody, pointless invasion. It's a cellblock. Of course, this ignores the fact that these pictures had been circulating among American troops in Iraq for months, and it ignores persistent reports of widespread abuse from independent human-rights agencies. You might think that a Jewish man of Lieberman's generation would be at least slightly reluctant to promote the idea that only local juniors are responsible for horror.

Why would Lieberman want to make his sleazy little point? Because Senator Lieberman always supports the dumb use of force, the fist in the face of disagreeable foreigners, at least when that fist is connected to the United States..

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell added, "I don't know how the hell these people got into our army." Hello, Senator Campbell, remember Lieutenant Calley?

It is interesting that for many of the Senators, the object of disgust is the "sexual stuff," not evidence of torture or abuse or murder. In fact, there is every reason to believe that many of these pictures show acts far more ghastly than group sex with a consenting cretin. By emphasizing the "sexual stuff," these American politicians assure themselves some public support for not releasing the images. Heavens, we sure don't want group sex on television during dinner hour!

The Senators seem to agree with Secretary Rumsfeld that America might be violating the Geneva Conventions by releasing tapes and pictures that demean prisoners. In other words, if you beat, torture, and shoot prisoners, you must observe the niceties by not releasing any pictures you take. That's what I like so much about America, its high moral tone in the midst of sickening horror.

Now this goes to the realm of the stupid in my opinion. It seems totally unwise, and an invasion of privacy, to give private corporations access to tax payer information. As noted in the GovExec article:

"Privatizing the function is not only the most inefficient way to collect tax debts," said NTEU President Colleen Kelley in a statement criticizing the Senate bill. "It puts private and sensitive taxpayer information at unacceptable risk by making it available to the most complained-about industry in America -- debt collectors."

Previous attempts to outsource debt collection have failed, Kelley noted. But the Bush administration supports the limited use of private debt collectors to free up resources for IRS agents to focus on more complex enforcement cases. The president proposed private collection in his fiscal 2004 and 2005 budget requests. "

Yet another opportunity to write your legislators.

"The sanctions cover all US exports with the exception of food, medicine, commercial jet spare parts and communication equipment that would help keep Damascus in touch with the outside world."

"The measures also include a ban on flights between Syria and the US, authority for the US Treasury to freeze the assets of Syrian nationals and entities involved in terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and the occupation of Lebanon. There will also be curbs on ties between the US banking system and Syria's national bank."

Noted in the article is that the US had suggested at one point that Syria might be the "next in line" for invasion. Is this signal being re-sent?

The US is attacked over Afghan 'abuse' runs the 5/13/04 BBC headline. Human RIghts Watch claims to have documented "numerous cases of mistreatment of detainees," similar to those reported in Iraq." That includes cases of sexual abuse of detainee and prisoners. A range of abuses were documented in the ICRC report as detailed in the BBC 5/10/04 article Red Cross details abuse claims:

Other facilities where mistreatment allegedly occurred include al-Baghdadi air base, Hubbania camp, Tikrit holding area, the defence ministry and a presidential palace in Baghdad.

The allegations include:

* Prisoners were kept naked in cells, in darkness and without facilities

* Prisoners were held for prolonged solitary confinement in cells with no daylight

* The actions of coalition forces in arresting suspects appeared to go beyond any legitimate use of force

* Prisoners were beaten, in one case leading to death

* Soldiers fired on unarmed prisoners from watchtowers, killing some

* The ill-treatment was widely tolerated, especially with regard to extracting information from Iraqis

* Methods of physical and psychological coercion were used by the military intelligence to gain confessions

There are reports of abuse by prisoners released from Guantanamo.
Afghans Freed from Guantanamo Accuse US of Mistreatment (AFP, 3/16/04), and a more detailed report by the BBC 3/14/04) from Britons finally released from Guantanamo after having been interrogated over 200 times by " the CIA, FBI, Defence Intelligence Agency, MI5 and MI6":

Revealed: the full story of the Guantanamo Britons
"Among other disclosures, the three men revealed:

· How early in their ordeal they survived a massacre perpetrated by Afghanistan's Northern Alliance troops who herded hundreds of prisoners into lorry containers and locked them in, so that people started to suffocate. Iqbal described how only 20 of 300 prisoners in each container lived, and then only because someone made holes in its side with a machine gun - an action which killed yet more prisoners;

· The existence of a secret super-maximum security facility outside the main part of Guantanamo's Camp Delta known as Camp Echo, where prisoners are held in tiny cells in solitary confinement 24-hours a day, with a military police officer permanently stationed outside each cell door. The handful of inmates of Camp Echo include two of the four remaining British detainees, Moazzem Begg and Feroz Abbasi, and the Australian, David Hicks;

· That they endured three months of solitary confinement in Camp Delta's isolation block last summer after they were wrongly identified by the Americans as having been pictured in a video tape of a meeting in Afghanistan between Osama bin Laden and the leader of the 11 September hijackers Mohamed Atta. Ignoring their protests that they were in Britain at the time, the Americans interrogated them so relentlessly that eventually all three falsely confessed. They were finally saved - at least on this occasion - by MI5, which came up with documentary evidence to show they had not left the UK;

· That their first interrogations by British investigators - from both MI5 and the SAS - took place in December 2001 and January 2002 when they were still being held at a detention camp in Afghanistan. Guns were held to their heads during their questioning in Afghanistan by American soldiers, and physical abuse and beatings were rife. At this point, after weeks of near starvation as prisoners of the Northern Alliance, all three men were close to death."

Meanwhile we have Harsh C.I.A. Methods Cited in Top Qaeda Interrogations (NYT, 5/13/04). A "graduated level of force" for interrogations were "were endorsed by the Justice Department and the C.I.A. The rules were among the first adopted by the Bush administration after the Sept. 11 attacks for handling detainees and may have helped establish a new understanding throughout the government that officials would have greater freedom to deal harshly with detainees." This is apparently the same techniques being used at Guantanamo, and carried from there to Abu Ghraib by General Miller.

Noted in the 5/13 NY Times article: "The methods employed by the C.I.A. are so severe that senior officials of the Federal Bureau of Investigation have directed its agents to stay out of many of the interviews of the high-level detainees, counterterrorism officials said. The F.B.I. officials have advised the bureau's director, Robert S. Mueller III, that the interrogation techniques, which would be prohibited in criminal cases, could compromise their agents in future criminal cases, the counterterrorism officials said." Further, that the US has sent detainees be interrogated in other nations (such as Libya, and Saudi Arabia) where the restrictions on the use of torture are known to be lax. This has become part of the "cooperative" arrangement between some nations and the US in the "war on terrorism"

Meanwhile, there are abuses within US borders, as noted by Tom Reeves - 63,000 and Counting: Mass Deportations Mostly Go Unnoticed (CounterPunch, 3/07/04); or this broad retrospective from Christopher Reed - Torture on the Homefront: America's Long History of Prison Abuse (CounterPunch, 5/11/04).

In a surprising article from ArmyTimes.com, the responsibility for the abuse of those held by the US military "extends all the way up the chain of command to the highest reaches of the military hierarchy and its civilian leadership." The author then goes on (emphasis mine) "The entire affair is a failure of leadership from start to finish. From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and isolated. The message to the troops: Anything goes."

We are living under an administration where the appellation of "terrorist" is used with a broad sweep. It is a term that embodies everyone from known "terrorist" organizations (such as Al Quaeda) to any Arab/Muslim within the US range of operations, to Arabs/Muslim immigrants and visitors to the US, to those who are picked up on drug charges, to environemntal groups, to the American Federation of Teachers. "Harsh" interrogation methods are automatically approved (apparently) for suspected "terrorists" (or any who might have information). Denial of basic rights to legal counsel, or even notification of family of one's whereabouts, is the rule. If brought to trial, "witnesses" who might clear you are held incommunicado if they to are "detainees."

To say that abuse is isolated or rare is insane. THe administration has established rules that legitimate abuse. Those rules and attitudes create an environment of "anything goes" in this "war." Given the lack of care or attention to ongoing abuse in our own prison system, I'm sure that the codification of this in the "war on terrorism" was a foregone conclusion. Afterall, the "cause" is "worthy" and "God is on our side," and "they" are all "terrorists."

Inhofe, joined the chorus of other voices saying essentially, that the abuse and torture of detainees in US custody was "no big deal." In fact that it is apparently justified and legitimate.

It is bad enough to hear this from the likes of Rush Limbaugh. It is terrifying to hear it from someone elected to uphold our Constitution.

In the United States, we operate under the rule of law. Vigilante justice and mob violence and revenge are not only unacceptable, they are illegal. The US military operates under additional rules of law - the US Military Code of Justice, the Geneva Convention, the International Human Rights Agreement, and others.

Inhofe argued that those being abused and tortured were "murders," "terrorists," and "insurgents." First, it makes no difference if they are, and second, most were not. According to the ICRC report from the Wall Street Journal, a Military Intelligence Officer is quoted as saying that 70-90% of the detainees are innocent. According to the Taguba report, there was no way to distinguish between the categories of prisoners held at Abu Ghraib.

To take this a step further, the detainees are not individuals who have been arrested, convicted, and sentenced. They have largely been picked up in stops and sweeps (sometimes simply for being neighbors of a suspect) and placed into indefinite detention. They are at best suspects.

Yesterday, a group claiming to be al Qaeda videotaped their murdering of a random American - Nicholas Berg. This too is an outrage. I heard this event being used to legitimate the abuse and torture of detainees with phrases like "See, this is what the people we are up against are doing." I am sorry, but the atrocities committed by others do not legitimate the atrocities committed by US forces - much less make a policy of atrocity appropriate.

I have heard that "these people" are shooting at us and trying to kill us. In open combat, there is a kill or be killed mentality. However, once that enemy puts down his or her arms and stands defenseless before you, it is not right to abuse or kill them. We may feel that it is right. We may feel the urge to revenge. We may feel massive anger, or even "righteous rage", but the law stands between us and taking that revenge.

In the US, there is a saying "Don't kick a man when he is down." We do not have a saying "When an opponent is helpless before you, mistreat abuse and kill him or her."

There is a difference between justice and revenge. Revenge, is an uncontrolled action by an individual or group in response to anger or fear or loss. Revenge is the killing and mutilation we saw in Falluja by a mob out of control. That mob, picked a target of opportunity, as the people yesterday picked Nicholas Berg. In the current environment in Iraq, racism and ethnocentrism is rampant. "They" are all guilty. "They" are all murderers. Any individual of the group bears full responsibility for the actions of any of the group. This is the same justification that lead to planes being used as bombs to kill people indiscriminately - all Americans were "guilty."

In Iraq, and particularly in the detention centers and prisons, being "Arab," being "Iraqi," being "Muslim" makes one immediately a "murder" or "terrorist." In Iraq, for some, being and American makes one immediately a "murderer" or an "enemy of Islam."

The rule of law stands between us and the mob. It stands between us and our basest instincts. It is there to protect the innocent from abuse, and to protect the guilty from revenge. It is there to impose rationality when irrational, violent action is the urge. To not be outraged by US troops, commanders, and policy makers throwing out that protection returns us to the rule of the mob. The struggle then becomes who can exact the most damage.

Neither US society, nor US military action is some rendition of the "fight club." We do not live (nor do I think we want to live) in a world of no holds barred, no rules in play, indiscriminate violence and revenge. The US military is not a vigilante force, and they should not be directed to be so. The US military is not a group of hired thugs to enforce the desires of their superiors.

Inhofe, and others are playing to the desire of some for revenge. They legitimate that revenge. Yesterday, Senator Inhofe said something to the effect that the good folks in Mackenzie Oklahoma (I think) thought the whole outrage was overblown. This was essentially no big deal. I wonder how comfortable his electorate really feels about the US military throwing out the rules and acting like hired guns against a random population of mostly innocent people. If they truly approve such an approach, then I think I will avoid Mackenzie. It must be a very dangerous place.

So am I outraged? You bet I am. I am outraged at the tacit approval of acting outside the bounds of law. I am outraged at those in power who legitimate the mob mentality as legitimate activity. My concern is that it seems that far too many are not outraged.

What was the BIG news prior to the public knowledge of Abu Ghraib? I believe that it was the 9-11 Committee hearings. In specific, it was the meeting of George Bush and Richard Cheney with the 9-11 Commission.

What was another BIG thing going on? A couple of Supreme Court cases related to detention of prisoners in the war on terrorirsm - Hamdi and Padilla. I discussed these briefly in Totally Ticked Off (4/28/04). And the connection of distraction is raised in this piece on The Daily Kos - Abu Ghraib and Gitmo (5/10/04). This ties directly to questions of detainees rights and the conditions of detainment being used by the US in the "war on terrorism."

Also on the Supreme's docket was Cheney's use of Executive Prvilege to not release the documents and names linked to the infamous Bush "energy" plan. Hmm.

Another piece of BIG news that has gotten lost in the issue of detainee abuse and torture also relates to the 9-11 investigation - Tape of Air Traffic Controllers Made on 9/11 Was Destroyed (5/07/04, NYT). A tape was made on the morning of 9/11/01 by air traffic controllers at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center, in Ronkonkoma, N.Y. The controllers had felt it was important to document what they had seen, actions they had taken, and orders they had received. A transcript was never made of the tape. Sometime between December 2001 and February 2002 a quality assurance manager took it upon himself to destroy the tape by breaking it up and scattering the tape in multiple trash barrels. Why? According to the QA manager :" he had destroyed the tape because he thought making it was contrary to Federal Aviation Administration policy, which calls for written statements, and because he felt that the controllers "were not in the correct frame of mind to have properly consented to the taping" because of the stress of the day." This was after a memo had been issued by the FAA"instructing officials to safeguard all records and adding, "If a question arises whether or not you should retain data, RETAIN IT.""

I'm sure there are other things that should go here, but these seem rather major. I am not saying that we should not be focusing on the events that have come to light (finally) about the abuse and torture of detainees by the US (and UK), rather that the timing of the release seems to have been coincidentally scripted to obscure other events. I have not one word of what actually came out of the Whitehouse "meeting." The Supreme Court cases go directly to issues related to the abuse of detainees and issues of transparency and law.

I just raise the coincidence. You can make of it what you will.

In a frightening but seemingly accurate depiction, Saletan gets at the idea of a perspective - perhaps we should call it "internal credibility." In the face of a reality that stands in stark contrast to the words (and actions) of Bush and his staff, there is little "ruffle." They just keep going along as if little or anything has happened to contradict their perception of reality. Saletan gives a couple of interesting examples of this fundamental disconnect and the Bush internal logic:

"Inside Bush's head, however, all is peaceful. "The oil revenues, they're bigger than we thought they would be," Bush boasted to Moran, evidently unaware that this heightened the mystery of why the revenues weren't covering the reconstruction. As to the WMD, Bush said the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq had confirmed that Iraq was "hiding things. A country that hides something is a country that is afraid of getting caught." See the logic? A country that hides something must be afraid of getting caught, and a country afraid of getting caught must be hiding something. Each statement validates the other, sparing Bush the need to find the WMD."

This is truly an amazing thing for what is probably the most secret administration the US has ever seen. It runs in the vain of "bad things happen to bad people." In the case of the abuse and torture of detainees this would mean that "they" were "bad" so bad things happen to them. One step from that though is that the people who died on 9/11/01 must have done something "bad" too. However Bush's internal logic places the "rightness" of his rule separate from any other comparison. Afterall, God tells him what to do. What more credibility does one need?

Amazing as it may seem, the reports of detainee abuse did not go through the usual chains of command within the Pentagon. They did however, go to Myers and Rumsfeld. The attempt was to keep things quiet. As Hersh notes in his article:

"In interviews, however, retired and active-duty officers and Pentagon officials said that the system had not worked. Knowledge of the nature of the abuses--and especially the politically toxic photographs--had been severely, and unusually, restricted. "Everybody I've talked to said, 'We just didn't know'--not even in the J.C.S.," one well-informed former intelligence official told me, emphasizing that he was referring to senior officials with whom such allegations would normally be shared. "I haven't talked to anybody on the inside who knew--nowhere. It's got them scratching their heads." A senior Pentagon official said that many of the senior generals in the Army were similarly out of the loop on the Abu Ghraib allegations."

Out of the loop. I have heard that before and recently. Didn't Cheney claim that Richard Clarke was "out of the loop" on terrorism information? The top counter-terrorist official in the Whitehouse was "out of the loop?" It brought back to mind a piece I did last August called Mechanisms of Control. In it I discussed the use of cliques of appointees across information as the sole channels of planning and communication. Thereby, keeping anyone not in the "clique" (or "loop" as Cheney called it) totally in the dark. So, it seems likely to me that Rumsfeld's handling of the abuse and torture in Iraq was Bush clique standard operating procedures.

But the keeping of critical information within the group, doesn't go to the issue of why it happeneded. If Herch's article is accurate (and I believe it is) then the "tone" of the approach to dealing with detainiees also came from the top (emphases are mine):

"No amount of apologetic testimony or political spin last week could mask the fact that, since the attacks of September 11th, President Bush and his top aides have seen themselves as engaged in a war against terrorism in which the old rules did not apply. In the privacy of his office, Rumsfeld chafed over what he saw as the reluctance of senior Pentagon generals and admirals to act aggressively. By mid-2002, he and his senior aides were exchanging secret memorandums on modifying the culture of the military leaders and finding ways to encourage them "to take greater risks." One memo spoke derisively of the generals in the Pentagon, and said, "Our prerequisite of perfection for 'actionable intelligence' has paralyzed us. We must accept that we may have to take action before every question can be answered." The Defense Secretary was told that he should "break the 'belt-and-suspenders' mindset within today's military . . . we 'over-plan' for every contingency. . . . We must be willing to accept the risks." With operations involving the death of foreign enemies, the memo went on, the planning should not be carried out in the Pentagon: "The result will be decision by committee.""

Rumsfeld (and most of the rest of Bush's staff) don't like the rules. They don't like the rules of transparency, or accountability, or protocol, or international law (like human rights and the Geneva Convention). The don't like the rigors of checks and balances, or even of drawing on the deep experience of others outside their "loop." The approach is make our plans, keep it inside, and issue the edicts. This is counter to any type of democratic process, and deadly to democracy. It is also lethal as a policy as we see in Iraq.

With the disdain for democracy in the US, can we really expect that constrained description of reflect democracy in Iraq, or anywhere else the boots of the dictators wish to tromp (Haiti for instance)? The Administration's disdain for operating inside the rules, or in a transparent framework combine with a "take what you want and damn the rules" mentality. This was obviously communicated "down the line" and resulted in massive abuse and torture of civilians in Iraq and elsewhere.

The headline reads

The "techniques" used in Abu Ghraib (and elsewhere) are not new. They are documented as being used by US interrogators within the military - as with the manual described above - and within the CIA ( Torture by the Book, Dodd, Guardian, 5/06/04). These "techniques" are also referred to specifically by the CIA in Kurt Nimmo's CounterPunch article Inside the Cells of Abu Ghraib - The CIA Privatized Torture (5/04/04).

But despite "new" manuals and "old" manuals, the US has been training people in interrogation (and other) methods at the School of the Americas for decades. [For extensive information on this check out School of the Americas Watch - SOAW]. The SOA changed it's name, but not its location or purpose, to Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation in 2001.

There are added problems with the torture of people in Iraq. That is that these are not POWs. They are (from all reports) not insurgents or terrorists, or even on the whole what are referred to as "high value" prisoners. These people are (and were) primarily random folks picked up in sweeps or at check points. I have heard pundits arguing that these aren't like the prisoners at Guantanamo. Actually, there has been a lack of discrimination in who is at Guantanamo as well, and it has taken a lot of pull for some nations (like Britain) to get their citizens released.

An interesting dynamic is playing out at this time. Is it legitimate to use torture if you have a "bad guy?" In many ways this is similar to the argument about the invasion of Iraq. There was no imminent threat; no link al Qaeda; no weapons of mass destruction or the ability to launch them, but Hussein was a "bad guy." Therefore the invasion of Iraq constitutes a "just war." Ivan Elan has an interesting article in relationship to this called Torturing Iraq in an Unnecessary War (Independent Institute, 5/04/04). He argues that Iraq was a "war of choice" and this only compounds the moral deficit of torturing civilians scooped up in this war. I would agree wholeheartedly.

The argument of torturing "bad guys" links to the seemingly pervasive belief that if one is in jail then one is "guilty." This is the overwhelming belief in the US about people in US jails and prisons. If one is in jail, one is automatically a "bad guy." Apparently it is considered OK to abuse "bad guys." In fact, Mistreatment of Prisoners Is Called Routine in U.S. (Butterfield, NYT, 5/08/04). Is it so surprising then that civilians being abused and tortured in Iraq (and Afghanistan, Bagram, Guantanamo, and elsewhere) would raise little response from the top of the Washington food chain?

President Bush may have been "protected" from such information by his advisers and staff (plausible deniability); but they knew what was going on - and essentially did nothing. After all what's the big deal? This is just "common practice" - in US civilian facilities, in military facilities, in CIA facilities... The problem is those damned pictures. Everybody knows it is going on (and apparently approves), but the public is squeamish about actually seeing it.

So they send Miller from Guantanamo to implement the new procedures in Iraq (one has to wonder where else he carried his job of what looks like policy synchronization). But even before that, the US tapped Lane McCotter to reopen the prison. McCotter had been forced to resign "in 1997 after an inmate died while shackled to a restraining chair for 16 hours. The inmate, who suffered from schizophrenia, was kept naked the whole time (Butterfield)."

"The Utah official, Lane McCotter, later became an executive of a private prison company, one of whose jails was under investigation by the Justice Department when he was sent to Iraq as part of a team of prison officials, judges, prosecutors and police chiefs picked by Attorney General John Ashcroft to rebuild the country's criminal justice system." (Butterfield)

So the attempt to make Abu Ghraib an "isolated incident" is ludicrous. The use of abuse and torture is part of a general belief in the US. It is part of the culture. The American public (or much of it) accepts abuse of prisoners as both common and deserved. Is it surprising that the leadership of the US seems to feel the same way? Or that such things would promulgate through an administration headed by a man who took great pride in the number of death row inmates were put to death under his watch (Bush as Governor of Texas)? No, not surprising at all.

What is most likely stirring the most negative emotional response in the US is not the images of naked men, or pictures of abuse and torture, or even dead prisoners packed in ice. It is the smiles, the leers, and the thumbs up. While the American public may approve of the use of violence, the abusers aren't supposed to enjoy it. That crosses the line. I would bet that if the soldiers in the pictures were standing there looking, grim and angry that they would hardly have made a splash. I believe that the underlying belief is "it is a nasty job, but someone has to do it." However, if you enjoy doing it you are a sadist and that is definitely not well received.

Addendum - A touch of racism likely colors the mix as well if this quote courtesy of The American Street "Race War". The quote comes from Good ol' girl who got a kick out of torture (News.com.au, 5/7/04) from a "good ol' boy talinking about one of the hometown MPs captured in the Abu Ghraib photos:

"A lot of people here think they ought to just blow up the whole of Iraq," Colleen Kesner said.

"To the country boys here, if you're a different nationality, a different race, you're sub-human. That's the way girls like Lynndie are raised.

"Tormenting Iraqis, in her mind, would be no different from shooting a turkey. Every season here you're hunting something. Over there, they're hunting Iraqis."

Chain of Command

There are attempts from the military and the media to paint the incidences at Abu Ghraib as confined to a few soldiers who acted "badly" under poor conditions, under-staffing, and lack of command oversight and training. While the conditions are likely accurate, that distracts from the larger picture, and does not place those actions within the framework of the broader conditions - the direct effect of decisions and policies from (at least) Rumsfeld down. We are told that these handful are likely to be punished under military law and that justice will prevail. In a similar high profile incident from Vietnam - My Lai - was laid at the feet of Lieutenant William Calley. That is where the responsibility stopped. Calley was sentenced to serve 20 years in prison. He eventually served three and half years and then was parolled and pardoned in 1975 by NIxon (The My Lai Courts-Martial - 1970). Likewise, every effort seems to stop the investigation of abuse and torture with 6 - 13 soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison. As with My Lai, this is much bigger than that. Likewise, if court martialed, they may see themselves parolled in a relatively short time. Those in command up to the level of Karpiski will likely recieve a reprimand, and those above her will not even be mentioned. Regardless, none of these addresses the broader issue of authority and creation of climate for such atrocities to occur.

With Rumsfeld running from committee hearing to committee hearing, one is hearing the question of what is the chain of command in relationship to the events at Abu Ghraib. While that would seem to be a straightforward question, it has yet to receive an answer. At least part of that information is very easy to get to. According to the Taguba report, BG Karpinski was in charge of the 800th MP Brigade. The orders for at least one "Assessment" and two investigations were ordered by Lt, General Sanchez (commander of Joint Task Force 7), and that request went to the Commander of US Central Command. That would be General John Abizaid. According to About CENTCOM - United States Central Command, General John Abizaid is the Commander, US Central Command "USCENTCOM's Commander, Gen. John Abizaid, reports directly to the Secretary of Defense, who in turn, reports to the President of the United States." So in terms of top chain of command we have the following line:

Meanwhile, General Myers is the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and serves as a direct military adviser to Rumsfeld, Bush, and the National Security Council (U.S. Military Chain of Command). General Myers specifically requested that CBS delay releasing its report and pictures on 60 Minutes II. One assumes that he advised Rumsfeld of this. Unless this is just a common thing that happens (a claim denied by both Myers and Rumsfeld in their responses to both House and Senate Committees) it seems that this would also have been reported (and discussed) in the National Security Council. The National Security Council consists of the following members:

President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, CIA, Secretary of the Treasury, U.S. representative to the United Nations, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the President's Chief of Staff. Further, the Attorney General and the Director of the Office of National Drug Control policy attend meetings pertaining to their jurisdiction. If appropriate, other officials are invited.

The question of the Military Intelligence chain of command is more difficult to get a handle on, as is the command structure for the CIA in this situation.

All of this is pertinent because one MP from the accused group reported "members of her military police unit took direction from Army military intelligence officers, from CIA operatives and from civilian contractors who conducted interrogations." (5/08/04 Spinner, Wa. Post). This is supported by Taguba's report.

These contractors were under a contract issued by the Department of Defense (Private Contractors and Torture at Abu Ghraib, Iraq).

Abu Ghraib and Where else?
All the information and reports currently coming to public attention point to a broad and systemic use (and approval) of abuse and torture of those held in US custody. According to Taguba, his investigation focused on the 800th, and in Iraq they were responsible for Camp Bucca, Camp Ashraf, Abu Ghraib, and the High Value Detainee (HVD) Complex/Camp Cropper. There were concerns about all of the facilities, and Taguba notes that "In May 2003 four soldiers from the brigade had been formally charged with detainee abuse at Camp Bucca." The Red Cross Saw 'Widespread Abuse' in Iraq - WSJ ( this report has not yet been made public). The former Iraqi Coalition Provisonal AuthorityHuman Rights Secretary raised wide concerns with Bremmer in November of 2003, but there was no response (Bremer 'knew of abuse in November'). Returning soldiers claim that "it is a common thing to abuse prisoners," and that troops were forewarned of investigations so they could hide or destroy and contraband (5/07/04 Tanner, Reuters, Soldiers Back in U.S. Tell of More Iraqi Abuses).

So as Rumsfeld claims that there is "more to come," reports from Taguba, to the Red Cross, to the Iraqi head of Human Rights, to soldier reports,the above reports seem to indicate a widespread pattern that might border on common practice.

These reports raise questions about detainees being held at Guantanamo as MG Miller (Commander, Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) did a formal assessment ("Assessment of DoD Counter-Terrorism Interrogation and Detention Operations in Iraq") which covered the period from 8/31 to 9/9/03. Taguba's report notes that Miller specifically recommended putting the MPs under Military Intelligence command and having their active participation in preparing detainees for interrogation. He also condemns this practice as " not doctrinally sound due to the different missions and agendas assigned to each of these respective specialties."

MG Miller, who came from assignment in Guantanamo, stated in his Assessment; the guard force be placed under the Intelligence command, and that "it is essential that the guard force be actively engaged in setting the conditions for successful exploitation of the internees." (Taguba). As noted above, Taguba clearly feels that this is not "doctrinally sound," as it makes MPs responsible for conflicting duties in relationships to those under their control. One can assume, that a similar practice is used at Guantanamo.

A BIG Red Flag
Taguba reports "ghost detainees." These are detainees that are not registered into the system. These "ghost detainees" were moved around to hide them from investigators.

When I read this phrase, the hairs on the back of my neck went up. The possibility for abuse is huge, and the fact they were hidden from investigators makes that abuse a significant likelihood.

While the military, did not release lists (as they promised they would) of who was held in detention at various facilities, there is at least internal documentation of them. The "ghost detainees" have no such documentation. These are individuals held and interrogated "off the books." While from the public's perspective (Iraqi, US, and global) most of those held were "disappeared," the "ghost detainees" were truly disappeared. I am sure that there are secret records of these people. In my opinion, finding out who they are and what happened to them is one of the most important areas that any investigation should explore. It is among these individuals that the most significant damages are likely to have occurred. Also, since these detainees were part of the activities of the MPs, they link closely to the heart of the problem.

Accountability
There are significant questions about accountability for the systematic abuse and torture of people held by US forces and agencies. The administration took a clear stand that the "detainees" from Afghanistan being held at Guantanamo and elsewhere are not subject to the Geneva Convention. It seems not coincidental that the people held in Iraq (and other US facilities in the region) are called "detainees." The terminology is carefully crafted to fit legal requirements. The US also withdrew itself from its agreement to abide by the International War Crimes Tribunal, and has actively pressured for exemptions from human rights violations covered under international (and US) law.

The use of private contractors who are not subject to military, civilian, or US law raises the question of whether they were specifically chosen for this reason.

All of the claims of horror and justice aside, the US has placed those in its control beyond the pale of most prosecution. The claims of soldiers not being instructed in the Geneva Convention are a smoke screen when the administration and the Secretary of Defense have made their postures clear in this regard - the rules do not apply.

Conclusion
Taguba found:

"That between October and December 2003, at the Abu Ghraib Confinement Facility (BCCF), numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees. This systemic and illegal abuse of detainees was intentionally perpetrated by several members of the military police guard force (372nd Military Police Company, 320thMilitary Police Battalion, 800th MP Brigade), in Tier (section) 1-A of the Abu Ghraib Prison (BCCF)."

Are we to presume that the interrogations themselves were any less brutal than the "softening up?"

Given the conditions established, the chain of command, the actions of the US in relationship to seeking protection and exemption from prosecution, it seems much more likely that abuse and torture is a standard procedure not limited to a "few bad eggs."

This is reinforced by the chain of command and their responses to the various reports and investigations - they were let slide. While every indication is of widespread problems, little if anything was done to change the situation - at Abu Ghraib or any place else. Further, if testimony is to be believed, did it occur to either General Myers or Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, to advise either the COngressional Committees with oversight, nor the President, the NSC, or anyone else. One has to assume that they didn't think these issues were a "problem." Even when they knew that 60 Minutes II was going to release the images and report on Abu Ghraib, they did not mention this problem to those with oversight or to the President. This indicates to me, that they didn't classify abuse and torture as a "big deal." If they don't, what message does that send to those below them?

It appears that the US public is being "softened up" to see abuse and torture as a natural consequence of conditions in US combat theaters, and that it is legitimate retaliation for the control of "hostile" populations (anyone the US claims as an "enemy").

How wide does the US use of abuse and torture go? From all the evidence I see at this point, it is endemic. "More to come" is an understatement.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sources and Other Pertinent Articles
Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, Article 15-6 Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade (emphases mine).

"That the Commander, 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, was designated by CJTF-7 as the Commander of FOB Abu Ghraib (BCCF) effective 19 November 2003. That the 205th MI Brigade conducts operational and strategic interrogations for CJTF-7. That from 19 November 2003 until Transfer of Authority (TOA) on 6 February 2004, COL Thomas M. Pappas was the Commander of the 205th MI Brigade and the Commander of FOB Abu Ghraib (BCCF)"
.....

"I find that contrary to the provision of AR 190-8, and the findings found in MG Ryder's Report, Military Intelligence (MI) interrogators and Other US Government Agency's (OGA) interrogators actively requested that MP guards set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses. Contrary to the findings of MG Ryder's Report, I find that personnel assigned to the 372ndMP Company, 800th MP Brigade were directed to change facility procedures to "set the conditions" for MI interrogations. I find no direct evidence that MP personnel actually participated in those MI interrogations."

"Although not supported by BG Karpinski, FRAGO 1108 made all of the MP units at Abu Ghraib TACON to the Commander, 205th MI Brigade. This effectively made an MI Officer, rather than an MP Officer, responsible for the MP units conducting detainee operations at that facility. This is not doctrinally sound due to the different missions and agendas assigned to each of these respective specialties. (ANNEX 31)"

5/08/04 Spinner, Wa. Post, Soldier: Unit's Role Was to Break Down Prisoners

5/07/04 Chatterjee & Thompson, CorpWatch, Private Contractors and Torture at Abu Ghraib, Iraq

5/07/04 Tanner, Reuters, Soldiers Back in U.S. Tell of More Iraqi Abuses

"ANTIOCH, California - Three U.S. military policemen who served at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison said on Thursday they had witnessed unreported cases of prisoner abuse and that the practice against Iraqis was commonplace.

"It is a common thing to abuse prisoners," said Sgt. Mike Sindar, 25, a National Guardsman with the 870th Military Police Company based in the San Francisco Bay area. "I saw beatings all the time.

"A lot of people had so much pent-up anger, so much aggression.""

" When military investigators were looking into abuses several months ago, they gave U.S. guards a week's notice before inspecting their possessions, several soldiers said.

"That shows you how lax they are about discipline. 'We are going to look for contraband in here, so hint, hint, get rid of the stuff,' that's the way things work in the Guard," Leal said. "

5/07/04 WSJ, Red Cross Saw 'Widespread Abuse' in Iraq - WSJ

5/07/04 Borger, Guardian/UK, 'Cooks and Drivers Were Working as Interrogators'

5/06/04 Johnston & Lewis, NYT, U.S. Examines Role of C.I.A. and Employees in Iraq Deaths

5/05/04 FAS Project on Government SecrecyTorture Report many have Broken Classification Rules

5/05/04 Graham & Babington, Wa. Post, Probes of Detainee Deaths Reported

5/04/04 News.com.au, Bremer 'knew of abuse in November'

" FORMER Iraqi human rights minister Abdel Basset Turki said today US overseer Paul Bremer knew in November that Iraqi prisoners were being abused in US detention centres.

"In November I talked to Mr Bremer about human rights violations in general and in jails in particular. He listened but there was no answer. At the first meeting, I asked to be allowed to visit the security prisoners, but I failed," Turki said."

About CENTCOM - United States Central Command

U.S. Military Chain of Command - Fox News

President George W. Bush insists Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will remain in his post despite the obvious tortures. He has support.

“At this point in time I do not have any loss of confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld,” Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee (AP, May 7).

Warner is from Virginia and has some powerful oversight role over the US army. He will remain in his post as well? He is not alone.

“We need to get all the facts. We need everybody to just take a deep breath and get all the facts,” added Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a senior member of the same panel and himself a former prisoner of war.

The world is holding its breath, and it’s being doing so for some time. It’s getting hypoxic; it’s spinning round and round. I hope to check how McCain described his halcyon POW R&R one day, and whether he was subjected to similar homosexual abuse. Did he get his “facts” right about Iraq as well before that illegal invasion was launched?

Attorney General John Ashcroft “confirms” that there is “ample jurisdiction to move against civilian contractors and others, including laws that forbid torture.” (AP, May 7)

The much bigger picture here is whether this is the tip of the sadistic iceberg, whether it is lawful to hire civilian thugs for interrogation, and how the Geneva Conventions regards civilian torturers hired by an invading (US) army. How is that army's government accountable? How long were mercenaries like these used to torture and interrogate prisoners?

Torture-for-profit maniacs play one other important role as well. They can extract financial and economic secrets for the profiteers of a plundering nation. It is trickier to expect a professional soldier to sell out on his/her dead comrades. Soldiers, though, can be used to “soften” things up.

Nothing was helped by Bush’s remarks. Whenever he opens his mouth, or attempts to think, you know where it leads.

Rumsfeld “is a really good secretary of defense. Secretary Rumsfeld has served our nation well. Secretary Rumsfeld has been the secretary during two wars. He's an important part of my Cabinet and he'll stay in my Cabinet," the president said during a Rose Garden appearance with Jordan's King Abdullah II.

Yes, he had served his nation well. There was an equally scandalous photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983, in Baghdad, just far enough from a lethal fumigation exercise being conducted on neighboring Iran's soldiers. He is “good secretary of defense” too, planning a war on Iraq long before 9/11 and lying consistently to an American public.

At Rose Garden, Bush said “I told him (Abdullah) I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families… I told him I was equally sorry that people who have been seeing those pictures didn't understand the true nature and heart of America."

No need to apologize, I think. After all, Saddam Hussein was the “guy who tried to kill my dad.” (Sept 27, 2002). Lots of American males will understand this macho lust for revenge, all for daddy. As for the rest, show clips of 9/11, dead husbands, children and women, and they’d believe Saddam was the culprit.

As for the “true nature and heart of America”, surely he is not referring to the Bible belt?

How many out there actually thinks that the president may be a little innocent, that he knows nothing beyond American football and baseball? Even heavily spliced shots of personal interviews can’t hide his infantile grasp of anything serious. I remember watching a rare interview of his with British ITV journalist Sir Trevor McDonald where his prescription for terror was to “love somebody, be a good neighbor; help some kid who just wonders whether the American experience is meant for them, or teach somebody how to read.” His soldiers are sure doing that in Iraq.

Significantly, when Bush “apologized” before the “Arab media”, he chickened out from facing Al Jazeera. One of the two Arab stations involved was the American-funded Al Hurra, which broadcasts into Iraq. The other was the Dubai-based Al- Arabiya. He can't handle real questions.

His presidential opponent’s remarks would spin any mind anywhere.

“It's the way it was handled," Kerry said on a campaign stop in California. “The lack of information to the Congress, the lack of information to the country, not managing it, not dealing with it, recognizing it as an issue.” – Sen John Kerry (AP, May 7)

Is there a nice way to “handle” torture? Is this guy really running for the presidency or merely making an appearance to lose? He seems to have battled his fellow democrat contenders with greater vigor. Another chance lost.

This regime has no credibility whatsoever. Bush is feeling “sorry,” after having raped the truth repeatedly till now, so effectively that many Americans still believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

He might lose his presidency, and there is only one reason for this. Americans may get poorer and more desperate by November. Partial statistics, like the following, will be of no help.

“U.S. employment surged for a second straight month during April, adding another 288,000 to payrolls as jobs were created in nearly every sector at a pace that handily outstripped expectations. In addition to the surprisingly robust job growth, the unemployment rate dipped to 5.6 percent. Wall Street economists had forecast 173,000 new jobs would be created in April and the unemployment rate would be unchanged at 5.7 percent. (Reuters, May 7)

No mention here of the number of jobs lost. Why doesn’t the rate of unemployment change if things look so rosy? Sure, new jobs are being created. When I was in Seattle recently, many cashiers and sales assistants, many of them immigrants at retail outlets like Wal-Mart, didn’t know where certain items were stored. They were too new to the job.

Over at the high end of immigrant labor, many Indian software professionals are leaving, sick of the paranoia they generate and no longer enamored of all things American. When these people take their much-needed expertise with them, they need to be replaced, not by Americans who increasingly can’t afford a quality education. Many poor Americans can join the army for free healthcare, food, accommodation and a future college education until something bad happens.

Something bad has really happened. We have yet to know what it is. It is not easy to get any concession from a man like Rumsfeld.

He has offered his “deepest apology,” but warned “it's going to get a good deal more terrible, I'm afraid.”

What exactly is going to get more “terrible”? I am curious. He admitted there were more photos, though he “had not seen the videos, and did not describe them.” Are we in for a nastier jolt?

Rumsfeld says the treatment was “inconsistent with the values of our nation. It was inconsistent with the teachings of the military.”

Truth is, it doesn’t apply to this Mesopotamian “real estate.”

"I would not resign simply because people try to make a political issue out of it."

He is right. He need not resign, as the people did not elect him, or President Bush, in the first place! Both of them apparently got “blindsided’ by the CBS photos. The flash used was too strong though the International Committee of the Red Cross saw things clearly for more than a year. It warned American officials of prisoner abuse in Iraq more than a year ago and that the mistreatment were “not individual acts.” (AP, May 7).

“There was a pattern and a system,” Pierre Kraehenbuehl, the ICRC's director of operations, said in Geneva. Some of the actions were “tantamount to torture,” he said.

The ICRC findings were “discussed at different moments between March and November 2003, either in direct face-to-face conversations or in written interventions,” Kraehenbuehl said. “Some of the earlier discussions were” with the very “Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade overseeing the prison.” (AP, May 7).

Claiming ignorance in the face of a Red Cross allegation is inexcusable. “The Swiss-based ICRC is” after all “designated by the Geneva Conventions on warfare to visit prisoners of war and other people detained by an occupying power to ensure that countries respect obligations under the 1949 accords.” (AP, May 7).

Editorials were not abuzz with this story until CBS broke the belated news. This has been happening for one full year, indicating the enormous power wielded by rogue cliques in the sole superpower.

As a sideshow, it’s de rigueur to find oneself comparing George Bush’s innumerable failings with the War on Terror.

An audio recording attributed to Osama bin Laden predictably surfaced.

He offered, “rewards in gold…for the killing of top US and UN officials in Iraq or of the citizens of any nation fighting there…”

“You know that America promised big rewards for those who kill Mujahedeen (holy warriors),” the speaker said. “We in al-Qaida organization will guarantee, God willing, 10,000 grams of gold to whoever kills the occupier (L. Paul) Bremer, or the American chief commander or his deputy in Iraq.” (AP, May 7)

Every time something serious happens, Bin Laden appears on our media radars, momentarily, to petrify American citizens and remind them there is greater evil lurking. How many people have actually confessed to seeing the terrorist in person, with irrefutable evidence, after Sept 11? Or even slightly before that? This was the guy who was responsible for Sept 11, and who later inadvertently rewarded US soldiers with opportunities for prison-made porn flicks. The question is WHERE, WHERE, WHERE is Bin laden?

This is the million-dollar question Kerry should ask! And he could ask more than 50 of them if he wanted.

“The price on bin Laden's head now stands at $50 million — far more than the nearly $125,000 that 10,000 grams of gold is worth.” (AP, May 7)

If he is what he is, where is Bin Laden getting his money from?

“With gold selling Thursday on London exchanges for $387.60 a troy ounce, 10,000 grams of gold was valued at $124,630, 1,000 grams at $12,463, and 500 grams at $6,231. However, a U.S. joint congressional intelligence panel said in a report two years ago that bin Laden had agreed in 1998 to allocate $9 million in reward money for the assassination of top U.S. intelligence agency officers.” (AP, May 7)

Yeah, this escaped the attention of America’s intelligence agencies, not to mention, more capable allies, when Ramzi Youssef tried to blow up the WTC and US planes during the decade, and later on, when there was a suicide bombing on the USS Cole. The IRS must be a more competent agency in money-tracking.

The money factor is pivotal in this whole drama all right, but in a context yet to be debated. Here is a Reuters report that shows how desperate things are becoming.

“World oil prices simmered close to 13-year highs on Friday, on the brink of $40 a barrel for U.S. crude and prompting warnings from the United States that higher fuel costs could stunt economic growth. Analysts and traders said a move above $40 looked inevitable…. Last weekend's shootings at a Saudi Arabian chemicals plant and attempts a week earlier to bomb Iraq's Basra oil export terminal have fostered fears of a bigger attack on oil facilities in the Middle East, which pumps about a third of the world's oil.”

“People are watching events in the Middle East very closely. The explosive cocktail created by OPEC actions, Saudi oil policy, US managing logistical bottlenecks and US foreign policy are set to keep oil prices on fire this summer,” Washington-based PFC Energy said in a research note. (Reuters, May 7)

This indeed may be the real reason behind dredging the depths for fall guys. When the American electorate digs into their pockets in days to come, they will realize that the dwindling coins in their hands will not tally with the mammoth lies shown on TV. That’s when “reality” sinks in. They will be switching to other networks for more cutting news and CBS is a forerunner, having quite literally stolen the show. Frankly, they are a lot better than Fox News or CNN. Advertisers, already feeling the pinch of diminishing consumer demands, will be forced to pit their resources against this President’s electoral war chest. Unless things change, for the better.

Rumsfeld has dismissed that. Things will “get more terrible.” He knew it all along. Violence will be the promise of our immediate future.

As a social observer ask yourself this:

What if things get so terrible that a new leader emerges promising peace and security, and proves it through his benevolent strong-arm methods? Someone acceptable, one who can resolve the Middle East’s violence, contradictions and animosity? Almost half our world’s powder kegs would be defused. Correct? We will all be pleased? What do you do when faced with the inevitable, gently stirred on by a master orator? Hear this:

Whatever can still be done, will be done. Your devotion to duty will strengthen our people in their fight for existence. !”*

Enter the Man of Violence! You think anything good can come forth from this system? Ask any sociologist if conditions such as these make it ripe, and the theory plausible, sooner or later. I’d say later…

May 8, 2004, Kuala Lumpur

Copyright@ Mathew Maavak, 2004

* Part of Adolph Hitler’s last words to the partly Jewish Admiral Gunther Lütjens, commander of the German Battleship Bismarck, hours before its imminent sinking on May 27, 1941. Bismarck was the greatest battleship of its day.

Al Busheera, 18 février 2004

La politique étrangère de l'Amérique, 9 mars 2004

Of course one has to ask what is happening to all that money. According to Weisman and Cha in their 4/29/04 Wa. Post article Rebuilding Aid Unspent, Tapped to Pay Expenses, Bremer is busy moving $300 million that was earmarked for reconstruction to pay administrative and security expenses. Thus far, "less than 5 percent of the $18.4 billion has been spent."

Amazing, I wouldn't have thought it would have been that difficult to find rebuilding projects in Iraq. It seems that there is destruction everywhere you look. Heck, I would think that restoring water and electric systems alone would eat up that much. There are some choice quotes in this article:

Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.), chairman of the House Appropriations foreign operations subcommittee, cited "bureaucratic infighting" and a "loss of central command and control"

Sounds like what they are saying about the abuse and torture of Iraqi "detainees."

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz pointed to successes in rebuilding and blamed contracting snafus for some of the delays.

What those hand-picked, no competitive bid contractors are having "snafus?" I thought that the whole process was a "snafu."

In fact, the money that has actually been spent on reconstruction is even less - $1 billion - though $2.3 billion has been approved. $1 billion out of $18.4 billion! But the picture is even more grim than that:

So far, occupation officials have reassigned $184 million appropriated for drinking-water projects to fund the operations of the U.S. Embassy after the provisional authority is dissolved June 30. An additional $29 million from projects such as "democracy building" were reallocated to fund the U.S. development agency's administrative expenses.

And more diversions may be coming. Armitage said the State Department still faces a shortfall of $40 million to $60 million in embassy operating funds this year. And embassy construction and operations could consume as much as $2.5 billion in fiscal 2005, none of which has been requested by President Bush.

You will all be glad to know that the missile defense shield is coming along nicely (This Time It's Real: An Antimissile System Takes Shape, Glanz, NYT, 5/04/04). You know, the one that is going to protect us from terrorist attacks? The project will only cost about $10 billion a year for the next five years, and then it jumps up into the hundreds of billions.

Don't worry. President Bush is demanding "fiscal responsibility" from the legislative branch. They must use restraint or that deficit will get out of control (gasp). So what is on the chopping block? Housing Subsidies for Poor Threatened by Aid Cuts (Chen, NYT, 5/04/04). It seems that Bush has issued a policy change retroactive to January 2004 to only pay out $1.9 million in rent vouchers. This will effect at least 9-- of the 2500 agencies nationwide that issue low income rent vouchers. (To hell with the agencies, what about the folks who no longer have vouchers for their rent?) According to The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the shortfall could run into the hundreds of millions.

Yeah, let's be fiscally responsible shall we? Let's get our priorities straight. We must have space-based weapons and "star wars." We must have lots of money for the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan (though it is getting spent for other things). We must have the money to hire all of those private contractors for "security" and "interrogation." So what if we squeeze a few bucks here and there from education, or health care, or housing, or environmental protection, or even from assisting states to actually prepare for disasters (like terrorist attacks). Somehow an appeal from Bush on fiscal responsibility doesn't ring quite true.

CONGRESSMAN CHARLES B. RANGEL
Press Releases

U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515 CONTACT: Emile Milne
(202) 225-4365



CONG. RANGEL CALLS ON
CONGRESS TO IMPEACH
DEFENSE SECRETARY RUMSFELD

Korean War Combat Veteran says withholding information from the President, Congress, and the public, about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners is a "high crime and misdemeanor"

WASHINGTON, May 6, 2004 -- Cong. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), a member of Congress since 1971 and a Korean war combat veteran, today called for the impeachment of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld unless he resigns or President Bush removes him from office.

He announced he was drafting articles of impeachment and made the following remarks on the House floor during the debate on a House resolution concerning the torture of Iraqi prisoners:

"This is a very difficult time for me. I find it difficult to rise in opposition to this Resolution. I do it because there just does not seem to be enough outrage involved with what is being said.

"We should not have to apologize for our brave men and women. We should not have to apologize for what the Executive Branch or the Congress has or has not done. We should not be put in this position!

"Several months ago, I called for the resignation of the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, because I thought that, as a major architect of this war, he was fighting this war with other people's children. And when Rumsfeld said he did not know whether we were winning or losing the war; when he said he did not know if we were creating more terrorists than we were killing; when he said that we had no plan to end the war and that it was a slog - I, as a former combat veteran, thought: Is this the kind leadership that we can expect from the Secretary of Defense?

"America and the Military deserve better than this. He should resign. And now the information we receive is that a climate has been created where a handful of people have committed these atrocities against humankind. In an atmosphere where all of the people in Iraq have been demonized; where it appears to Americans and to our military that the people in Iraq are responsible for September 11 and causing us pain; where Secretary Rumsfeld did have information months ago on these atrocities and kept it from the President, kept it from the Congress, and kept it from the American people - I think that this rises to the point that it is a high crime and misdemeanor if he disappointed the President, kept information from the Congress and kept this information from the American people.

"I think America and the world want us to show the outrage not with rhetoric but with action! And, if the President does not fire Secretary Rumsfeld, or if he does not resign, I think it is the responsibility of this Congress to file articles of impeachment and force him to out of office. Then, the whole world will know - not just the military - not just Americans, but the whole world will know what we stand for!

"If people can say 'mission accomplished' when it looks like there is victory, and then we see atrocities like this and it happens on someone's watch; if they do not have the dignity to say I am sorry and move on - then, we have the responsibility under our Constitution to remove these people from office.

"He kept the information away from Congress. We have the responsibility for oversight and to prepare the Articles of Impeachment today."

Congressman Rangel originally introduced a resolution calling for the resignation of Secretary Rumsfeld on November 7, 2003.

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the U.S. House of Representatives "the sole Power of Impeachment." Article II, Section 4 allows for the impeachment of "all civil Officers of the United States." So far, only one cabinet member has been impeached. In 1876, Secretary of War William Worth Belknap was impeached for bribery. Belknap later resigned.

Of course, his immense, brainless arrogance was transmitted in other ways. He addressed the "Arab world" without using the networks that many listen to. He wanted a safe outlet - safe, that is, for him and his known inability to handle any question more complex than "How's Mom?" He deliberately avoided al Jazeerah, a network that asks tough questions and whose employees his soldiers have deliberately targeted and killed.

I wonder how many new terrorists Bush has created throughout the Middle East? Imagine the rage of young Arab men seeing pictures of other young Arab men with their heads in bags being used like the cast of a vile underground pornographic film? Some of the most terrible scenes undoubtedly have no photographs because the actors were almost certainly murdered. Even the smiling cretins from the bayous and backwoods of America seen in the published pictures know better than to be photographed committing murder.

For the most part, the armed forces of the United States do not hire the kind of clean-cut, Sir-spouting faces invariably used as their public-relations spokesmen. They need people who will be trained to kill and obey orders, and most of the killing is to be done in poor, distant places where the victims' voices are never heard in America.

Military recruiters fill a good part of their quotas from the many dismal backwaters and slums of the Republic. They fill them with the kind of people who otherwise might not be employed at all. They undoubtedly get a disproportionate share of the people who enjoy killing and inflicting pain, the kind of people found in every society on earth.

It doesn't take a great effort of the imagination to anticipate what will happen when you give such people a few weeks training in killing and shining shoes and send them off to a remote land like Iraq, a place whose people they cannot understand, and about whom they know only the uninformed, provoking slogans of their President.

When a contemptible moral weakling like Bush sits comfortably in his leather chair and signs an order to invade a distant land, it is precisely the horrors of Abu Ghraib prison he necessarily releases.

Remember Lieutenant Calley and his boys murdering an entire village in Vietnam? That good old boy never experienced a moment's meaningful justice. There was actually a brisk business for a while in Lieutenant Calley souvenirs, especially in the South.

There were several such massacres discovered in Vietnam, and one cannot doubt others went undiscovered. More disgusting still was the slitting of about twenty-thousand throats, mostly village officials, by the brave men of the Special Forces. But even their Nazi-like slaughter couldn't compare to the work of the men flying jets, men still called war heroes in America, men who systematically bombed and napalmed countless towns, villages, and farms, producing enough victims to bury the city of Washington under a mountain of burnt flesh and gore, almost all of them civilians.

During that war, I once talked to an American veteran of World War II about the horror of what was going on. He told me a story. He was on a train with two other Americans and a German prisoner of war. One of the Americans suddenly put his automatic pistol to the head of the German and blew his brains out. He had no reason and just laughed after doing it.

As I've written before, I can never forget someone I knew in high school telling me about how he and his friends would pile into a car and drive down to the ghetto some nights, trying to "run down niggers" for the hilarious entertainment of seeing them run for their lives. I've always associated that painful memory with the men who later raped and murdered their way across Vietnam.

It is not that Americans are worse than other people, it is that they are the same. Yet they are encouraged constantly to think they are better - more advanced, more educated, more dedicated to democratic and human values. In the President's words, "The America I know cares about every individual." Well, apart from the fact that those descriptions fit at best a minority of Americans, thinking that you are better than less fortunate people is a guaranteed method for producing injustice and horror.

I note that to this day even more hideous pictures of Iraqi children mangled and killed by American bombing are not published by the county's main press. Many Americans are sentimental, and pictures of smashed and mangled children might produce results not desired by those running the country, but the prison pictures can be characterized as an exception, as the fault of a few bad people breaking the rules.

Well, what society doesn't have such rules? There's nothing special about America in officially opposing torture, humiliation, and murder. Even dictatorships publicly set such rules, but what society doesn't violate the rules as soon as it sinks to the putrid business of war?

A French television station has obtained a three-and-a-half minute videotape from an American helicopter taken last December. There is a pilot and a military gunman on board, and their commanding officer talks to them on a radio. The American soldier shoots three unarmed Iraqis, one by one, as the commanding officer barks his directions to him. The third man attempts to hide, and then tries to crawl away, clearly wounded. The officer orders him killed, and he quickly is.

Remember the broadcast conversations of American pilots during the first Gulf conflict as they strafed and bombed miles of Iraqi soldiers caught in a traffic jam while retreating from Kuwait City? We heard the words, clearly spoken with the same sense of amusement I heard as a young man in Chicago, "It's like shootin' fish in a barrel!" broadcast on television without any comment or criticism from broadcasters or politicians.

To this day, there is no examination into the disappearance of about three thousand prisoners in Afghanistan. A European documentary film strongly suggests American complicity in their mass murder out on the dessert by some of the more grotesque warlords with which the U.S. allied itself. The prisoners reportedly were driven, batch after batch, stuffed into vans, through a sun-baked wilderness, suffocating in the heat while American troops idly watched.

Don't forget the words of Donald Rumsfeld concerning prisoners in Afghanistan. He said publicly that all foreign fighters captured should be killed or permanently walled away. Do you think that kind of leadership might influence the attitudes of creeps in the unwatched corridors of military prisons with people at their mercy?

Wars are an utterly filthy business, and, unless you are depraved, you don't start them. Bush is responsible for what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan as surely as German leaders were responsible for the acts of their soldiers during World War II.

Citizens, workers, and unions voiced their outrage at the proposed changes, and Congress listened (or seemed to). Time moved on, and Bush seemed to back down on the issue - Plan Expands Eligibility for Overtime Pay (Downey, Wa. Post, 4/20/04). Bush said that he would expand eligibility up to those employees earning $100,000. It wasn't everything that workers pushed for, but it was movement. Of course, it was a wise election year move. The Bush campaign would want those Bush's "base" revolting because they weren't going to get overtime pay anymore.

Today's head line reads - Senate Blocks New Rules on Pay for Overtime Work (Hulse, NYT, 5/4/04). The Senate has thus far stood firm against implementation of the new DoL regulations. Five Republicans crossed the line to vote the for the amendment that blocks implementation. This was seen as a "major setback" for the President's plan (or should we say payback?).

But don't rest easy yet. The Senate still has to vote on a corporate tax amendment which also includes the blocking amendment, and both have to go back through the Congressional versions again. We could see another secret "reconciliation meeting" where the block is removed from the various bills. Anyway, this struggle isn't over yet, and my guess is that there is going to be great pressure to let the regulations for exploiting workers go into play, so keep an eye on this one.

Maybe I am just not feeling very optimistic these days.

Saleh had argued that there were no "foreign fighters" in Falluja, and that "The reasons for the resistance go back to the American provocations, the raids and abolishing the army, which made Iraqis join the resistance" (McCarthy).

Obviously there are some questions here. Saleh entered Falluja with 200 followers and about 800 more to enter shortly. Latif is entering with 1100 soldiers. Does Saleh get to keep his 1000? Is that his battalion? Are there now 2100 Iraui trrops in Falluja under two former Hussein Generals? Do they like each other? Will Saleh give up both his control of his "followers" and cooperate with Latif? Or will there be another conflict in the midst of the chaos? Will Latif cooperate in giving up alleged foreign fighters?

As I write this, I feel a bit like one of the soap commentators - "And next time on "the Seige of Falluja" ...."

It feels as if the hole is getting deeper. Would you be surprised if the two Iraqi Generals, their troops, and the resistance fighters all combined forces and attacked the US troops at "Camp Falluja?" I wouldn't. Would you be surprised if yet another former Hussein General with his band of Iraqi soldiers was offered Najaf? I wouldn't. Would you be surprised if Chalabi was head of the new Iraqi Council with Ba'athists filling most of the other positions? We'll see.

This administration has wanted a free hand to operate without consequences. Further, Abu Ghraib is not an isolated case. There are incidents in Afghanistan ( Afghan Prisoners Beaten to Death at US Military Interrogation Base, Campbell, Guardian/UK, 3/07/2003; US forces accused of looting, torture and death in Afghanistan, Sengupta, Independent/UK, 3/08/2004). There are also other claims of abuse both in Iraq and Guantanamo.

Tokyo War Crimes indictment against George W. Bush International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan (CRG, 3/01/04)

B. Torture of Prisoners at Baghram and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean

Prisoners were shackled and tortured , at the prison camp at Baghram airport Prosecution document 62 OCS NEWS 17TH January ,2003 , exclusively under the control of US forces; blindfolded , beaten ,illuminated with strong halogen lights for 24 hours , continuously deprived of sleep ; left standing and kneeling for hours on end ; brutalities , inhumane treatment and insults were inflicted on these prisoners; detained for interrogation in a cluster of metal shipping containers guarded by wires with no access to the outside world and during interrogation with no exposure to daylight ; the Defendant as Commander-in -Chief of United States Military forces was responsible for the treatment of prisoners and detainees in the custody of the United States .National Security Officials in Washington according to the Washington post , defended the use of violence and torture against detainees and POW saying that -"if you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time , you probably aren't doing your job...." Prisoners and detainees at Diego Garcia also received similar treatment.

D. Transporting of Prisoners in Containers

The prosecution has in its indictment referred to the serious war crime of transporting hundreds of prisoners who were captured ;the Taliban and foreign fighters who had surrendered at Kunduz in Cargo containers, and the death of these prisoners from suffocation due to lack of access to air and water .The prosecution submits that one hundred to two hundred men were placed in each container , which was about 40 feet long .The prisoners were transported to Sheberghan Prison, without air or water and majority of them suffocated to death. During transportation of these prisoners , rifle shots were fired at the containers by soldiers , for creation of ventilation holes which killed some of the prisoners The documents relied on by the Prosecution is Prosecution document Ex. P-1 Jamie Doran ' s report in the film "Afghan Massacre :the Convoy of death " and the article of Newsweek Prosecution document -K -61 . However, whereas the incident is established beyond doubt , there are contradictions as to who took the decision to transport prisoners in this manner ; whether this was an on the spot decision of commander of the Northern Alliance , or a pre-planned conspiracy involving US forces ; in view of the lacuna in the evidence which requires further proof ,if it is to be attributed to the Defendant , there is difficulty in attributing criminal responsibility to the Defendant in respect of this extremely serious incident leading to the mass murder of Taliban soldiers and foreign fighters from Pakistan and other countries without conclusive evidence.

.An officer of the Northern alliance has been quoted by the prosecution as stating in Prosecution document P - 1 on prisoners of war:

" We took charge of transferring detainees .In Qala Zeini we got hold of 25 containers on the way to Sheberghan prison and put 200 or so prisoners into each container ."

The subsequent evidence relied on by the proseuction from Prosecution document -K 61 ( as told to a correspondent of Newsweek ) is by a person under an assumed name of Mohammed ,who states that he drove one of the Containers ,in compliance with the request of a soldier under General Dostum ; the prisoners in the containers struck at the wall of the container and shouted for water stating that they were dying ; the driver made holes with a hammer in the container; when a soldier under General Dostum heard the sound ; he pretended that he was merely sealing holes.

Mr Mohammed Ikram , a well known Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, while deposing on instructions given to him by his client , on the treatment of Prisoners of war ;mentioned that there was gross internal interference by the Intelligence agencies of the United States in Pakistan, including in matters of internal investigation ; and that his client was unable to remain present to depose on aspects of treatment of prisoners of war by US troops , before the Tribunal, in view of delay in the issue of his travel documents ; as a consequence, vital evidence on war crimes against detainees and POW was not made available, which would have been conclusive on the transfer of prisoners in containers and other issues.

Mr Mohammed Ikram Chaudhary , Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan , gave details of the instructions given to him by his client on the treatment of detainees by the United States Occupation forces, even though he stated that his client had not been involved in hostilities ; and informed the Tribunal of the interference of the Intelligence Agencies of Pakistan in the criminal investigation and administration in Pakistan , violation of Pakistan's sovereignty ; deposing that he had filed a suit for damages against the government of the United States , against the illegal detention and torture of his client , Mr. Mohammed Sagheer, resident of Pattan in the North Western Frontier Province of Pakistan , by US forces in Afghanistan ; his ill treatment , torture, denial of adequate nutrition , medical assistance within Afghanistan , and illegal transportation to Cuba in shackles and hooded and subsequent incarceration at the US military base Guantanamo Bay ; .Mr Mohammed Ikram Chaudhary , advocate , produced before the Tribunal, the legal notice sent on behalf of his client to the Government of the United States . The Tribunal in view of the difficulties faced by Mohammed Sagheer in attending the trial a travel documents were not issued to him on time by the Government of Pakistan, could not address questions on the incidents directly relating to the affected individual ; though the fact of detention and treatment of Mohammed Sagheer is part of the same pattern .

The Prosecution in respect of serious incident of transporting prisoners in containers , has submitted, that both the Northern alliance and the Taliban militia had used "Containers" to inflict mass murder , on prisoners taken from each other in the past ; and this had happened at Mazaar-e-Sharif on both sides; even before the military attack by United States military forces . In this context the evidence of the Revolutionary Association of Afghan Women , Prosecution witness D, on the brutalities committed by both political groups , trained to misuse religion and carry out violent attacks , by outside powers, to devastate Afghanistan , is relevant and requires investigation even within Afghanistan . In view of the lack of conclusive evidence of the involvement of military forces of the United States , it is not possible to arrive at a conclusive finding , to hold the Defendant guilty of this serious episode of transportation of prisoners in sealed containers ; as a consequence of which hundreds , some claim thousands , lost their lives due to suffocation and the firing of rifle shots to create holes for ventilation when the prisoners were inside the containers ; the incident needs further investigation and inquiry by obtaining direct evidence of survivors .

F.Killing of uncoscious and seriously wounded prisoners at Dashte-e-Leili

At Dasht-e-Leili , seriously injured and unconscious 500-600 Taliban prisoners and foreign fighters were killed by shooting , their hands were bound ; the evidence in Prosecution document Ex-1 not been contradicted ; it is established that there were 30 to 40 US soldiers present who observed the shooting and execution of these prisoners ; this evidence conclusively proves that the Defendant as Commander-in-Chief of US forces , was guilty for the execution of prisoners of war at Dashte-e-Leili who had surrendered and were seriously injured and that US soldier were present when the shooting took place ; against all rules and norms of warfare of the Geneva Convention (III ) of 1949 and the Additional Protocol I of 1977

This was the man who kept rehashing the triumph of "good over evil", the war on terrorism, we the good guys, they the bad guys so much so, that I can't bear watching the news anymore. He kept repeating this during the past few months, knowing that this outrage had occurred and might be leaked out.

That is Bush for you and I am beginning to suspect that he is not the thick-skinned defiant cowboy I imagined him to be, but that there is a brain damage somewhere. Those words must have been scripted for him, just as the Iraq War was, right after Sept 11. To make things more jarring, he said ( this) during the 90th annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner. He even had the cheek to liken dead GIs in Iraq to a late football star. Pat Tillman was eulogized in name while fallen soldiers arrive quietly in anonymous coffins, which, the public are not supposed to hear or see. This is all a game, after all.

This shameless oratory was described as "lighter remarks". They must be. The president was praising journalists for supporting his bloody war. To my shock, Ralph Nader and Howard Dean were among guests at this unreal orgy of bedfellows. Lets hear their reaction soon.

His favorite poodle though, had plenty to say. Before that, recall this recent Churchillian quote.

“We will match their determination with our own, we will be as resolute as they are fanatical, as strong in defence of good as they are in doing evil... this is a battle which is far from over but like previous battles vital to the humankind, this one too will be won.” - Tony Blair, March 13, in the aftermath of the Madrid bombings.

This happened just six weeks back.

Tony is now "appalled," but has "stressed the abuse by a few soldiers at the Abu Ghraib jail was not representative of coalition troops."

What about the 9/11 attack by "a few" hijackers? The entire Iraqi nation had to pay for it while Osama Bin Laden is on the loose?

You need to ask Ann Clywd, Blair's pro-war special envoy to Iraq, for clarification. This is what she said:

"I was particularly concerned that so many prisoners are being held there over a long period of time, that their families quite often don't know they are even there." (BBC Online, April 30, 2004). Clywd, who had personally seen the prison, raised this concern during a recent visit to the White House. This was known for some time or, at least, sensed to a great extent.

It is very telling that the US army didn't clear up their act, and their torturous prison, for a visiting British envoy.

Situation has not changed much since those fateful photos were taken. Someone ought to ask Tag-along Tony how he could have kept up his pretences.

A folie a deux? It has since spread.

There will come a day when we cannot distinguish the sane from the insane.

Now, you can understand why the US army needed their very own BDSM chamber, the same one used by Saddam with greater, perverse vigor. When you have lunatic politicians, soldiers need a little kick themselves, much more than just delivering them.

The use of Abu Ghraib made perfect logistical sense but was bound to create a propaganda nightmare. Status quo remained till the photos leaked out. There was at least four months for damage control, yet nothing was done.

Here are some questions:

1) Why are mercenary thugs, provided by private contractors, hired to interrogate and torture prisoners of the US army? And escape with impunity, without any Geneva conventions and a possible Hague trial to restrain them? Is that only reserved for Slobodan Milosevic and his civilian thugs? Why are mercenaries allowed to interrogate in the first place in the hope of extracting information that could turn out to be top secret? Isn't that undermining operational and military security? Do these paid thugs actually extract secrets and keep their mouths shut out of patriotism? Is the US military undergoing corporate privatization? Or did they know that there was no secret to be extracted from those civilians and this was just another brilliant idea to rev up the great game called George's Crusade versus Bin Laden's Jihad? We have had some nasty attacks in Iraq and Saudi Arabia in the past 24 hours while Bush cracked his "light" macabre jokes.

2) Why did it take so long for this story to leak out? The army was investigating it for some time and a report was supposedly completed in February (The New Yorker, April 30). This was the ultimate scoop for any reporter. Is that why the president regularly humors them?

3) Why didn't the British Army warn Blair of an impending public relations disaster? They didn't know? Soldiers talk out there, and they talk to reporters as well. Tag-along Tony seems bent on finding his own fall guys as developing events in UK reveal. Some Brit commander may go down soon.

4) How come the accused soldiers couldn't distinguish between torture, "interrogation", or even "forceful interrogation"? This wasn't exactly kicking backsides in anger; they seemed to bring much-needed recreation and photo-ops to the soldiers. The senior one among them worked as a prison guard in the Virginia Department of Corrections. Is that where they sodomize inmates? He didn't know right from wrong?

The US has the highest concentration of prisoners in the world. Included among them are those who stole candy and video games three times coz they couldn't afford Christmas gifts for their kids. They get life imprisonment for this while Bush keeps up his war games fantasy. He must have got more than three lucky strikes in his life.

It sure seems allright, though, for maniacs from CACI International, the private contractor, to get away with war crimes.

"Their treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people. That's not the way we do things in America. I didn't like it one bit."

Those soldiers did it because they were dehumanized enough to enjoy it. They learnt that from Saddam? Or from the CIA spooks, military intelligence officers and "private specialists" in that hellhole? Or right from home sweet home itself? Well, some people don't seem to like home. Here is what the culpable Brig Gen Janis Karpinski had to say of the prisoners around the time of this incident.

“Living conditions now are better in prison than at home. At one point we were concerned that they wouldn’t want to leave.” (quoted by The New Yorker, April 30, from a St Petersburg Times Interview in December).

Certain people have crossed the boundary of delusion. The madness spreads. She can send the entire US prison population there. I am wondering what's Karpinski conception of "home"?

Finally, here is something sinister: "There were gross differences between the actual number of prisoners on hand and the number officially recorded." (The New Yorker, April 30, quoting Major General Antonio M. Taguba, the senior investigating officer who compiled the February report.

Where did the missing go? Or was there an army surplus in Iraq this year?

"My boys couldn't count the scores. Tillman is gone!"

That could be Bush's next joke!

May 2, 2004.

Copyright @ Mathew Maavak, 2004.

Just days after deciding that they had somehow separated the "good" Ba'athists from the "bad" Ba'athists, the US tapped Salah - a former general of Hussein's army - as the go-to guy for Falluja. Falluja has reported to have been a Hussein stronghold. So perhaps it is not too surprising that Salah and his forces receives a hero's welcome (SpaceWar, 4/30/04). It must have been a severe jolt to the US and to US troops at Falluja to see the welcome that they had hoped would greet the US.

It is interesting that the US not only selected the General for the job, but that he had his own troops - not the new Iraqi forces recruited by the US. "Salah showed up in town with 200 followers before heading into closed door talks with the commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, General James Conway, at Camp Fallujah, a few kilometres (a couple of miles) outside town" (Space War, 4/30/04). Just what was an ex-General of Hussein's forces doing wandering around with "followers" from the old Iraqi army? How many "followers" are there (obviously over 1,000).

I presume that the US decided that Salah was a "good" Ba'athist and not loyal to Hussein. Though where did the US find him, and what was his offer to them, and what does he (and his troops) get out of this? One has to assume that the US is paying these forces - there isn't anyone else except defense contractor who could. Or is this one of the few private contracts that have gone to Iraqi's rather than to US corporations.

What surprises me is that there doesn't seem to be anyone asking these questions. The news reports come through without a bat of the eye. It's as if it is normal that a Hussein General is roaming around Iraq with a band of former Iraqi military offering his services where needed.

Was the response of the people of Falluja a reaction to the US pulling back, their replacement by Iraqi forces, or to a return to "normal?" How many other former Iraqi Generals are roaming around Iraq with troops waiting to replace US forces? One has to wonder if this is the new US approach to replacing lost "coalition" forces, and reducing US troop numbers in Iraq. Perhaps the Bush regime feels that the Ba'athists, and Hussein's army and police will work better with Negroponte (who has no qualms about death squads, torture, and forceful control of populations).

It is still unknown who the US is turning (partial) sovreignty of Iraq over to on June 1. Perhaps this is an indication? Will the "new" Iraq look very much like the "old" Iraq except with a much more blatant US presence (both corporate and military)?

I guess that time will tell what will happen in Iraq, but I sure wish that someone would ask pertinent questions, and get some decent answers to them.

Virtually missing from all US reports is that the CIA, military intelligence, and private contractors were hired at the prison to direct "interrogation," and that US soldiers most likely were following their orders in torturing the prisoners.

4/30/04 Borger, Guardian/UK, US military in torture scandal "According to lawyers for some of the soldiers, they claimed to be acting in part under the instruction of mercenary interrogators hired by the Pentagon."

....

Lawyers for the soldiers argue they are being made scapegoats for a rogue military prison system in which mercenaries give orders without legal accountability.

A military report into the Abu Ghraib case - parts of which were made available to the Guardian - makes it clear that private contractors were supervising interrogations in the prison, which was notorious for torture and executions under Saddam Hussein."

5/10/04 Hersh, New Yorker, TORTURE AT ABU GHRAIB In letters and e-mails to family members, Frederick repeatedly noted that the military-intelligence teams, which included C.I.A. officers and linguists and interrogation specialists from private defense contractors, were the dominant force inside Abu Ghraib. In a letter written in January, he said:

I questioned some of the things that I saw . . . such things as leaving inmates in their cell with no clothes or in female underpants, handcuffing them to the door of their cell' and the answer I got was, "This is how military intelligence (MI) wants it done." . . . . MI has also instructed us to place a prisoner in an isolation cell with little or no clothes, no toilet or running water, no ventilation or window, for as much as three days.

The military-intelligence officers have "encouraged and told us, "Great job," they were now getting positive results and information," Frederick wrote. "CID has been present when the military working dogs were used to intimidate prisoners at MI's request." At one point, Frederick told his family, he pulled aside his superior officer, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Phillabaum, the commander of the 320th M.P. Battalion, and asked about the mistreatment of prisoners. "His reply was "Don't worry about it.'"

If these reports are accurate (and personally I believe they are), then the use of abuse and torture were deliberate and sanctioned from the top. It also means that it is likely that this kind of abuse is not an "isolated incident," but a common practice being used on prisoners (in Iraq and perhaps elsewhere).

It is most likely also not "accidental" that the abuse was so copiously documented. I suspect that the photos were used as an additional form of degradation.

Such dehumanization is unacceptable in any culture, but it is especially so in the Arab world. Homosexual acts are against Islamic law and it is humiliating for men to be naked in front of other men, Bernard Haykel, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at New York University, explained. "Being put on top of each other and forced to masturbate, being naked in front of each other it's all a form of torture," Haykel said. (Hersh)

Who were these dangerous prisoners who were being degraded and tortured at Abu Ghraib? Hersh states in the New Yorker article:

Most of the prisoners, however, by the fall there were several thousand, including women and teen-agers, were civilians, many of whom had been picked up in random military sweeps and at highway checkpoints. They fell into three loosely defined categories: common criminals; security detainees suspected of "crimes against the coalition"; and a small number of suspected "high-value" leaders of the insurgency against the coalition forces.

It seems likely that some of the prisoners died from the abuse that they received:

Two Iraqi faces that do appear in the photographs are those of dead men. There is the battered face of prisoner No. 153399, and the bloodied body of another prisoner, wrapped in cellophane and packed in ice. There is a photograph of an empty room, splattered with blood. (Hersh)

And these prisoners were definitely tortured - not "just" humiliated. A 53 page report of the investigation of abuse by Major General Antonio M. Taguba obtained by the New Yorker (and not a public document) listed some of the following conclusions:

Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

Also taken from this the Taguba report is the following quote from an interview with one of the US soldiers involved:

SFC Snider grabbed my prisoner and threw him into a pile. . . . I do not think it was right to put them in a pile. I saw SSG Frederic, SGT Davis and CPL Graner walking around the pile hitting the prisoners. I remember SSG Frederick hitting one prisoner in the side of its [sic] ribcage. The prisoner was no danger to SSG Frederick. . . . I left after that.

When he returned later, Wisdom testified:

I saw two naked detainees, one masturbating to another kneeling with its mouth open. I thought I should just get out of there. I didn't think it was right . . . I saw SSG Frederick walking towards me, and he said, "Look what these animals do when you leave them alone for two seconds." I heard PFC England shout out, "He's getting hard."

The level of depersonalization of the prisoners, even months after the abuse is frightening to me - note the reference above to the prisoner as "it."

The Hersh article lists the names and ranks of the US soldiers under investigation. Interestingly, none of the CIA, military intelligence, or private contractors are named. Nor do we know how many of them were present at the prison. We do know the companies that were contracted at the prison thanks to a report in the Guardian/UK - US military in torture scandal, Borger, 4/30/04.

The investigation names two US contractors, CACI International Inc and the Titan Corporation, for their involvement in Abu Ghraib.

Titan, based in San Diego, describes itself as a "a leading provider of comprehensive information and communications products, solutions and services for national security". It recently won a big contract for providing translation services to the US army.

CACI, which has headquarters in Virginia, claims on its website to "help America's intelligence community collect, analyse and share global information in the war on terrorism".

According to the military report on Abu Ghraib, both played an important role at the prison.

At one point, the investigators say: "A CACI instructor was terminated because he al lowed and/or instructed MPs who were not trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate interrogations by setting conditions which were neither authorised [nor] in accordance with applicable regulations/policy."

There may be a strategy in utilizing private contractors for such "jobs" as they are not under milittary jurisdiction (Borger: "One civilian contractor was accused of raping a young male prisoner but has not been charged because military law has no jurisdiction over him"). It would seem to me that civilian contractors who violate the law would come under Iraqi law. By turning offending contractors over to their employers for "discipline" a free rein is essentially given to any activity. In other words, under the US occupation of Iraq, contractors can be hired to abuse, torture, and kill Iraqi's and face NO legal consequences whatsoever. They can act with impunity.

This story became public (in part) because of Staff Sergeant Ivan "Chip" Frederick who was stationed at the prison and kept a journal once the investigation began. (See a partial transcript at 'I asked for help and warned of this but nobody would listen', Guardian/UK, 5/01/04).

In a BBC report - Link to video of a 5/01/04 report it is noted that Frederick, claims to have complained about the conditions, is a prison officer in civilian life. Frederick is one of six soldiers under investigation for abuse. He claims he raised the conditions to his superiors, but was under orders to abuse the prisoners.

The distraction being put out by most reports was that there were only seven soldiers responsible for 800 prisoners. This may well be true, but it how many CIA, military intelligence, and private contractors were at the prison? Obviously, this kind of soldier-prisoner ratio would have resulted in appalling conditions even without the abuse and torture. Another distraction is that these soldiers were "untrained." Well Frederick certainly wasn't. But one must ask, "trained" to do what? Act as a prison staff? Engage in humiliation and torture? They certainly were trained to "follow orders" which apparently they did with zeal if the photos are to be believed.

Obviously this "incident" and the release of the photos are not improving relations between the US and Iraqis, but are likely to enflame an already growing hostility against the US (Muslim 'torture' backlash, Langdon, This is London, 4/30/04; Outrage at US abuse of Iraqi prisoners, Al Jazeera, 5/01/04). No amount of "smoothing ruffled feathers," nor "sincere apologies" are going to cover the fact that the humiliation and torture was a standard practice, authorized at the highest levels.

The events at Abu Ghraib should be responded to with outrage by the citizens of the US. This happened in OUR NAME and the consequences of those actions will be directed against the US. It seems clear that the violation of human rights, of civil rights, of international law and of the Geneva convention, is the accepted practice of the Bush "War on Terrorism." That is not just unacceptable - it is despicable and not to be tolerated, condoned. There are too many facts available at this point for the lie of being "disgusted" at this "unfortunate incident" to fly. This requires the broadspread condemnation of the people of the US for what it is - a policy of anything goes.

The utilization of "private contractors" protected from any personal or legal consequences is also unacceptable. Those contractors were under the employ of corporations and had their orders directly from the US military and intelligence command. The US military and intelligence command had their orders directly from the Pentagon, and the Pentagon is DIRECTLY under the command of George W. Bush. This goes to the top.

Certainly, the pattern of secrecy and covert actions fostered and practiced by the Bush administration is part and parcel of the policy of total disregard for either law or human decency. The refusal to allow human rights organizations access to prisoners enhances the continuance of such secrecy and abuse.

What can we do?
Pressure the US corporate media to TELL THE TRUTH and to INVESTIGATE and REPORT HONESTLY to the American public about these events and others. Without that, the majority of the American public will accept the lies and distractions, and rest comfortable thinking that this was an anomaly involving seven stressed out soldiers who "lost it" under unbearable pressure. This includes flooding the papers with letters to the editor.

Contact your legislators and tell them exactly what you think, and what you believe should be done. I would suggest that impeachment proceedings be started immediately for Bush and Cheney, and the replacement of the entire chain of command from Rumsfeld, to Bremer, to those in Iraq. I would suggest criminal charges for all who devised and ordered this strategy, and turning them all over to the International Criminal Court.

Get the information - print out the reports, the pictures, make copies. Given them to people. If you have a website, post them there. The government may be trying to keep all of this quiet, but you don't have to.

Links for your Convenience - not exhaustive so add your own

4/30/04 Borger, Guardian/UK, US military in torture scandal

5/10/04 Hersh, New Yorker, TORTURE AT ABU GHRAIB

'I asked for help and warned of this but nobody would listen', Guardian/UK, 5/01/04

Link to video of a 5/01/04 report

Muslim 'torture' backlash, Langdon, This is London, 4/30/04

Outrage at US abuse of Iraqi prisoners, Al Jazeera, 5/01/04

4/30/04 DemocracyNow, Abu Ghraib: New Warden, Same Prison

4/30/04 Mejendie, Reuters, Iraqi Prison Photos Mar U.S. Image

4/30/04 Borger, Guardian/UK, US military in torture scandal

5/01/04 WSWS, "Bush and the Democrats are responsible for torture in Iraq"

Well, lets start here.

The incident was telecast, with “photos showing Iraqi prisoners naked except for hoods covering their heads, stacked in a human pyramid, one with a slur written in English on his skin.”

Here was the great President’s opportunity to tom-tom his grand, moral crusade. That he couldn’t escape those photos, and had to do a nice, opportunistic damage control act for the benefit of the American electorate (not citizens) will probably not be analyzed by the mainstream Press. Lets see how Fox News blows their equally shambolic trumpets besides these hollows presidential beats.

At the rate things are going, rather unbelievably, and as the world is pretty much convinced that Americans lack understanding of any kind to say the least, the White House can spin this one off any way they want. The president doesn’t “condone such acts. As commander-in-chief, he sets very high standards for his troops. He never participated in the My Lai massacre. Or the savageries in Central America, East Timor, etc etc. He also never had a hand in those wanton killing of Iraqi civilians, either through bombs or bullets.”

I don’t quite think I need to go on. Not at this early hour.

Fall guys needed to be found, and they should ideally be American soldiers, who, when facing combat and seeing their comrades killed, can resort to this kind of punitive punishment. Those facing combat on either side are in fact human; those who never did can muster all the self-righteousness they want. When you see those mutilated bodies of four American contractors in Fallujah and have the armor ready to exact revenge at very close quarters, it’s a surprise that those GIs didn’t go further. They were flouting the Geneva Conventions and the Texas National Guard code of honor. Under the latter’s code, you can plan and launch an illegal invasion of another country, right after Sept 11 using a long string of deceptions which, hardly raises an eyebrow enough to threaten the president’s incumbency with certainty. WMD, Al Qaeda links, 45 minutes, right up to the stonewalling of the Sept 11 Commission. In between this insufferable show, we were served yellow cakes for our informational nourishment. This made-in-Niger wonder worked well for the time it was intended.

Somehow, this man thinks he can distract the world’s attention away from Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and Sept 11. What the world really thinks, is this:

The lives of those who perished in Sept 11 seem cheap to the president. Remember, many of the victims were bastions of the American capitalist enterprise, not laborers from downtown New York. Pro-business stooges can still ride on their luck. Even terra firma is dangerous. You might be a former navy Seal, employed by Blackwell, and yet stray perplexingly into a waiting ambush in Fallujah, known in advance, at least by the residents. Cameras will be around to capture your martyrdom as it did during Sept 11, to shock an American public. For senior executives, it will be “business as usual.”

Now, six soldiers are being fried for a non-fatal incident in a war zone? They were guilty, true, but how many died over this never-ending farce? It’s one thing to claim disgust in your cool White House Rose Garden, in the presence of the Canadian Prime Minister, and yet something else to be canon fodder in the dessert heat.

I am into my second cup now.

The blame doesn’t lie with the president alone. The Arab world has a very different sense of effrontery, and certain words can inflame more passion that Donald Rumsfeld’s description of Palestine as a piece of “real estate,” around the time of the Jenin Massacre. I have yet to see the photo with that inscription, but I can tell you that the “bacon” you have for breakfast can spark more outrage than a few dead Palestinians. It’s not the US President alone who views human lives as cheap. In this instance, I can understand the average American’s befuddlement.

Those six soldiers must have had some real dehumanizing experiences, enough for them to forget that “this balancing act of piety” was bound to happen. This an opportunity Bush has been waiting, for a global public relations exercise. Those soldiers can always tell the military court that the invasion was illegal anyway; the My Lai heroes never got their just desserts; the masterminds of the attack on USS Liberty or for that matter USS Cole, have yet to be brought to justice. But cannon fodders are not pretty much different than the captives at Guantanamo Bay.

Gee, the humiliation heaped on fellow Americans during Bush’s college days (yes, its true, he went to college and holds an honorary PhD), after that, and right now, doesn’t count either. His lifelong conduct was exemplary, showing true modesty and having the highest regards for human dignity.

These soldiers would have to admit their guilt. It was “apparent”, committed in camera. Throw in a junior commander, or an out-of-favor senior military official, and the world will gasp in awe at the president’s “Judeo-Christian” credentials. Not to mention those hicks in ‘Bama, Texas, and elsewhere in the American South who would be hearing heaps of praise during tomorrow’s Southern Baptist sermons.

Now, let me read it again, in case those somnolent cobwebs dimmed my wakefulness.

That's not the way we do things in America. I didn't like it one bit."

I am looking at this statement from all angles, and my flat screen notebook isn’t being too helpful. It gets bad when my brand new, made-in-USA Zippo lighter ain’t working to well either, quite symptomatic of our times I’d say. My mind is racing, from slavery, the public lynching of Chinamen in the late 1800s to the violent suppression during the Civil Rights movement. But, that’s history, you could say.

What about the ad hoc strip parlors at US airports (mainly Southern), where anyone from respectable white grandmothers to dark-skinned professional women are the star-attraction? Well, they weren’t captured on camera, and they weren’t humiliated. That’s not the way you should react in America!

Ok. Here is my answer. Name me one nation that has caused the highest number of civilian deaths abroad since WW2 and I’ll lay this pre-dawn essay to rest. Take into account the incalculable murders by proxies everywhere and you know the obvious answer. Or is it? Did they come up to a trial?

For the time being, six GIs are going to be used as tools to justify the administration’s glowing halo. For an act of humiliation, when mutilations of all kinds go unabated? Sunday mass would be packed!

May 1, 2004 (Kuala Lumpur)
Copyright@ Mathew Maavak, 2004.

Mathew Maavak publishes an eclectic journal called the Panoptic World. It can be accessed at www.maavak.net

Founder, Panoptic World - www.maavak.net
Tracking Trends in Our Evolving Society
www.maavak.net