Instant Karma

Aren't we glad we have a government, in place, that has an immediate gratification reflex where the delivery of justice is concerned? So, instead of Maxwell House instant coffee, Saddam Hussein was served up a cup of instant karma. From the little we know of Saddam Hussein, he was a man who loved luxury, and opulence. While he clearly didn't respect it, he appeared to love life sufficiently so that his silence could have been bought.

If the rationale behind his swift, and expeditious execution early this morning was, as some pundits have suggested, to keep him from talking, then rest assured that, for the right price, Saddam was one dead man who would have been walking, but not talking, so why didn't they just send him off to live with his wife and the girls in Syria? Bush and Cheney could even have bought him the proverbial Rolex. But to hang him? Is that any way to treat such a loyal accomplice in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Kurds? After all, Pinochet didn't hang for his 30 year reign of terror, but was subject to house arrest. Was Saddam more of a monster than Augusto? Or, was he more of an inconvenient monster?

To my mind, the rush to hang Hussein wasn't about keeping the truth from coming out. Everybody knows the truth, but nobody wants to act on it. The rush to execute Saddam was more about obtaining the requisite silence from the world community to guarantee that there wouldn't be some last minute deal, on appeal, to keep the noose at bay.Saddam Hussein was America's "axis of evil" flavor of the month. You'll recall, back in 1990, he was emboldened, by our government, to attack neighboring Iran, and wreak havoc with Kurds as well as Iraqi nationals, but we didn't call it genocide then, we called it a coalition action. Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with him, and viewed him as a friend, indeed one who was armed and trained by the same military that held him until his last moments on earth, and then turned him over, like Judas, to those who would do our dirty work for us.

Clearly, the motive behind this wanton, and feckless killing was "v" as in "vengeance," not victory, as some would have us believe is what we're after in Iraq. By conducting such a transparently unfair kangaroo trial, the Iraqi Shi'ites collaborated with the neo-cons to virtually guarantee moral outrage, or martyrdom by default, for a world leader who was, unquestionably, a mass murderer, but a former president nonetheless and, as with any common criminal, entitled to a change of venue if he couldn't be assured a fair trial which, obviously, simply did not come his way in Baghdad.

By all accounts, Saddam remained "feisty" until the very end, even cursing some onlookers who insisted he destroyed their country. Why shouldn't he be feisty? After all, how could he possibly not have known that, once the anesthesia of shock wore off, the ignominy would register, and it would come in at a resounding 8.0 on the Richter scale. History can now record that the greatest country on earth, and its citizens, have now soiled any illusions of civilization, or cultural sanity, by hanging the leader of a country. No one yet has come forth, and asked the inevitable--would Saddam have suffered the same fate if he were Christian? How convenient for a country where a prominent Republican member of Congress recently expressed outrage at having a new representative insist on being sworn in with his hand on a Koran to turn Saddam over to his own without a single drop of blood being spilled on American soil. Haven't we spilled the blood of enough Iraqis? What is one more death in light of more than 650,000 Iraqi civilian lives lost to coalition forces? I guess we only call it genocide when it doesn't receive the "Good Housekeeping" stamp of approval. Shame on anyone who argues that the hanging of Saddam Hussein was anything less than a cheap vendetta by one who claims to be born again, no less.

Maybe we can all sleep a little easier tonight knowing that a man who had absolutely nothing to do with that monstrous event known as 9/11,which has already cost the lives of as many American service men and women, and twenty times as many Iraqi civilians, a man who, prior to American occupation, probably couldn't pick out a member of Al Qaeda in a line-up, is now out of our hair, while the real evil-doers are still at large; some may be even praying for future presidents to throw a friendly presidential pardon their way, too.

Accomplice After the Fact?

Okay, call this gallows humor, but what a fine time to plan an execution on the one holiday that the whole universe celebrates, Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike, the dawning of the New Year. And what exemplary strategizing, too, to videotape the hanging rather than broadcast it live on T.V. But what do you call a country that holds a former president as prisoner for years, and then hands him over to his adversaries to be slaughtered? Well, I think the term accessory, or accomplice after the fact, one who collaborates in the commission of a crime, but is not present at the time of the crime, works.

Make no mistake, hanging Hussein is every inch an American intervention. This is an American execution, and an example of the Department of Defense suggesting to an "independent" Iraqi judge that the former president of Iraq receive the death sentence. Further, given Saddam's courtroom histrionics, as well as his obvious alacrity for instant martyrdom, his hanging can only be viewed as yet another example of state-assisted suicide.

Moreover, with what has become customary governmental secrecy aimed at concealing duplicity, among other things, we know only that Saddam is being held at the infamous American military prison, Camp Cropper, next to Baghdad airport, so while he is on Iraqi soil, he is in American custody, thus entitled to those protections afforded to any prisoner of war, great or small, according to the Geneva Conventions. And, as his attorney, Al-Dulaimi has repeatedly said, "According to international conventions it is forbidden to hand a prisoner over to his adversaries," (AP) Previous outcries against numerous breaches to Geneva practiced, and/or sanctioned by, our government have, for the most part, fallen on deaf ears, so why should this one be any different?

Does it matter that Saddam is, for better or worse, no ordinary prisoner of war, but a former head of state? Will this barbaric form of killing set a precedent for how the world is to deal with future heads of state --put them in a noose and pull? What's more, can there be any doubt, in the mind of any reasonably sane person, that America is pulling the strings? While this administration has pursued this moment with a kind of tenacity, and passion, seldom seen since the days of the Great Crusades, if we are to hang Saddam, what will we do when, and if bin Laden is found, draw and quarter him, or merely burn him in the public square? Call me old-fashioned, but I liked it better when the CIA carried out these kinds of operations.

While it isn't known whether the execution will be broadcast on Iraqi television, there will be video of everything including the former president's last moments. An Iraqi Nobel Peace Prize winner, as well as several prominent human rights organizations, have spoken out against this heinous form of public humiliation and if we can speak up against an OJ interview on Fox, and have it pulled, I think those of us with anything even remotely resembling a conscience left must do the same now. Nobody is defending Saddam Hussein, or his genocidial actions, only suggesting that the world respond with sanity, and not the same pathology that brought the monster to trial in the first place.

"The only person who can predict the execution of the president...is God and Bush," said Saddam's lawyer; (AP) God isn't talking, and neither is Bush. While it may seem like an eternity, it was only Christmas Day that Pope Benedict appealed for an end to all the violence in the world observing that, despite the illusion of progress and modernity, our current need for a savior is desperate.

Clearly, the brutal, and barbaric hanging of a man who has languished in prison for years, and who will, no doubt, be excoriated by history puts us, a planet, no closer to a savior, or salvation, but requires that we ask instead: who has the moral high ground, and who has the rope.

On Imminent Plans to Hang Saddam Hussein

It was announced, just minutes ago, by the Associated Press that Saddam Hussein is currently in a U.S. prison with the intention of shipping him back, to Iraq, possibly as soon as this weekend where he will be hanged by the Iraqi government.

I have just one question:

Who has the moral high ground, and who has the rope?

Wouldn't You Really Rather Have a Buick?

Okay, so I'm feeling a bit irreverent here in forest fire, and flash flood warnings country. Maybe it's the holidays, or the threat of another not so new year; maybe it's carpel tunnel syndrome of the mind, maybe it's having read too much Walt Whitman, as a wee lass, or maybe not enough, but Gerald Ford, to me, was the Eisenhower of his time. Except for one thing: Eisenhower was the dude who warned us about the military industrial complex that is America now.

That said, he had a sense of humor. When then Congressman Ford was sworn in as vice president, back in 1973, en route to becoming the 38th president, he announced, on the Senate floor, "I'm a Ford not a Lincoln." Either way, he sure knew how to keep the political machinery lubed, and maintain a "business as usual" aura by pardoning errant Nixon. Those who don't forgive Ford for letting Richard Nixon off the hook fail to understand that the pardon was no more about exoneration than Abraham Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" was about emancipation. Something there is about the highest office in the land that seems to pollute even the most idealistic among us, and those who don't go along with the corruption, or appear to stand above the fray, get assasinated. Those who never lose a night's sleep over anything seem to live forever.

And, as we approach 2008, contenders line up at the gate with hats in hand to enter a nerve-wracking presidential race, and watch as they prepare to take out a second mortgage on their homes and, in some cases, their souls, I can't help but think of a movie released one year before Gerald Ford assumed the vice presidency, "The Candidate," a film about an idealistic young man, Bill McKay, as played by Robert Redford, who enters the senatorial race only to discover how politics corrupts, and where he is to find that, whether one is a Ford, Lincoln, or an Oldsmobile, ideals are optional with the vehicle, winning is all that counts.

We can only hope that anyone seeking to become president nowadays has also figured out that they, too, must prepare for a carry-on campaign, with wash and wear principles; no baggage is allowed at check-in, even if it be from Louis Vuitton. However cynical this may sound, while power corrupts, nothing corrupts better than politics.

Falling Between the Cracks this Christmas Day

Oh, I know nobody wants to hear about the need for a free press, especially during the holidays; it isn't as sexy as watching Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump go a few rounds, or pondering the erotic transgressions of two disgraced beauty queens. Nobody wants to hear that the suicide rate has doubled, this year, among our troops in Iraq, or how many of our service men and women, from this war and others, will find themselves homeless on Christmas Day, but truth doesn't take a holiday, not in a democracy anyway. On this day when even the Pope acknowledges a world in crisis, surely we can spare a moment to reflect on this administration's jihad on information sharing.

Given that the 2003 occupation of Iraq started with a military operation known as "shock and awe," a maneuver characterized by "overwhelming decisive force," "rapid dominance," "spectacular displays of power" which, taken separately or combined, are intended to "paralyze" the enemy, and its will to resist, (Wikipedia) it seems appropriate, in light of the CIA intervention in the December 22nd New York Times op-ed piece, "What We Wanted to Tell You About Iran," to point out that a campaign previously intended for use on the battlefield has now morphed into an assault on an independently owned newspaper, as well as the concept of a free press. Ostensibly, the executive branch is no longer satisfied being merely the Commander-in-Chief, but has now crowned itself the Redactor-in-Chief of the news in America.

Lest you happened to miss the article by Flynt Leverett, a former member of the National Security Council, and Hillary Mann, a former Foreign Service officer, please allow me to point out several salient details. For openers, the information they intended to impart dealt with relations between the U.S. and Iran which had already been highly publicized, "extensively reported in the news media" in spite of which a draft of the article had to find its way first into the hands of the Central Intelligence Agency's Publication Review Board, and from there to the White House where it endured numerous massages by the president,or what may simply be called redactio ad nauseum.

The original Op Ed commented on some findings of the Iraq Study Group with respect to Iran, according to the authors who state that, while CIA officials could find that nothing which would compromise national security had been divulged, "they had to bow to the White House" in its demands for deleting substantial portions of the piece. Notably, at least one of the authors of the Op-Ed had already put close to two dozen articles through the C.I.A.'s "prepublication review process," thereby allowing the Agency, and/or their Review Board, to edit what they had written. This is the first time I, personally, can recall hearing writers who are no longer associated with governmental agencies having to get clearance in order to publish opinion pieces.

What compelling irony, too, to think that a president who flaunts the fact that he doesn't read newspapers has taken it upon himself to choose which parts of a printed piece must be excised. And, on a day when the United Nations Security Council unanimously chose to play Iraq Redux, and impose sanctions on Iran in an effort to pressure Tehran to halt its nuclear enrichment program, and in light, too, of the Pentagon's announced plan to redeploy more warships in the Persian Gulf, closer to Iran, what better time to remember these, and other, spectacular displays of power intended to stifle dissent.

For anyone who has yet to see what an article looks like when it has been redacted, or censored, I invite you to look at the above-referenced NYT opinion piece, or feast your eyes on a reasonable facsimile:"Last December, XXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX X, while I was out and about XXXXXXXXX, he said that XXXXXXXX, but frankly, I had never seen XXXXXXXX and, from what I heard XXXXXXXX, intermittently they......." so on, and so forth...So, ladies and gentlemen, if a former ambassador to the United Nations, Joseph Wilson, had found his article in the hands of the Redactor-in-Chief, we might never have heard of Valerie Plame nor, for that matter, of the actionable role played by I. Scooter Libby, and the unsavory efforts of Karl Rove, and the vice president to put a silencer on a malicious and deliberate leak. Clearly, the word "classified" is, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder, and more a matter of political opportunism than national security.

On this Christmas, to my mind, a shock and awe campaign against a free press, in America, is no more acceptable in the battlefield of ideas than in the theatre of war. What's more, in an age when the news can no longer keep up with the news, there are just too many holes in that ceiling, and no amount of trying to exploit authority in order to manage public opinion will work to keep the truth from seeping out. Why it is that the C.I.A. would confess that they felt obliged "to bow" to the White House virtually every generation of American has fought, and made the ultimate sacrifice, to protect and defend our freedom is beyond me. Didn't we do enough bowing in the old country which is among the many reasons why, at much inconvenience and peril, our ancestors boarded the Mayflower. They didn't come here to witness more religious intolerance, only this time directed at Muslims instead of Puritans; they didn't come to here to sit back, and watch a simulated monarchy transform a major vehicle for information into a propagandist puppet show.

Oh, and I know Santa hears me when I say, I've decided what I want for Christmas next year; I want a free press, as well as leaders, of both parties, who recognize and respect our right to know.





(Yes, this is a revised version of "Shock and Awe," a piece posted a few days ago; it feels more timely this way. Merry Christmas)

Shock and Awe: The Politics of Redaction

Given that the 2003 occupation of Iraq started with a military operation known as "shock and awe," a maneuver characterized by "overwhelming decisive force," "rapid dominance," "spectacular displays of power" which, taken separately or combined, are intended to "paralyze" the enemy, and its will to resist, (Wikipedia) it seems appropriate, in light of the CIA intervention in yesterday's New York Times op-ed piece, "What We Wanted to Tell You About Iran," to point out that a campaign previously intended for use on the battlefield has now morphed into an assault on an independently owned newspaper, as well as the concept of a free press. Ostensibly, the executive branch is no longer satisfied being merely the Commander-in-Chief, but has now crowned itself the Redactor-in-Chief of the news in America.

Lest you happened to miss the article by Flynt Leverett, a former member of the National Security Council, and Hillary Mann, a former Foreign Service officer, while you were out Christmas shopping, please allow me to point out several salient details. For openers, the information they intended to impart dealt with relations between the U.S. and Iran which had already been highly publicized, "extensively reported in the news media" in spite of which a draft of the article had to find its way first into the hands of the Central Intelligence Agency's Publication Review Board, and from there to the White House where it endured numerous massages by the president,or what may simply be called redactio ad nauseum.

The original Op Ed commented on some findings of the Iraq Study Group with respect to Iran, according to the authors who state that, while CIA officials could find that nothing which would compromise national security had been divulged, "they had to bow to the White House" in its demands for deleting substantial portions of the piece. Notably, at least one of the authors of the Op-Ed had already put close to two dozen articles through the C.I.A.'s "prepublication review process," thereby allowing the Agency, and/or their Review Board, to edit what they had written. This is the first time I, personally, can recall hearing writers who are no longer associated with governmental agencies having to get clearance in order to publish opinion pieces. What compelling irony, too, to think that a president who flaunts the fact that he doesn't read newspapers has taken it upon himself to choose which parts of a printed piece must be excised.

And, on a day when the United Nations Security Council unanimously chose to play Iraq Redux, and impose sanctions on Iran in an effort to pressure Tehran to halt its nuclear enrichment program, and in light, too, of the Pentagon's announced plan to redeploy more warships in the Persian Gulf, closer to Iran, what better time to remember these, and other, spectacular displays of power intended to stifle dissent. For anyone who has yet to see what an article looks like when it has been redacted, or censored, I invite you to look at the above-referenced NYT opinion piece, or feast your eyes on a reasonable facsimile:"Last December, XXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX X, while I was out and about XXXXXXXXX, he said that XXXXXXXX, but frankly, I had never seen XXXXXXXX and, from what I heard XXXXXXXX, intermittently they......." so on, and so forth...So, ladies and gentlemen, if a former ambassador to the United Nations, Joseph Wilson, had found his article in the hands of the Redactor-in-Chief, we might never have heard of Valerie Plame nor, for that matter, of the actionable role played by I. Scooter Libby, and the unsavory efforts of Karl Rove, and the vice president to put a silencer on a malicious and deliberate leak. Clearly, the word "classified" is, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder, and more a matter of political opportunism than national security.

On this Christmas Eve, to my mind, a shock and awe campaign against a free press, in America, is no more acceptable in the battlefield of ideas than in the theatre of war. What's more, in an age when the news can no longer keep up with the news, there are just too many holes in that ceiling, and no amount of trying to exploit authority in order to manage public opinion will work to keep the truth from seeping out. Why it is that the C.I.A. would confess that they felt obliged "to bow" to the White House virtually every generation of American has fought, and made the ultimate sacrifice, to protect and defend our freedom is beyond me. Didn't we do enough bowing in the old country which is among the many reasons why, at much inconvenience and peril, our ancestors boarded the Mayflower. They didn't come here to witness more religious intolerance, only this time directed at Muslims instead of Puritans; they didn't come to here to sit back, and watch a simulated monarchy transform a major vehicle for information into a propagandist puppet show

Oh, and in case Santa happens to be out there listening, I've decided what I want for Christmas; I want a free press back, as well as leaders that recognize and respect our right to know.--

as for the Congressman from Virginia...

If it can be said that the Congressman from Virginia has disgraced his otherwise gentile, and sophisticated state with his unkind, and ignorant comments about taking an oath of office on the Koran, if nothing else, we now know what to call the sequel to a Hollywood blockbuster: "The Goode, the Bad, and the Ugly."

Those "Oldies but Goodies..."

While cleaning up my files, I stumbled upon the below piece from January, 2004, from another turning point in our history, which is timely in an eerie sort of way:

Cheney and Clan--- Regime Change

Whether we agree with the war in Iraq or not, the soldiers have nothing to do with our going over there. Halliburton, Dick Cheney, and the reincarnation of “contract for America” (i.e. oil contracts) are what are behind this fiasco.

It’s sad that even one drop of blood has been shed to make the fat cats even fatter. The only thing sadder is the thought that some people still don’t know where their bread is buttered. Working people, in this country, who vote Republican vote for Cheney, Halliburton, and those interests that keep wealth squarely in the hands of the upper 1% of the population.

This administration has consistently put the rights of the unborn over those of the living. A vote for Bush/Cheney is a vote to return to the days when serfs slaved away for the lords of the manor. Can we afford four more years that take us back 400 more? Can we afford to show the same contempt for posterity that infects the tribe currently running Washington, D.C. I think not. I think too much blood has already been shed to keep the class system firmly in place in a nation founded on opportunity. I think too many lives have already been lost, and are being lost daily, to preserve and protect those civil liberties, and first amendment rights, John Ashcroft and George W. Bush are now working sedulously to jeopardize at best, if not eliminate.

If the Constitution becomes a victim of conspicuous consumption like an outdated software program, the service of those soldiers who have fought, and continue to fight, to protect and preserve those liberties at the heart of democracy have been violated. As
citizens of this great nation, we need to show the same disdain for those who violate our first amendment rights as we do for those who rape our children; to do otherwise is to make a mockery of our political system, and our system of jurisprudence.

This is no time for political banter or diatribe. This is the time to act, and act swiftly, before the notion of a representative democracy becomes an anachronism. Never before, in our history, have the lines of demarcation been more pronounced. Never before have the stakes been higher. If Thomas Jefferson was right, and to maintain a democracy would require a revolution every twenty years, then it’s time for regime change in Washington. It’s time to make our votes count again, and to vote Cheney and clan, and their “Patriot Act” out; to do otherwise will look, to generations hence, like an act of sedition.

Jayne Lyn Stahl
January 24, 2004
Los Angeles, California

Haditha Revisited

Charges have been brought today against four marines for the murder of 24 Iraqi civilians in a small town in Iraq, back in 2005, and four officers will face prosecution for failing to investigate, and or report the deaths properly. In addition to being charged with unpremeditated murder, their leader, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, stands accused of falsifying an official statement, and attempting to get another Marine to participate in the cover-up.

On May 29, I wrote the below piece, "The Road to Haditha" and, sadly, while we hear murder charges brought against those who carried out this brutal, and heinous crime, we hear nothing of those "high ranking military officials" who attempted to buy the silence of the survivors...


The Road to Haditha...

While details are sketchy on a holiday weekend when we pause to remember our war dead and those whose service has taken us, as a nation, to where we are today, one thing is certain, the road to Haditha is a dirty one that is not without painful precedent. What we now know is only this: sometime in mid-November, a group of marines who appear to have been acting to avenge the murder, by an "insurgent," of one of their comrades days earlier, took it upon themselves to go into this small, yet perilous farming town, in Iraq, and perform wholesale slaughter upon 24 innocent men, women, and children. One woman was described, in a New York Times article, as bending down, and begging for mercy as she was shot "in cold blood," and at close range, by a marine. Even the most hard hearted, indeed those with lead running through their veins, cannot help but be moved by this image, as well as that of a young boy watching his parents brutally murdered arbitrarily, hunted down in a moment of fury, victims of war and the cruellest impulses that characterize human nature. Arguably, it is this same mean instinct that drove military vehicles to plow into a crowd of civilians in Afghanistan earlier today prompting mass rioting, looting, and cursing of America, and Americans by the Afghan people.

Already the pundits are lining up to predict whether Haditha will be the most audacious, and miserable. act committed by our military, to date, in the name of a war on terror, or if Abu Ghraib will come in first. Already members of Congress are being asked to brace for investigations not only into this lurid affair, but into a most repulsive effort to cover it up, i.e., the report that high ranking military officials approached survivors of the blood bath at Haditha, and handed them checks for $2500 each. What would you consider fair compensation for the loss of a brother, a father, or grandmother? Such an attempt to placate, and appease victims of this tragedy is almost as dreadful as the murder itself. What's more, if the brass knew enough to try to conceal evidence of this senseless act of brutality, then they knew enough to prevent it from happening in the first place.

There are some who will contend that every war has its massacres, that combat fatigue leads to irrational, and random acts which would be unthinkable in times of normalcy. Others might say we may expect more blood to be shed in the name of "new Normal." Some might point to the My Lai massacre, as well as the horrors of Cambodia, to show that even the most horrific crimes are ravages of war, but something is different here. Something dangerous, and deadly, is happening to the men and women we send to combat, starting with Vietnam, when they can smoke dope, listen to Metallica, and blow away an entire village without remorse and, in many cases, without recrimination. When the line of demarkation between fantasy and reality becomes blurred, for whatever reason, and there is confusion as to what is right and wrong, the battlefield swells to the size of human consciousness.

Arguably, it is this same mean instinct that drove military vehicles to plow into a crowd of civilians in Afghanistan earlier today prompting mass rioting, looting, and cursing of America, and Americans by the Afghan people. Already the pundits are lining up to predict whether Haditha will be the most audacious, and miserable. act committed by our military, to date, in the name of a war on terror, or if Abu Ghraib will come in first. Already members of Congress are being asked to brace for investigations not only into this lurid affair, but into a most repulsive effort to cover it up, i.e., the report that high ranking military officials approached survivors of the blood bath at Haditha, and handed them checks for $2500 each. What would you consider fair compensation for the loss of a brother, a father, or grandmother? Such an attempt to placate, and appease victims of this tragedy is almost as dreadful as the murder itself. What's more, if the brass knew enough to try to conceal evidence of this senseless act of brutality, then they knew enough to prevent it from happening in the first place.

There are some who will contend that every war has its massacres, that combat fatigue leads to irrational, and random acts which would be unthinkable in times of normalcy. Others might say we may expect more blood to be shed in the name of "new Normal." Some might point to the My Lai massacre, as well as the horrors of Cambodia, to show that even the most horrific crimes are ravages of war, but something is different here. Something dangerous, and deadly, is happening to the men and women we send to combat, starting with Vietnam, when they can smoke dope, listen to Metallica, and blow away an entire village without remorse and, in many cases, without recrimination. When the line of demarkation between fantasy and reality becomes blurred, for whatever reason, and there is confusion as to what is right and wrong, the battlefield swells to the size of human consciousness.

For every obscenity committed by our military like the one, in Haditha, that comes to light, there are dozens more, on larger and smaller scales, where no one has survived to tell of it, and we must look with the furtive glance of one condemned upon those transgressions that cut to the core of what it means to be civilized, after all. For condemned we are, all of us, whether we participated in the massacre or not; we are condemned by our capacity for such unspeakable barbarism. We are condemned, too, by whatever desensitization arises from video game warfare, from growing up around toy soldiers, and plastic guns; from hiding our caskets as our crime of mystifying the wrenching, gutted dying that is war.

Moreover, in some huge way, those who occupy a modern military theatre still confuse the shadow on the wall of a cave with the sun not unlike the warriors of ancient Greece who also thought their Republics could not bleed. Ours is bleeding, and if we persist in living with the lie that we are not all responsible for healing this egregious wound, then we are no less guilty than any marine in the killing field that was Haditha last November.

So it is, then, that the road to Haditha is a long, and twisted path that speaks to the darkest cavity of the human body, the heart, as in the words of Joseph Conrad: 'We have lost the first of the ebb'...The offing was barred by a black bank of clouds, and the tranquil waterway leading to the uttermost ends of the earth flowed sombre under an overcast sky-seemed to lead into the heart of an immense darkness." ( Heart of Darkness.) Oh, "The horror, the horror" when a member of the human race commits such an atrocity, they gravely diminish us all, and the best way to honor our veterans, especially those who have paid the ultimate price, is by telling the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, and loud enough so that the entire world can hear it.

For every obscenity committed by our military like the one, in Haditha, that comes to light, there are dozens more, on larger and smaller scales, where no one has survived to tell of it, and we must look with the furtive glance of one condemned upon those transgressions that cut to the core of what it means to be civilized, after all. For condemned we are, all of us, whether we participated in the massacre or not; we are condemned by our capacity for such unspeakable barbarism. We are condemned, too, by whatever desensitization arises from video game warfare, from growing up around toy soldiers, and plastic guns; from hiding our caskets as our crime of mystifying the wrenching, gutted dying that is war.

"Natural Partners" -- Consider the Out-source

When signing into law, on Tuesday, a bill that would allow "civilian nuclear cooperation" with India, President Bush said: "The United States and India are natural partners. The rivalries that once kept our nations apart are no more--and today, America and India are united by deeply held values;" ( WaPo) that would be the deeply held belief in the value of the almighty dollar which has sunk lower than the Titanic in recent years. What's more, for an administration that has made the threat of anything nuclear the centerpiece of its campaign of preemption to enter into an agreement with among the world's largest nations, India, in which that nation is, in effect, given permission to enrich uranium to their heart's content seems to defy logic, except when that logic embraces the corporate bottom line.

So, while the mainstream media, and the blogosphere, have been preoccupied with troop size, the president has been quietly working to wipe out more than 30 years' worth of nuclear nonproliferation efforts. Who will be able to keep a straight face, from now on, when the administration redeploys troops from beleagured Baghdad into Tehran on the grounds that Iran is enriching its uranium, into North Korea, Pakistan, or anywhere else? How can this administration cooperate with Indian nuclear ambitions while, at the same time, threatening economic embargos and wholescale invasions of those other pariahs?

While India is among a handful of states that did not sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 2000; others are Pakistan and Cuba, clearly, Bush's objective here is partly to establish a stronger connection with India as a way to keep the economic behemoth of China at bay. But, of equal importance, is the transparent intention to establish a partnership, "natural" or otherwise, in Asia, should the nuclear arms race lead to its inevitable conclusion; another, and arguably the final, world war.

Ostensibly, the administration plans to use the remaining 23-odd months it has left to line up its ducks, and save face with regard to a bankrupt foreign policy legacy. After all, history may look more kindly upon a president who helped to establish closer ties with India. Just as we remember Richard Nixon for Watergate, we also remember him for his opening lines of communication with China. Just as there are many who would rather remember Ronald Reagan's famous line: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall" than Oliver North and the Iran-Contra debacle, or the invasion of Grenada. Is it so terrible, after all, for a president to want posterity to have one good thing to say about his foreign policy initiatives. Indeed, and he may well get his wish as future generations may come to know him, from now on, as Mr. George "just say no to nonproliferation'" Bush.

When at the business of keeping track, posterity will also recall the efforts of this administration to put commerce, and profit, above more than a quarter of a century's international covenenants to protect against global nuclear annihilation. In addition to turning back the clock on nonproliferation efforts, and risking another arms race, this new law flies in the face of the Atomic Energy Act which proscribes trade with countries who have not signed, and agreed to abide by, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Importantly, Congress was persuaded to go along for the ride, knowing full well that the Atomic Energy Act forbids trade with countries that did not agree to the terms of prior nonproliferation covenants.

While the U.S. and India shook hands on a new era of "civilian" nuclear cooperation, importantly, India has to come up against the International Atomic Energy Agency, and may have to face inspections. "India only agreed to put half of all its electricity-producing reactors under safeguard, and that's troubling" according to Daryl G. Kimball, of the Arms Control Association. (WaPo) Indeed, troubling it is, especially for those of us who are fond of the prospect of knowing there will be a human race in a hundred years. One can only hope that the IAEA will provide the needed oversight to ensure that India, too, must play by the rules. Somebody needs to tell the president nonproliferation may not be sexy , it may not have a beat you can dance to, but it works.

To Impeach or Not to Impeach

While sitting in a hot tub earlier this evening, I wondered how Will Shakespeare might revise Hamlet's soliloquy were he to have written the play today, especially in light of all the recent talk about impeachment. Being a first-rate wordsmith, Will would, no doubt, want to know every possible meaning for the word used, so in his honor, I rummaged through my Random House dictionary, and this is what I came up with:

"impeach (vt ) 1) to accuse (a public official) before an appropriate tribunal of misconduct in office. 2) to challenge the credibility of 3) to bring an accusation against 4) to call in question; cast an imputation upon"

All of the above sound plausible, when thinking about the current administration, but nowhere in the verb does it say anything about eviction, or ousting from office,

so it's off to the noun then,

"impeachment" 1) the impeaching of a public official before an appropriate tribunal 2) (in Congress. or state legislature) the presentation of formal charges against a public official by the lower house; trial to be before the upper house. 2) (in Congress. or state legislature) the presentation of formal charges against a public official by the lower house; trial to be before the upper house.

Look for the common denominator in definitions of both the verb and the noun:
"before an appropriate tribunal ."

As you know, the Constitution provides for the removal, from office, of an elected official under Article I, Sections 2 and 3, and states: "the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

A compelling question arises: where is this "appropriate tribunal?" The framers of the Constitution could have never imagined anything Mark Foley, Tom DeLay, the Contract on America by Newt Gingrich, or the likes of Richard Nixon. But, can we hope for an appropriate tribunal after the new Congress convenes, or more of the same under a different party logo?

Moreover, why are so many people offended by the thought of bringing an accusation against, calling into question, and/or presenting formal charges? If, as part of a larger investigation, it becomes clear that the actions of any public official constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors" and were, by design, intended to sabotage this republic, then why not go for it? But, to impeach merely for the sake of punishment is not merely archaic, but will transform a much needed remedy against abuse of power into a weapon of mass distraction.

Haven't we had enough irrelevancy in the past six years? How many children will go to bed hungry tonight because another billion dollars must be spent on securing a stronghold in the second greatest oil producing region in the world? How many hard-working American families will have to choose between paying their heating bills, or paying their rent? Can we, as a country, really afford the luxury of public flogging at a time when the average American working family is hurting more than ever before; when the disparity between rich and poor threatens to expand so as to bring civil war to our own shores?

For the nation that was home to Salem Bay, and the Puritans, this might be hard to process, but we need dialogue; we need discourse; we need inquiry; we don't need to see our elected leaders brought to their knees. That may help the constitutional scholars, but it won't do squat for a single mom who has only three-day old pasta to feed her four year old.

It's now up to Congress to become the Lost and Found for national priorities. We need for Congress to talk about keeping future executive branches from overstepping their limits. We need Congress to tackle warrantless electronic surveillance abuse by National Security Agency, those infamous signing statements, those sections of the USA Patriot Act that have yet to sunset, and to challenge the assertions of our Defense Secretary who tells us that failure in Iraq would be a catastrophe as if it were something that has yet to happen. We need for Congress to tell this president that the war is over, not to get out of Dodge. Getting out of Dodge won't assure us that we'll be any closer to getting out of Iraq.

Oh, and yes, we need to speak truth to power, but we also need to ask those Democrats who are taking control of the House, next month, that support appropriating another $150 billion in Iraq, like Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman, why they won't sign, and support, HR 4232, Congressman McGovern's bill, which will cut off all funding for the war in Iraq. We need to hold them accountable, as much as their counterparts, for every drop of blood spilled in the name of a war on terror.

We need to ask those Democrats who will be taking the reins in the Senate, next month, like incoming Senate majority leader Harry Reid why they approve of sending more troops into Baghdad under the pretext that it is just a short-term strategy.

This isn't about whether Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have brokered a deal to keep George W. Bush off the historical hot seat, this is about ensuring the highest possible scrutiny of the real issues, the ones that will still be there whether we choose to impeach or not to impeach.

Lapdogs, Weasels, and the Presidential Race

While all eyes are on who announces next in the race to be the next president, we can't afford to overlook the role of the third branch of government, the Supreme Court, both in curbing the rank expansionism of the presidency, as well as in protecting and preserving much-needed oversight. Despite the best attempts of current leadership, in Washington, democracy was intended to be a collaborative effort, and not an exercise in unitary authoritarianism.

While the war in Iraq may be regarded as a huge policy failure with respect to our foreign policy, it has worked wonders to deflect attention away from this administration's ongoing domestic war on our civil liberties. The Supreme Court may soon be faced with a major challenge, and one which deserves attention every bit as much as the flawed, and deceptive agenda that brought us to Iraq.

One year ago today, our president openly conceded that he gave the green light to the National Security Agency to eavesdrop, without a warrant, on the phone calls and electronic communications of ordinary citizens under the pretext of curbing "terrorist links." And, to this day, the federal government continues its illicit program of warrantless spying on average Americans. Moreover, efforts on the part of the new Democratic majority in Congress to curb NSA eavesdropping might well result in a "constitutional showdown." (AP)

Plans by Democrats like Senator Dianne Feinstein to insist that a warrant be issued before a person's phone may be tapped may well succumb to a presidential veto. We've seen how this president has used signing statements, and can predict reasonably well that he will exercise his veto option as imperiously, and excessively, in which case the Supreme Court will end up being "the decider" when reviewing the legality of the NSA program, as well as other dubious legislation this administration has attempted to push through under the abysmal abstraction of "terror." The ACLU is already preparing to challenge the constitutionality of warrantless government spying, on January 31, in a Cincinnati court.

While a government's defiance of the FISA law to snoop on the activities of its citizens is a large issue, the larger issue is whether the weasel words "national security" may be employed to sabotage those protections guaranteed to us by the First Amendment. So, whether it is John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Barack Obama, John McCain, Rudy Guiliani, Ralph Nader, indeed, whomever opts to grace us with their candidacy needs to show us that they will not follow in the footsteps of those weasels who, in their uniquely beguiling and clever way, perform a "hypnotic dance" for their prey to deflect attention away from the true intent which is to consume, and conquer in the name of democratizing. We have a right, indeed, a responsibility, to ask each and every candidate who plans to run for president what his or her viewpoint is with regard to the autonomy of the Supreme Court, as well as what qualities they will look for in choosing a justice to the highest court in the land.

Optimism never hurts, and we have reason to be optimistic in that there are only two more years left in which to suffer the kind of stasis that has resulted in mass casualties in Iraq, and divine neglect with respect to the domestic agenda here at home. On the other hand, this administration has two more years for yet another opportunity to make a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

The attorney general, and all the president's men, have consistently articulated their intent to transform the court not merely into a vehicle for their neo-con agenda, but into a permanent lapdog. Mr. Gonzales' calls for more humility from the court should send shivers up and down the spine of every American as should any efforts to neutralize the third arm of government. It was, after all, the Supreme Court that decided on a woman's right to choose and we will likewise look to the court to determine whether an executive order can circumvent both an extant law (FISA) and our constitutional right to privacy. In the final analysis, it may well be up to the Supreme Court, and not Congress, to speak power to power, and to hold at bay an administration for whom the only "checks" and balances that count are the ones with six figures printed on them.

So, when surfing the Web, or your digital TV lineup next fall, and listening to the campaign rhetoric of all those who toss their hats into the presidential ring, keep in mind that while a president can do a lot of damage, they only have eight years; a Supreme Court judge is appointed for life. It is essential to know where each and every candidate, for president, stands on the question of the autonomy of the court, as well as the role of the executive branch in times of war and peace.

The Testimony of Carne Ross

Released yesterday, some startling revelations from a previously "suppressed document" written by a former U.K. diplomat and member of the Foreign Office, Carne Ross, who was among those actively involved in negotiating U.N. security council resolutions on Iraq. The formerly classified document asserts that Prime Minister Tony Blair must have known that Saddam Hussein was not in possession of weapons of mass destruction, hence he deliberately, and knowingly misrepresented claims that led to British involvement in the invasion, and decimation of Iraq. This testimony directly contradicts the findings of the Butler inquiry which cleared the prime minister, and Her Majesty's Government of having distorted, and tweaked the evidence needed to get England behind the war. (The Independent)

Mr. Ross, who worked with the Foreign Office for 15 years and was a member of the British mission to the United Nations, resigned last year because he had grave moral concerns about the legallity of the war. The public venting of his belief that Tony Blair knew that Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction, and that his government never believed that "Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests" is unprecedented for one who himself worked as a member of the British mission to the U.N. Moreover, Ross insists that, despite Tony Blair's claims to the contrary, "there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of chemical weapon, biological warfare, or nuclear material" by Hussein before the invasion. Ross openly, and aggressively counters the prime minister's assertions that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, and was a menace to British security.

What's more, back in 2002, Ross acknowledges having spoken about his concerns about Blair's veracity with a British weapons expert, David Kelly, who was later named by the BBC as the source that the evidence needed to go to war was "sexed up" by Downing Street. Shortly after having been outed, Mr. Kelly killed himself.

Importantly, the Foreign Office, with whom Carne Ross worked until a year ago, has sedulously attempted to stifle release of testimony in which he claims that Tony Blair intentionally misled Parliament, under the Official Secrets Act, and Ross is still nervous about being prosecuted for divulging so-called "classifed information." While Tony Blair has resigned his post, and his Labour Party is in tatters, the release of this report, and news of the campaign to stifle it, will have far-reaching implications not merely with regard to Britain's foreign policy, but to future wartime partnerships between the U.K. and the U.S..

Not only do these findings validate that other extraordinary, and illuminating memo, from July 23, 2002, the so-called Downing Street Memo, which reveals a deliberate, and calculated plan to deceive citizens of England and the U.S., and manufacture justification for going to war with Iraq, but the manner in which the Foreign Office has attempted to stifle, and silence dissent is more proof that the empire of secrecy, and deception, has insinuated itself into the greater European continent.

If the consequences for lying to the citizens of the country you happen to govern are so grave that you lose your credibility, and public standing, as has happened with the American president, or you lose your position, as has happened to the British prime minister, maybe future leaders will think twice before cooking the causes for going to war. Maybe, if nothing else, we've learned that the politics of intimidation and fear, currently enveloping Carne Ross, and most of North America, flat out doesn't work. With any luck, the world community will now learn to sleep with one eye open with regard to evidence for why we should go to war.

Moreover, maybe the high cost of screwing up in Iraq will inspire future leaders of the "free world," before deciding to invade Iran, or anywhere else on the planet, to hold meetings and conduct inquiries, instead of issuing commands, and to practice statesmanship instead of California stop diplomacy.

We, in this country, can take a few tips from the British, and go after the truth about who, in our government, knew what, when, as well as how to accept responsibility for our actions, and their consequences.

Who knows why...

Who knows why so many lives are given up to war under the pretext of defending this God or that. For me, religion has always been the fast food of thought.

Dukes of Hazard

If you happened to catch Wolf Blitzer's interview with David Duke yesterday, you couldn't help but wonder why it is that when Jimmy Carter talks about smearing folks who criticize Israel as being anti-semitic it resonates differently than when David Duke says it. Could it be because Mr. Duke is a former member of the KKK? Could that be why he found it so objectionable that Wolf Blitzer mentioned his participation in that neo-Nazi group "eleven times." Wolf Blitzer gets high marks for at least trying to maintain his composure; that's about it.

I remember Mr. Duke when he still put a bag over his head, and his Armani suits, and Ralph Lauren ties, don't fool me now; once a skinhead, always a skinhead. You can bet on one thing, if that paragon of Jew-bashing, Adolph Hitler, were alive today, he'd do what David Duke did, get himself a Ph.D., put on a $1500 suit, dress like a politician, talk like a politician, and run for Congress. The scary thing is, he'd probably get elected. Whoever said "you can fool some of the people, some of the time" obviously slept through most of the 20th Century.

Mr. Duke has even done a stand-up job of adopting the lingo of those who blame the Jews for Iraq, Iran, and the fact that fertilizer won't make their lawns grow. He utters the same tired refrain about the media being owned by Jews, and laughs over mistaking "the Jewish Times of Los Angeles" and "The Los Angeles Times." What he fails to recognize is that the very station interviewing him is owned by Ted Turner who isn't Jewish. Also, his pointing the finger at Blitzer for being a lobbyist for Israel is no different from Blitzer pointing the finger at him for being a former member of the KKK. One good churn deserves another.

What's worse, Duke professes to distinguish between Zionism and Judaism, but his professions are about as genuine as his conversion to the thinking, and dissenting American elite. but there are so many pathetic fallacies, and illogics to what he has to say -- forgeddabout it....

When former President Jimmy Carter rightly says that no one can criticize Israel without being dubbed an anti-semite, I couldn't agree more. The "my country right or wrong" approach to Israel's occupation of Lebanon, and the disgraceful manner in which it treats its Muslim community deserves condemnation in the same way one condemns U.S. occupation of Iraq. The difference is that those who criticize Israel for treating its Arab community as second class citizens forget that Israel is a nation, and not a religion; the words "Israeli" and "Jew" are not synonymous.

Yes, yes, no one is denying the role of Perle and Wolfowitz in bringing Iraq to a theatre near you, but anyone foolish enough to think that the war in Iraq started because of Perle and Wolfowitz better not run for office any time soon. It's the same old, same old.... whenever there are serious problems in the world, folks look for a scapegoat, and the Jews have always been the most convenient ones.

Go back and watch the interview on You Tube again, I did. Notice that the two times Duke paused the longest were when Blitzer asked him if he hated Jews, and if he believed in the Holocaust. If you think Duke makes a plausible argument, or has the moral high ground, you're going to wake up with one hell of a hangover.

Earth to Ahmadinejad

Earth to Iranian president Ahmadinejad: the Holocaust happened, and nobody asked you!

For someone so close to being annihilated by the penultimate military behemoth of the planet, the president of Iran has a big pair of cajones to hold a conference to explore whether or not the Holocaust was an actual historical event, or a figment of the planet's collective imagination. Frankly, to dignify the content, or lack thereof, of a discussion of this nature is to sink to the level of those who engage in this kind of rhetoric.

As Reuters reported, his remarks "received warm applause" from those delegates that ranged from "ultra-Orthodox anti-Israel Jews" to writers who argue that the Holocaust either never happened, or has been greatly exaggerated. He claims entitlement to air his controversial views on the Holocaust, based on "free speech." Curious, isn't it, how Ahmadinejad plays the free speech cards when human rights groups, around the world, often list Iran as among those nations most hostile to the expression of dissenting views.

Too bad, just when it seemed like Iran was getting a raw deal from America, and the international community, and was about to become another victim, just when I was starting to believe that his uranium enrichment program was just that---uranium enrichment, and his views on stem cell research were so progressive, he'd have to go and do something dumb like describe the killing of 6 million Jews as a "myth." (Reuters)

Well, I'd like for Mr. A to meet my Uncle Joe, a man who never raised his voice, but who raised a gun, and shot a guard to escape from a camp in Austria, the same camp that claimed the lives of his entire family. I remember, at the age of 7, climbing on my uncle's knee, and looking at a row of numbers permanently etched into his left arm. Having been infected, from birth, with a rapacious hunger to know, I asked Uncle Joe, "what are those numbers, and how did you get them?" In a voice so quiet it was unnerving, he proceeded to tell me, bit by bit, the story of his loss, thanks to the Nazis, and what he had to do to survive. I defy the Iranian president, or anyone else, to call this sweet man, who was the epitome of integrity, a liar.

Anyone who agrees with Ahmadinejad that the Holocaust never happened must also believe him when he calls Iran the "home of all freedom seekers of the world (where) you can express your views and exchange opinions in a friendly, brotherly and free atmosphere." What's more, anyone who confuses the state of Israel with a specific ideology, such as Zionism, deserves a one-way ticket on the next flight to Tehran.

A Fly on the Wall

CNN breaking news reported last night that Saudi King Abdullah announced, if the United States withdraws from Iraq, the Saudis will back Sunni insurgents. You recall that, in late November, Vice President Dick Cheney went to Saudi Arabia to meet with the King.

Oh, to have been a fly on the room where they met; wouldn't you just love to know what the King was offered to make him say that?

Annan Speaks

What better time to reflect on outgoing U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's farewell speech, this morning, at the Truman Presidential Museum and Library, than on the eve of release of results of an investigation into alleged ongoing, and routine detainee abuse at Guantanamo Bay. The report by Colonel Richard Basset, an Army officer commissioned to investigate the sworn allegations of Marine Sergeant Heather Cerveny that "a group of sailors she met at a Guantanamo Bar on September 23 described beating detainees as common practice," can be expected any day now, and one may expect it to be riveting, even if it isn't shocking.

What is shocking, but not surprising, is what Mr. Annan had to say, in a town called Independence, a venue he specifically selected in order to honor the memory of a former president, Harry Truman, who was instrumental in founding the U.N. Mr. Annan has chosen this time, and place, in which to justifiably, and eloquently, criticize the nation that has been the 500 pound gorilla in the United Nations for the last 6 years; the Bush regime, in its departure from those Democratic principles that have distinguished our country, for generations, under the transparent guise of fighting a war against terror. "Human rights and the rule of law are vital to global security and prosperity," said Mr. Annan, and when America "appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused;" he quotes from President Truman: "The responsibility of the great states is to serve and not dominate the peoples of the world." Mr. Annan''s concern for the core values of "global solidarity, mutual accountability and multilaterlism" (AP) are justified, as is his implication that our country has used the Security Council as little more than a stage on which to act out our "national interests."

This remarkable address today. at the Truman Museum, reminds us, too, of a host of inquiries, and allegations into misconduct, by our military, as well as an ongoing, and unprecedented campaign by those in authority to blur the line between legitimate questioning and the use of interrogation techniques that can only be described as torture. We are reminded of a report by a U.S. military doctor, just about a year ago ago today, of widespread prisoner abuse by Iraqi police in a secret Iraqi jail. (Christian Science Monitor)

While the Iraqi interior minister argued with the claim that torture was the prescribed method of acquiring information from those detained in this clandestine Iraqi jail, many U.S. soldiers, and other Iraqi officials corroborated findings of Major R. John Sturkey, a former U.S. Army doctor who served in Baghdad last year, who says he "personally treated about a dozen men who had been tortured and observed an environment of overcrowding and neglect" in the covert prison. What message do we send to the world when, on the one hand, Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, says that "the U.S. does not authorize or condone torture of detainees" and, on the other, senior members of the administration have argued that the UN Convention Against Torture treaty rules against "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment" do not apply to enemy combatants.

Around Thanksgiving-time, last year, in a press conference, as reported by the Christian Science Monitor, Joint Chief of Staff Chairman, General Peter Pace, insisted that "it's absolutely the responsibility of every US service member if they see inhumane treatment being conducted to intervene to stop it," to which Defense Secretary Rumsfeld responded: "I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it." To the contrary, General Pace argued: "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try and stop it."

While there may be ambivalence regarding how to respond to torture, on the part of the upper echelons of the U.S. military, there doesn't appear to be much ambivalence on the part of the American people. In a recent poll of nine countries, when queried as to whether they think it's ever acceptable to torture terrorists to obtain information as part of an interrogation process, 36% of Americans surveyed said that torture is never acceptable placing the U.S. second from last, and above South Korea only; 60% of those Italians surveyed said torture must never be used to interrogate, followed by 54% of Spanish surveyed, and 48% of British.

Yes, you're right, Italy and Spain are highly religious, and largely Catholic countries, but the U.S. ranks as among the top nations, in the industrialized world, in which "religion," and religious practices, are of critical importance; we have a president who is "born again," and are currently waging a "holy war" against the Middle East. Yet, ironically, we find ourselves significantly below Great Britain, notably 12 percentage points, in a survey addressing the issue of whether it's ever appropriate to inflict cruel and inhuman punishment. Is this what we've brought with us to the New World, over the past 200 odd years, a greater tolerance for torture, as well as inflicting pain and suffering on others?

All those for whom the term "human rights" still resonates applaud the remarks of Kofi Annan, as well as his appreciation of President Truman's efforts at multilateralism, but one can't help but remember, too, the words of another president, Mr. Truman's predecessor, Woodrow Wilson, in his address to the Senate, back in July, 1919, which are, alas, also eerily appropriate: "The monster that had resorted to arms must be put in chains that could not be broken." While Mr. Wilson was referring to Germany, how sad to think that, nearly a century later, he might just as well be referring to us.

From a friend.....

"She drives like she is absolutely sure she is going to Heaven. I ask her to take it easy on those poor people driving around her who are not so sure about Heaven as she is."

Phil Ratliff,
Oklahoma City.

Quote of the Day

“This is a warning to oil and gas companies,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois and chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “When you get a Democratic Congress, you are going to get a cop on the beat.”

(from an article in the business section of The New York Times)

How about a "national interest" study group?

In the aftermath of Wednesday's Iraq Study Group findings, James Baker told CNN anchor Anderson Cooper that, while we should strive for troop withdrawal as early as 2008, we can expect a significant American presence, in Iraq, for some time after that, to "protect our longterm national interests." Indeed, and what would those longterm national interests happen to be? And how would Mr. Cheney's Halliburton factor into the equation?

With hardly a peep from anyone, and without the approval of Congress, the Pentagon is invoking "emergency authority" to build a behemoth compound, on a deserted airstrip in Guantanamo Bay, to hold trials of nearly 100 of more than 400 "enemy combatants" that remain at the detention center in Cuba. The use of "emergency authority," in this manner, by the Pentagon is unprecedented, and seemingly derives from an executive order signed by the president shortly after 9/11.

A Department of Defense spokesperson would say only that the "emergency construction" of a court compound must begin as a matter of "national security," and "extreme urgency," according to an article in last week's Miami Herald. Yes, one can see where there might be an urgent need to get the funding to build this war crimes "mini-city" before Congress changes hands early next month, but where is congressional oversight, and public outrage, when it's most needed? Have we allowed the efforts of a group from former President Bush's administration to deflect attention away from a plan as egregious as building an altar to the dismantling of habeas corpus and due process?

By laying the groundwork for such a monolithic effort, outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is both ensuring his legacy and, simultaneously, giving Halliburton, and the vice president, an early Christmas present. After all, a Halliburton affiliate is working to win the contract to hijack our tax dollars to build this obscenity, and insult to 500 years of jurisprudence which the Pentagon thinks it can have up and running in a matter of months. The huge new compound will hold "two new courtrooms with space for two more, dining, housin and work space for up to 1,200 military and civilians working at the trials," (Miami Herald) What would the bill to taxpayers be? Oh, somewhere in the neighborhood of $125 million.

What's more, now that Congress has given the green light to the Military Commission Act of 2006 which all but dissolves the Fourth Amendment as it conveniently grants immunity from prosecution on charges of war crimes to key members of this administration, such as Mr. Rumsfeld himself, having a complex like the one the Pentagon is planning enables not just a kangaroo court, but a circus of simultaneous trials, in different parts of the compound, while counsel for the Justice and Defense Department get to make up the rules as they go along. What a fantastically innovative concept; keyword: "fantastic."

While there are cries of protest from Senator Warner, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee and Senator Levin, who will soon replace him, we need a whole lot more discourse not just about this insidious plan to make a cottage industry of illegal detention, but about what constitutes "longterm national interest" and whether or not it coincides with what the framers of our constitution had in mind for democracy, and justice. Moreover, if we want to see real movement and change with respect to the war in Iraq, then we'd better begin by investigating whose longterm national interests are being served there, and elsewhere around the world, and whether the blood of our children and grandchildren is worth protecting their bottom line.

You know we're in trouble when...

You know we're in trouble when the headlines read: "President Bush admits 'it's bad in Iraq.'"

What Next?

Yet another comedian, in Los Angeles, has been brought to his knees, in a manner of speaking, for using the "n" word during a Saturday night parody of Michael Richards' notorious stand-up routine. According to TMZ, television actor Andy Dick was joking around, and imitating Richards' during his act at a comedy club, this weekend and, as he prepared to leave the stage, Dick yelled out "You're all a bunch of n---" to members of the audience. He meant his comment to be a joke, so he says, but it elicited the same outrage as its predecessor, hence Dick has also been asked for a mea culpa. This got me to thinking--what next? Would Lenny Bruce be able to go onstage at the Laugh Factory, tomorrow night, and talk about half of the stuff he did without offending someone? Do we need to amend the First Amendment so that it comes with an "R" rating? Is that how we avoid the use of one word, or another, that is offensive to one group, or another?

There is no way the above question is meant as an attempt to deflate Michael Richards' tirade, or Andy Dick's imitation of it, nor would I, for a minute, diminish the undercurrent of pernicious racism they both suggest. As a substitute teacher in East Los Angeles, in the late 1980's, I seldom sent a student to the Dean's Office, but using the "n" word was guaranteed to buy you a one-way ticket out of class as I put the "n" word in the category of "obscenity." That said, I recognized then, as I do even more now, that there are contexts in which racism poses a much graver threat, and these contexts are largely being ignored. In this current climate of hypersensitivity to celebrity racial slurs, no one seems to notice, or care about the flagrant disparity reflected in the number of African-Americans in our nation's prisoners, and/or on death row, when compared with their white counterparts

Our energy would be far better spent if we focused instead on social equality, economic equity, educational advancement, avoiding racial profiling and, when we're at the business of demanding apologies, looked instead to judges, prosecutors, district attorneys, and all those members of our criminal justice system who may deem the "n" word anathema, but whose practices have "n" written all over them.

As a society, we would be better served if, instead of paying lip service, we honored our Pledge of Allegiance's promise of a nation that is "indivisible with liberty and justice for all" in our classrooms, sweatshops, prisons, and not just in our comedy clubs.

here's a question...

"How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a bully's ego?" Paul Krugman, NYT

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

In a "leaked" classified memo, written two days before his "retirement," outgoing Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, apart from acknowledging that this administration's strategy, in Iraq, needs "a major adjustment" suggested the White House "recast" how they talk about the military operation. Rest assured that when Rumsfeld tells the president to "go minimalist," he isn't talking about troop deployment, or proposed funding for defense; instead, he's referring specifically to "how we talk about them ( U.S. military objectives)." (NYT) That said, he may well be talking about staff reduction in light of how many have tendered their resignations since the president first occupied the Oval Office back in 2000, the latest casualty being John Bolton, a victim of what the president terms "stubborn obstructionism," but what was once called healthy dissent.

But enough about Rumsfeld, and his creative ideas about how best to slant information that the government disseminates about its egregiously flawed foreign policy to its electorate. Whether the release of what can only be seen as a dubiously private memo was timed to exculpate him for posterity, or whether his viewpoint on Iraq differed significantly privately from his public posturing and, like Colin Powell, he was forced to tow the line, or quit; whether he just agreed to be the fall guy so the president, and other senior administration members, don't have to take the hit, the bottom line is Rummy is on his way out, and it's time to focus instead on Robert M. Gates, the Bush nominee to replace him who goes before the Senate Armed Services Committee for confirmation Tuesday.

Those most vocal about Rumsfeld's departure, and the assignation of blame for the failed policy in Iraq, need to take a closer look at the man who was nominated, three weeks ago, to replace him, and the role Gates took in rubberstamping the worldview of a former president, George H.W. Bush. Those, in Congress, who like to think of themselves as progressive need also to ask themselves if, in Robert Gates, we have another presidential yes man like Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

What do we know about Gates? Well, for openers, he's the president of Texas A & M University who has a Ph.D. from Georgetown in Russian and soviet history, something to keep in mind when considering former accusations that he fabricated evidence about the threat posed by the Soviet Union and was quite adept at "skewing intelligence to promote a particular worldview." (Wikipedia) The ability to skewering intelligence, by the way, will prove to be a major asset, in the months ahead, with respect to beating the war drums on Iran, and it's a safe bet that Gates will be an even better spin master than his predecessor.

Something else to remember about the former CIA director is that, while he was believed to be up to his ears in the illegal diversion of funds from arms sales to Iran to support the Contras, the so-called Iran/Contra affair, an Independent Counsel assigned to investigate his involvement in the illicit diversion backed off when faced with the daunting challenge of making an indictment stick due to the "reasonable doubt" defense. Clearly, reasonable doubt was not what saved him from indictment, but his proximity to key players in the first Bush administration who themselves tried to cover up their knowledge of the covert sale of arms in exchange for hostages scandal.Keep in mind, too, while he withdrew his first nomination as CIA director, in 1987, as a result of all the controversy over what is widely acknowledged to be his knowledge of the illegal Nicaraguan operation, he managed to get nominated a second time, in 1991, and prevail under the presidency of George H.W. Bush.

Despite the fact that Senate members, 15 years ago, challenged the nomination on the grounds that Gates was alleged to have shared intelligence with Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war, and despite the Independent Counsel's last report on Iran/Contra in August, 2003, that he "was close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran/contra affair and was in a position to have known of their acitivities," he managed to win confirmation. This is one clever fellow.

Importantly, too, Robert Gates hails from Texas, has worked closely with Bush pere, and is as close to big oil, and big business, or closer than anyone else in this administration with the possible exception of Dick Cheney. He serves as a board member of NACCO Industries, Brinker International, and the Parker Drilling Company, corporations that benefit hugely from military expansionism. Hen ce, among the many questions one might wish to ask the Bush nominee is how can a Secretary of Defense realistically be expected to work for peace, and profit from war?

Two years ago, while serving as co-chair of a task force organized by the Council on Foreign Relations, Gates recommended engaging Iran diplomatically, and negotiating with that country to ensure that they use their nuclear enrichment program solely for peaceful purposes. One wonders what his current stance towards Iran is today. As a current member of the Iraq Study Group, headed by another prominent member of Bush pere's team, James A. Baker, it will be interesting to find out what suggestions, and/or feedback Gates had while serving on the Study Group.

One would hope that the senators on the Armed Services Committee, and/or the full Senate, when called upon to question the Bush nominee, will aggressively address his membership on the boards of various companies that are doing business, have done business, or plan to do business, in the Middle East, as a possible conflict of interest.It wouldn't hurt either for the defense secretary nominee to take the advice of his predecessor, outgoing defense secretary Rumsfeld, in his November 6th memo, to "Stop rewarding bad behavior, as was done in Fallujah when they pushed in reconstruction funds, and start rewarding good behavior." Think of how many lives were sacrificed in the name of pushing in reconstruction funds. It might also be helpful if Congress keeps that memorable quote from Rumsfeld's memo in mind when it next considers whether to appropriate funds for this failed military adventure, or the next one.

Moreover, as the Senate considers whether to confirm Robert Gates as the new Secretary of the Defense, and both the House and the Senate spend their winter recess contemplating which investigations to pursue when they reconvene, might we suggest that they make time to look into the role reconstruction funding played in the rush to war, as well as the legality of manipulating intelligence.

Make no mistake, confirming Robert Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld is taking one step forward only to go two steps back.

saying yes to "intelligence"

Congratulations to Nancy Pelosi, incoming Speaker of the House, on her nomination of Representative Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) to head the House panel on intelligence. Rep. Reyes voted against sending troops to Iraq, and is a vocal opponent of the president's NSA electronic surveillance program. It's about time somebody remembered the Fourth Amendment.

In an article in today's New York Times, the congressman said, "I take very seriously our obligation to provide the president with the tools that he needs to provide for national security, but I also reject the notion that the authorization for use of military force allows the president to ignore the Fourth Amendment and conduct warrantless surveillance on American citizens." Amen!

Some Clarification Needed on "Criminal"

You may have heard what President Bush said, at a news conference, last night, "Every time you murder somebody, you're a criminal." We couldn't agree more. But, for purposes of clarification, it might help to know if the implied criminality depends on the context, and does it also apply to his foreign policy? If Mr. Bush's axiom is meant with respect to his "stay the course" stance in Iraq, as regards the ongoing pummeling, there are only so many times one can beat a dead horse, and the commander-in-chief might be best served by doing as another former president, Jimmy Carter, has suggested -- declare victory, pull up your troops, and walk out.

But there is something even more troubling than this government's international agenda, which has attracted much attention from former secretarys of state, pundits, past presidents, even papas, a highly challenging question that few are addressing-- where in the hell does the Department of Justice come off telling the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, to allow a prosecutor, on federal payroll, to proceed with his examination into the telephone records of two professional staff journalists at one of the most highly esteemed newspapers in the country, The New York Times. Is this the kind of administrative tampering our forefathers had in mind? Hello, doesn't anybody, in Washington, remember a little thing formerly known as checks and balances? While the Justice Department insists that this data is needed to look into who outed a government investigation into two possible Islamic charities, this government has some serious boundary issues when it sticks its nose into the business of the court, the same court, mind you, that appointed Mr. Bush president.

According to an editorial in Sunday's New York Times, this current case derives "from a Chicago grand jury investigation into who told the two reporters, Judith Miller and Philip Shenon, about actions the government planned to take against two Islamic charities in late 2001." Moreover, the newspaper asserts that telephone records were subpoenaed in lieu of demands that reporters testify so that confidential sources could be more easily compromised. As the editorial rightly suggests, there was no malicious, or mischievious intent on the part of these journalists; they were merely doing what investigative reporters do around the world, for which one renowned Russian reporter, Anna Politkovskaya was brutally murdered in early October. We don't shoot reporters here, we muzzle them.

While Judith Miller makes another guest appearance in this leak case, it is separate and distinct from Plame-gate. Likewise, it is different from another demand for documents, from Nicholas Kristoff, and attempt to jeopardize the confidentiality of the sources for his story. So, this is the third time the Justice Department has tried to bring a prominent, and what some consider a liberal, newspaper to its knees and, in effect, sodomize the First Amendment so as to keep their own clandestine global machinations from scrutiny by those taxpayers who pay their salaries. Yes, yes, The Washington Post was under duress, briefly, and threatened with Justice Department investigation into Dana Priest's disclosure of secret CIA-operated terror cells, but that was nothing like the ongoing jihad against the New York newspaper.

One can hardly expect to have true investigative reporting, the kind that brought Watergate to light, and forced Nixon to resign, if those who are willing to cooperate and give information face criminal charges, censure, or job loss by doing so. Make no mistake, apart from a much-needed federal shield law to keep journalists from having to disclose their sources to a grand jury, we need to recognize, and appreciate that the actions of the Justice Department, in this matter, pose a grave threat to a free press in this country, as well as to the autonomy of the Supreme Court.

According to an editorial in Sunday's New York Times, this current case derives "from a Chicago grand jury investigation into who told the two reporters, Judith Miller and Philip Shenon, about actions the government planned to take against two Islamic charities in late 2001." Moreover, the newspaper asserts that telephone records were subpoenaed in lieu of demands that reporters testify so that confidential sources could be more easily compromised. As the editorial rightly suggests, there was no malicious, or mischievious intent on the part of these journalists; they were merely doing what investigative reporters do around the world, for which one renowned Russian reporter, Anna Politkovskaya was brutally murdered in early October. We don't shoot reporters here, we muzzle them.

While Judith Miller makes another guest appearance in this leak case, it is separate and distinct from Plame-gate. Likewise, it is different from another demand for documents, from Nicholas Kristoff, and attempt to jeopardize the confidentiality of the sources for his story. So, this is the third time the Justice Department has tried to bring a prominent, and what some consider a liberal, newspaper to its knees and, in effect, sodomize the First Amendment so as to keep their own clandestine global machinations from scrutiny by those taxpayers who pay their salaries. Yes, yes, The Washington Post was under duress, briefly, and threatened with Justice Department investigation into Dana Priest's disclosure of secret CIA-operated terror cells, but that was nothing like the ongoing jihad against the New York newspaper.

One can hardly expect to have true investigative reporting, the kind that brought Watergate to light, and forced Nixon to resign, if those who are willing to cooperate and give information face criminal charges, censure, or job loss by doing so. Make no mistake, apart from a much-needed federal shield law to keep journalists from having to disclose their sources to a grand jury, we need to recognize, and appreciate that the actions of the Justice Department, in this matter, pose a grave threat to a free press in this country, as well as to the autonomy of the Supreme Court.

Lest we forget, an assault on the press is an attack on the First Amendment which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." In its efforts to strongarm the Supreme Court, and restrain them from exercising their independent judgment on a matter of concern for us all, the neighborhood bully that has run amok globally under the pretext of trying to export "democracy," has been busily at work, in this country, robbing us of those protections which assure that people, a generation hence, can write, and read the sorts of things we find here on The Huffington Post, as well as in The New York Times.

Yes, the president is right, by way of clarification: every time you murder somebody, or deprive them of their inalienable rights, you're a criminal, and if one may be held in contempt of court, why not in contempt of the constitution? Or, for that matter, in contempt of Congress? Moreover, it is only by protecting those who bring us the news, as well as our system of checks and balances, that we can defend ourselves against a runaway government, and abuse of power.

In Cahoots with the Cahooters

Have we become so jaded that the word "unconstitutional" barely rouses us from our Christmas shopping? It was announced yesterday that, in Los Angeles, a federal judge used the word "unconstitutional," and condemned the president's 2001 executive order claim that he has the right to label certain groups as "specially designated global terrorists." The decision comes from the same judge who challenged portions of the U.S.A Patriot Act in 2004. While U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins' ruled on November 21st that the 2001 order was "unconstitutional and vague," and may well encroach upon First Amendment rights, the ruling was only made public yesterday. (AP)

While the court decision allows for penalizing those who "service" so-called terrorist groups, it represents a substantial challenge to the Tagger-in-Chief who, through his use of amorphous labels, looks to divest anyone it deems a threat, for any reason, of their constitutional rights. Still, the irony of categorizing any individual, or group, as a "specially designated global terrorist" can't be lost on anyone in light of a new report from the European Parliament of the widespread practice of clandestine CIA kidnappings, exporting, and detention of terror suspects.

The inquiry concludes that nearly 1,250 CIA-operated flights flew throughout Europe, and that the many European nations that insisted they knew nothing of the U.S. practice of extraordinary rendition were flat out lying. Claudio Fava, who was in charge of the special investigation, insists that: "Many governments cooperated passively or actively. (with the CIA). They knew." (International Herald Tribune). Poland and Romania are listed as the most active partners with the CIA in the practice of transferring those who are detained in countries that prohibit torture to those willing participate in those interrogation methods proscribed by Geneva.

The Council of Europe, a prominent European human rights group, previously found, in their investigation into extraordinary rendition, that there the CIA created a European network that was nurtured by "intentional or grossly negligent collusion." (IHT) You'll recall, in the fall, the president confirmed the Washington Post's report that the CIA has a covert detention program abroad, and said that more than a dozen held in secret cells in Europe would be transferred to Guantanamo Bay. Clearly, with more than 1200 flights, one would expect to unearth more than 14 detainees in these clandestine detention centers. Where are the others? When will they be transferred? How can any government, wherever they happen to find themselves on the globe, not be complicit in the practice of torture simply by turning the other cheek.

Logic would lead one to assume there would have to be some cooperation on the part of many European nations in order to enable more than 1,000 CIA-orchestrated flights transferring "specially designated global terrorists" to countries that have mechanisms in place to do our dirty work for us. That said, it changes the equation now that we know that many countries, in Europe, have been in cahoots with the cahooters, passively or actively, aiding and abetting the CIA in their efforts to outsource torture despite repeated denials that they knew anything about these secret abductions, and detentions.

It would be an egregious understatement to say that this news, from the European parliament, is disheartening. This president's executive order, and its phrase "specially designated global terrorist" takes on new meaning in light of this report which proves that we've not only exported Big Macs across the pond, but have forced that continent to look the other way with respect to human rights abuses instigated, and carried out, by our government.

"And Now a Word from Big Brother..."

Yesterday, when I opened my AT & T phone bill which was, as usual, ridiculously high given that I use my cell mostly, to my surprise came the following notice:

"Mandated Messages from the California Public Utilities Commission Rules for Monitoring Calls:

California laws strictly protect your right to privacy:

Your telephone calls may not be intercepted, monitored, or recorded unless you agree to it. Your call can only be monitored and/or recorded if:

. Everyone on the call agrees; or
. You hear a beep or warning every 15 seconds; or
. Law enforcement or national defense agencies get special permission."

Remember, last January, when the telecommunications monopoly was involved in a much-publicized class action lawsuit, filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in which it was alleged, in San Francisco federal court, that they have opened their facilities up to the National Security Agency, and that they "assist the government in its secret surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans."

EFF asserted that this covert practice of cooperating with federal so-called "anti-terror" agencies flagrantly violates free speech. An AT & T spokesman, at the time, said that they "don't comment on matters of national security." (CNET)But a Los Angeles Times article, last December 26th, article references an anonymous source's claim that the NSA has a "direct hookup" into an AT&T database that stores information about all domestic phone calls, including how long they lasted.

The Bush administration cites the "state secrets privilege," as delineated in a 1953 case, 1953 case, which allows the government to overturn any litigation that might result in the disclosure of military secrets. If the Bush administration does intervene, EFF could have a formidable hurdle to overcome: the so-called "state secrets" doctrine.

Further, on November 17th, a federal district judge rejected the Bush administration's request to put the EFF lawsuit on perennial hold. U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker said the lawsuit could continue despite the fact that the appeals process, and arguments by the Justice Department that further the court proceedings themselves are a danger to national security.

Clearly, the "mandated message" I got with my monthly phone bill is an effort at making full disclosure, but if you continue raping someone, it doesn't matter how many times you say you're sorry.

What can be more disturbing than to think that even one dime of our phone bill goes to pay the fees of the behemoth law firms that defend monopolies, like AT & T, in their indefensible invasions of privacy. What's more, I don't know about you, but I plan to start counting between beeps.












.

Now that Rudy Giuliani...

Now that Rudy Giuliani has all but thrown his hat into the ring for the 2008 presidential race, where is Mario Cuomo when we need him most? Mr. Cuomo was a governor who made you proud to be a New Yorker, as well as a lifelong progressive who makes you proud to be an American. His is a voice, on the cutting edge, that is needed now more than ever to awaken those abandoned by hope, and eclipsed by poverty.

While you may see him in the movie "The U.S. Versus Mario Cuomo," which is great, we say only this: run, Mario, run....

Here are two memorable Cuomo quotes:

"We must get the American public to look past the glitter, beyond the showmanship, to the reality, the hard substance of things. And we'll do it not so much with speeches that will bring people to their feet as with speeches that bring people to their senses,"

and

"You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose."

Quote of the Day

"God tells us to help the poor. He does not tell us to first give them a character test."

courtesy of Phil Ratliff
Oklahoma City

The Buck Stops Where?

A few weeks back, before the midterm elections, you may recall watching the president during one of his press conferences coming as close to a bona fide mea culpa, with respect to Iraq and the backlash by members of his own party, pointing to his chest while saying "the buck stops here."

Well, one can only hope that Mr. Bush feels this way after hearing today's report that former U.S. Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, in an interview with the Spanish newspaper, El Pais, says that ousted Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld approved, at Abu Ghraib, the use of techniques, on detainees, that are in flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions.The general, who ran the Abu Ghraib operation until early 2004, said that she personally saw a memo hand-signed by Rumsfeld containing the words, "Make sure this is accomplished." Ostensibly, "this" refers to authorizing civilian contractors to employ such techniques as "sleep deprivation, standing for long periods of time, playing music at full volume" all in defiance of what Geneva proscribes as physical and mental forms of coercion.

She added, further, that Rumsfeld violated international covenants on fair and humane treatment of prisoners by not requiring that all prisoners register: "We received a message from the Pentagon, from the Defense Secretary, ordering us to hold the prisoner without registering him. I now know this happened on various occasions." (Reuters)

Now why, do you suppose, would it be advantageous for so-called "enemy combatants" not to be registered? In some countries, the prisoner would then be considered "disappeared" as happened to many in Pinochet's day, and happens throughout Central America today. Also, the detainee can't challenge his detention if there is no record that he's being detained; his family, and loved ones, can't seek remedy in the court, by way of due process and habeas corpus, if there is no record that he's even being held. Moreover, should the unthinkable happen, and the inmate die in American military custody, no one can be held criminally liable for the murder of someone who was never acknowledged to be in custody.

General Karpinski also announced, last week, that she is prepared to testify against the outgoing secretary of defense in the event that the Center for Constitutional Rights war crimes suit against him, as well as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales proceeds. She will also participate in a full-fledged investigation, by Congress, into these allegations, should we be fortunate enough, in this country, to see such an event occur in our lifetimes.

While we have seen high profile dog and pony select criminal prosecutions of members of our armed forces for travesties at Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere in Iraq, this is the first time a major figure in the armed forces has come forward to suggest that it's time to hold those higher, and highest, in command accountable. If the Karpinski allegations turn out to be accurate, we must insist that the president honor the statement he made at that pre-election press conference. If the buck stops with him, as commander-in-chief of the military, he must step down.











.