Kentucky (R-McConnell)
Yeah, we want this one pretty bad. McConnell is going to face serious weaknesses over Iraq, Bush, and his state's ethically corrupt party. McConnell's rating is at a terrible 49-43 (49/42 last month), Bush is at 37-60, and Republicans are going to lose the governor's mansion this year, but not before the state party's scandals bring down the entire ticket.
Democrats want Ben Chandler to run, but Bunnings 2010 seat must look a lot more appealing. Not only is Bunning even less popular than McConnell (41/46), but he's likely to retire after (literally) limping to victory in 2002. Regardless, we're going to have a serious challenger for this race before all's said and done
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Senator Obama explains his position on the Iraq War.
Senator Obama explains his position on the Iraq War.
To see Senator Obama's explanation of where he stands concerning the U.S. military occupation of Iraq, Click it:Watch Senator Obama's ResponseClick it:http://www.democracyforamerica.com/obamaClick it:http://www.democracyforamerica.com/obamaSenator Barack Obama has a campaign web site that you can reach if you click:http://www.barackobama.com/That said, this message should not be construed as an endorsement of Senator Obama's candidacy. In the months ahead, other candidates for president will be reaching out to you too, because you have the power to shape the presidential primaries in a way no one else can. Kenneth Stepp says, let's defund the war and bring the American troops home. The Congress sets the U.S. budget, and the job of the President is to carry out the policies of Congress. The Congress has passed a budget bill that finances the war, and sets a deadline on the U.S. military occupation in 2008. If President Bush vetoes that budget bill, then we have no funding for the U.S. military occupation of Iraq, and we have to bring all the troops home. The Democrats sought to compromise with the President by keeping the war going, but also funding a lot of liberal programs such as foreign aid programs--if that's not good enough for the President, we'll just have to shut down the war and bring the troops home. Kenneth Stepp.
To see Senator Obama's explanation of where he stands concerning the U.S. military occupation of Iraq, Click it:Watch Senator Obama's ResponseClick it:http://www.democracyforamerica.com/obamaClick it:http://www.democracyforamerica.com/obamaSenator Barack Obama has a campaign web site that you can reach if you click:http://www.barackobama.com/That said, this message should not be construed as an endorsement of Senator Obama's candidacy. In the months ahead, other candidates for president will be reaching out to you too, because you have the power to shape the presidential primaries in a way no one else can. Kenneth Stepp says, let's defund the war and bring the American troops home. The Congress sets the U.S. budget, and the job of the President is to carry out the policies of Congress. The Congress has passed a budget bill that finances the war, and sets a deadline on the U.S. military occupation in 2008. If President Bush vetoes that budget bill, then we have no funding for the U.S. military occupation of Iraq, and we have to bring all the troops home. The Democrats sought to compromise with the President by keeping the war going, but also funding a lot of liberal programs such as foreign aid programs--if that's not good enough for the President, we'll just have to shut down the war and bring the troops home. Kenneth Stepp.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
McConnell approval rating at 49%.
Mitch McConnell approval rating at 49%. Click: http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=702f5aa5-225c-4e32-8914-3410578f73c8
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Ky. Sen. McConnell keeps war going.
Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell is in a unique position to keep the U.S. military in Iraq, and keep the Iraq war going and "stay the course":
"House Republicans Learn to Appreciate Their Senate Peers
"By: Patrick O'Connor
"March 20, 2007 03:43 PM EST url:
"* * *
"Much of the Democrats' early "Six for '06" agenda and legislation to ease organizing requirements for labor unions are stalled in the Senate, preventing Democrats from delivering on their campaign promises.
"And on the most pressing issue, Republicans have joined forces to thwart early Democratic efforts to force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) have corralled the votes necessary to block binding and nonbinding measures in the Senate to limit the president's execution of the war. And House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) claims his members are unified against a wartime spending bill that would, among other things, set mandates for the U.S. military and benchmarks for the Iraqi government aimed at speeding a U.S. withdrawal.
"But Republicans in both chambers are keeping a close eye on each other -- as well as the White House -- to make sure neither side buckles in what could be a protracted showdown between Republicans and Democrats over the war.
"I have no doubt at all" that McConnell and Lott will continue to block Democratic legislation, Boehner said. "They're an effective team."
"That confidence was lacking last year when Republicans controlled both chambers and then-Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) was serving out his term as majority leader. Frist, a heart surgeon, often exhibited more pride in his role as physician than his role as legislator. And he angered Republicans in the House and Senate alike for his perceived inability to manage the floor and complete legislative deals.
"While McConnell at times can be a stilted media messenger, he and Lott are widely recognized as skilled strategists with a strong grasp of the rules and deep support from fellow Republicans.
"Nonetheless, Republican congressional leaders run the risk of saddling their members with the obstructionist label if the GOP continues to block measures in the Senate. That label helped sink former Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota in 2004 when critics blamed him for stalling legislation as minority leader.
"Since both Lott and McConnell are firmly entrenched in their respective states, they don't run the same risk that Daschle did. But other Republicans could suffer in 2008 if Democrats tag them as obstructionists.
"One more factor bonding the Republicans in both chambers, members and staff point out, is the large number of former House members and aides now serving in the Senate.
"At a recent news conference to unveil conservative budget principles, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), who chairs the Republican Study Committee, teased his Senate counterpart, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), about the Senate's new role in slowing the Democrats' legislative march.
"It's amazing how in one Congress y'all have gone from sinners to saints," Hensarling quipped."
Saints? Christian gunmen? No, slowing the Democrats' legislative march does not make Mitch McConnell a saint. It makes him a target for the Democrats to vote out of office in his state of Kentucky where a majority of the registered voters are registered Democrats. Kenneth Stepp, a Democrat.
"House Republicans Learn to Appreciate Their Senate Peers
"By: Patrick O'Connor
"March 20, 2007 03:43 PM EST url:
"* * *
"Much of the Democrats' early "Six for '06" agenda and legislation to ease organizing requirements for labor unions are stalled in the Senate, preventing Democrats from delivering on their campaign promises.
"And on the most pressing issue, Republicans have joined forces to thwart early Democratic efforts to force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) have corralled the votes necessary to block binding and nonbinding measures in the Senate to limit the president's execution of the war. And House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) claims his members are unified against a wartime spending bill that would, among other things, set mandates for the U.S. military and benchmarks for the Iraqi government aimed at speeding a U.S. withdrawal.
"But Republicans in both chambers are keeping a close eye on each other -- as well as the White House -- to make sure neither side buckles in what could be a protracted showdown between Republicans and Democrats over the war.
"I have no doubt at all" that McConnell and Lott will continue to block Democratic legislation, Boehner said. "They're an effective team."
"That confidence was lacking last year when Republicans controlled both chambers and then-Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) was serving out his term as majority leader. Frist, a heart surgeon, often exhibited more pride in his role as physician than his role as legislator. And he angered Republicans in the House and Senate alike for his perceived inability to manage the floor and complete legislative deals.
"While McConnell at times can be a stilted media messenger, he and Lott are widely recognized as skilled strategists with a strong grasp of the rules and deep support from fellow Republicans.
"Nonetheless, Republican congressional leaders run the risk of saddling their members with the obstructionist label if the GOP continues to block measures in the Senate. That label helped sink former Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota in 2004 when critics blamed him for stalling legislation as minority leader.
"Since both Lott and McConnell are firmly entrenched in their respective states, they don't run the same risk that Daschle did. But other Republicans could suffer in 2008 if Democrats tag them as obstructionists.
"One more factor bonding the Republicans in both chambers, members and staff point out, is the large number of former House members and aides now serving in the Senate.
"At a recent news conference to unveil conservative budget principles, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), who chairs the Republican Study Committee, teased his Senate counterpart, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), about the Senate's new role in slowing the Democrats' legislative march.
"It's amazing how in one Congress y'all have gone from sinners to saints," Hensarling quipped."
Saints? Christian gunmen? No, slowing the Democrats' legislative march does not make Mitch McConnell a saint. It makes him a target for the Democrats to vote out of office in his state of Kentucky where a majority of the registered voters are registered Democrats. Kenneth Stepp, a Democrat.
Ky. Sen. McConnell keeps war going.
Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell is in a unique position to keep the U.S. military in Iraq, and keep the Iraq war going and "stay the course":
"House Republicans Learn to Appreciate Their Senate Peers
"By: Patrick O'Connor
"March 20, 2007 03:43 PM EST url:
"* * *
"Much of the Democrats' early "Six for '06" agenda and legislation to ease organizing requirements for labor unions are stalled in the Senate, preventing Democrats from delivering on their campaign promises.
"And on the most pressing issue, Republicans have joined forces to thwart early Democratic efforts to force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) have corralled the votes necessary to block binding and nonbinding measures in the Senate to limit the president's execution of the war. And House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) claims his members are unified against a wartime spending bill that would, among other things, set mandates for the U.S. military and benchmarks for the Iraqi government aimed at speeding a U.S. withdrawal.
"But Republicans in both chambers are keeping a close eye on each other -- as well as the White House -- to make sure neither side buckles in what could be a protracted showdown between Republicans and Democrats over the war.
"I have no doubt at all" that McConnell and Lott will continue to block Democratic legislation, Boehner said. "They're an effective team."
"That confidence was lacking last year when Republicans controlled both chambers and then-Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) was serving out his term as majority leader. Frist, a heart surgeon, often exhibited more pride in his role as physician than his role as legislator. And he angered Republicans in the House and Senate alike for his perceived inability to manage the floor and complete legislative deals.
"While McConnell at times can be a stilted media messenger, he and Lott are widely recognized as skilled strategists with a strong grasp of the rules and deep support from fellow Republicans.
"Nonetheless, Republican congressional leaders run the risk of saddling their members with the obstructionist label if the GOP continues to block measures in the Senate. That label helped sink former Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota in 2004 when critics blamed him for stalling legislation as minority leader.
"Since both Lott and McConnell are firmly entrenched in their respective states, they don't run the same risk that Daschle did. But other Republicans could suffer in 2008 if Democrats tag them as obstructionists.
"One more factor bonding the Republicans in both chambers, members and staff point out, is the large number of former House members and aides now serving in the Senate.
"At a recent news conference to unveil conservative budget principles, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), who chairs the Republican Study Committee, teased his Senate counterpart, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), about the Senate's new role in slowing the Democrats' legislative march.
"It's amazing how in one Congress y'all have gone from sinners to saints," Hensarling quipped."
Saints? Christian gunmen? No, slowing the Democrats' legislative march does not make Mitch McConnell a saint. It makes him a target for the Democrats to vote out of office in his state of Kentucky where a majority of the registered voters are registered Democrats. Kenneth Stepp, a Democrat.
"House Republicans Learn to Appreciate Their Senate Peers
"By: Patrick O'Connor
"March 20, 2007 03:43 PM EST url:
"* * *
"Much of the Democrats' early "Six for '06" agenda and legislation to ease organizing requirements for labor unions are stalled in the Senate, preventing Democrats from delivering on their campaign promises.
"And on the most pressing issue, Republicans have joined forces to thwart early Democratic efforts to force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) have corralled the votes necessary to block binding and nonbinding measures in the Senate to limit the president's execution of the war. And House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) claims his members are unified against a wartime spending bill that would, among other things, set mandates for the U.S. military and benchmarks for the Iraqi government aimed at speeding a U.S. withdrawal.
"But Republicans in both chambers are keeping a close eye on each other -- as well as the White House -- to make sure neither side buckles in what could be a protracted showdown between Republicans and Democrats over the war.
"I have no doubt at all" that McConnell and Lott will continue to block Democratic legislation, Boehner said. "They're an effective team."
"That confidence was lacking last year when Republicans controlled both chambers and then-Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) was serving out his term as majority leader. Frist, a heart surgeon, often exhibited more pride in his role as physician than his role as legislator. And he angered Republicans in the House and Senate alike for his perceived inability to manage the floor and complete legislative deals.
"While McConnell at times can be a stilted media messenger, he and Lott are widely recognized as skilled strategists with a strong grasp of the rules and deep support from fellow Republicans.
"Nonetheless, Republican congressional leaders run the risk of saddling their members with the obstructionist label if the GOP continues to block measures in the Senate. That label helped sink former Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota in 2004 when critics blamed him for stalling legislation as minority leader.
"Since both Lott and McConnell are firmly entrenched in their respective states, they don't run the same risk that Daschle did. But other Republicans could suffer in 2008 if Democrats tag them as obstructionists.
"One more factor bonding the Republicans in both chambers, members and staff point out, is the large number of former House members and aides now serving in the Senate.
"At a recent news conference to unveil conservative budget principles, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), who chairs the Republican Study Committee, teased his Senate counterpart, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), about the Senate's new role in slowing the Democrats' legislative march.
"It's amazing how in one Congress y'all have gone from sinners to saints," Hensarling quipped."
Saints? Christian gunmen? No, slowing the Democrats' legislative march does not make Mitch McConnell a saint. It makes him a target for the Democrats to vote out of office in his state of Kentucky where a majority of the registered voters are registered Democrats. Kenneth Stepp, a Democrat.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Jimmy Carter speaks on Guantanamo Bay.
Helen Smith, a University of Georgia senior from Charlotte, asked former U.S. President Jimmy Carter how he would address the situation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where suspected terrorists are being held without charges or legal representation.
"Close it down. It has been an abomination and a disgrace to our country."
--Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter in 2007
"Close it down. It has been an abomination and a disgrace to our country."
--Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter in 2007
Jimmy Carter speaks.
"I would like for our country to be the champion of human rights again and the epitome of hope for people who are persecuted and deproved of a decent life.
"I would like to hear everyone on Earth say the United States epitomizes these human dreams. I think that would make a good outline for the next presidential inaugural speech."
--Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, 2007
"I would like to hear everyone on Earth say the United States epitomizes these human dreams. I think that would make a good outline for the next presidential inaugural speech."
--Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, 2007
Hillary Clinton had better get with the program.
Two Items. In a Lexington (KY) Herald Leader column, Hillary Clinton was recently praised for being a "realistic" Democrat, and saying that U.S. troops will be in Iraq for a long time. A recent Democracy for America (DFA) member poll showed that Hillary Clinton had slipped to fourth place among the named candidates; it showed Obama first, John Edwards second, Kucinich third with 10% among named candidates, and Hillary Clinton fourth with 9% among named candidates. Kucinich carries political baggage, but he is a strong anti-war candidate. I would like to see a strong anti-war candidate win the Democratic Presidential nomination. Kenneth Stepp.
Monday, March 19, 2007
No More? You decide.
The Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah says "No More!" You decide. Had enough. Want more? No more?
Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, Youtube Video, March On the Pentagon Speech, Calling For The Impeachment Of George W. Bush. with credit to Hillbilly Report, Glendale, KentuckyMarch 21, 2007Video courtesy of Mufonix. Salt Lake City, Utah, Mayor Rocky Anderson, speaking at the march on the pentagon rally.Thank you Rocky!
Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, Youtube Video, March On the Pentagon Speech, Calling For The Impeachment Of George W. Bush. with credit to Hillbilly Report, Glendale, KentuckyMarch 21, 2007Video courtesy of Mufonix. Salt Lake City, Utah, Mayor Rocky Anderson, speaking at the march on the pentagon rally.Thank you Rocky!
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Valerie Plame, CIA, sets the record straight.
Valerie Plame, ex-CIA, sets the record straight concerning how the Republicans handle national security, click this:
March 17, 2007 in Valerie Plame Permalink Comments (0) TrackBack (0) Credit to Hillbilly Report.
March 17, 2007 in Valerie Plame Permalink Comments (0) TrackBack (0) Credit to Hillbilly Report.
See Valerie Plame, CIA, and Democrat Congressman John Yarmuth
To see how a great Democratic Congressman investigates the Republican mis-handling of national security, Click it:
Congressman John Yarmuth, D3 Kentucky And Valerie Plame CIA Investigation Hearings March 16, 2007 Youtube Video.
With credit to Hillbilly ReportGlendale, KentuckyMarch 16, 2007
Technorati Tags: cia, congressman,
Next time put your trust in the hands of the Democrats. It's time for a change in Washington.
Congressman John Yarmuth, D3 Kentucky And Valerie Plame CIA Investigation Hearings March 16, 2007 Youtube Video.
With credit to Hillbilly ReportGlendale, KentuckyMarch 16, 2007
Technorati Tags: cia, congressman,
Next time put your trust in the hands of the Democrats. It's time for a change in Washington.
Valerie Plame, the Republicans and National Security.
Are you proud that you voted to "stay the course?" Stay the course on ineptness and incompetence! That is the Republican record in national security. More about the Valerie Plame Wilson, ex-CIA, facts, thanks to Hillbilly Report:
"By Jason Leopoldt r u t h o u t Report For the first time since the investigation into the leak of a covert CIA operative began more than three years ago, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has suggested that Vice President Dick Cheney was behind the effort to unmask the officer, the wife of a vocal critic of the administration's Iraq policy. During closing arguments Tuesday in the obstruction of justice and perjury trial of former vice presidential staffer, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald told jurors that "there is a cloud over the vice president. ... a cloud over the White House over what happened," according to a copy of the transcript of Fitzgerald's statements. "We didn't put that cloud there," Fitzgerald said. "That cloud's there because the defendant obstructed justice. That cloud is something you just can't pretend isn't there."
"Moreover, Fitzgerald told jurors that Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, discussed aspects of the investigation with the vice president only when he was told by investigators not to talk about the probe, according to the transcript. Libby is "not supposed to be talking to other people," Fitzgerald said. But "the only person [Libby] told is the vice president. Think about that." The suggestion by Fitzgerald that Cheney was complicit in the unmasking of Valerie Plame Wilson's undercover CIA status led to immediate speculation by pundits that the special prosecutor is widening his probe and may have Cheney in his crosshairs. A year ago, truthout published a series of investigative reports that stated Fitzgerald was digging deeper into the role Cheney played in the leak itself. Those reports were largely ignored and in some cases dismissed by other media organizations. Fitzgerald also excoriated President Bush for failing to uphold a promise to fire anyone in his administration that was found to have been involved in the Plame leak. Fitzgerald reminded the jury that in October 2003, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters of the president's intentions during a morning news briefing at the White House. "Any sane person would think, based on what McClellan said in October 2003, that anyone involved in this would be fired," Fitzgerald said, referring to the leak, according to the transcript of the prosecutor's remarks. The charges leveled against Libby stem from how and when he discovered the CIA-employed Plame and whether he shared the information with reporters. Libby told FBI investigators that NBC News reporter Tim Russert disclosed Plame's identity to him in July, 2003, but evidence presented at the trial shows Libby was told about Plame by Cheney nearly a month earlier and [Libby] divulged the information to several journalists on numerous occasions thereafter. Libby's attorney, Theodore Wells, told jurors Tuesday that Libby innocently forgot about the conversation his client had with Cheney because he had been dealing with more pressing issues, such as the war in Iraq and national security. Wells added that Russert did not have any notes to back up his assertion that he did not tell Libby about Plame, and told jurors it boiled down to Libby's word against Russert's. But Fitzgerald rejected Wells' argument saying Libby discussed Plame with reporters on a Monday and then claims to have forgotten the information and learned about her for the first time on a Thursday. "This is not 'he said, she said,'" Fitzgerald said. "He [Libby] made up a story and he stuck to it. If Tim Russert were run over by a bus and had gone to the great news desk in the sky, you can still find plenty of evidence that the defendant lied." Peter Zeidenberg, the deputy special prosecutor, told jurors earlier in the day Tuesday that Libby had "nine conversations about [Valerie Plame]. He remembers none of them. The one conversation he says he has, with Tim Russert, is a conversation we now know never happened." "Libby "lied to the FBI and the grand jury about how he learned about [former ambassador] Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie [Plame] Wilson, who he talked to about Mr. Wilson's wife and what he said when he discussed Mr. Wilson's wife with others," Zeidenberg added, according to the court transcript. Wilson had traveled to Niger in February, 2002, to investigate claims that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium to build an atomic bomb. He reported back to the CIA that the allegations were baseless, but the claims were cited as fact in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address. Wilson spent months criticizing the White House's use of the Niger claims in background interviews with reporters before publishing an opinion column in the New York Times on July 6, 2003, saying he was the special envoy who was sent to Niger to check out the intelligence. He asserted that the administration knowingly misled the public and Congress into war. Fitzgerald said Libby and Cheney were incensed at Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who publicly accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence to win support for a US led invasion against Iraq. Fitzgerald said Cheney was "obsessed" with Wilson and had taken the former ambassador's attacks against the administration personally. "Cheney," Fitzgerald told jurors, "enlisted Libby to act as his surrogate and personally respond to reporters' queries about the veracity of Wilson's allegations by authorizing his chief of staff to leak classified information to journalists. The classified information that was leaked may have included Plame's covert status," Fitzgerald said, "in retaliation for her husband's stinging rebukes of the administration's Iraq policies." Cheney had suspected that Plame set up her husband's trip to Niger, Fitzgerald said, and the prosecutor told jurors that in July 2003, "the number one question on the vice president's mind" had been to find out who was responsible for sending Wilson to Niger."
Next time, vote Democratic. Vote for the people that care.
"By Jason Leopoldt r u t h o u t Report For the first time since the investigation into the leak of a covert CIA operative began more than three years ago, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has suggested that Vice President Dick Cheney was behind the effort to unmask the officer, the wife of a vocal critic of the administration's Iraq policy. During closing arguments Tuesday in the obstruction of justice and perjury trial of former vice presidential staffer, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald told jurors that "there is a cloud over the vice president. ... a cloud over the White House over what happened," according to a copy of the transcript of Fitzgerald's statements. "We didn't put that cloud there," Fitzgerald said. "That cloud's there because the defendant obstructed justice. That cloud is something you just can't pretend isn't there."
"Moreover, Fitzgerald told jurors that Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, discussed aspects of the investigation with the vice president only when he was told by investigators not to talk about the probe, according to the transcript. Libby is "not supposed to be talking to other people," Fitzgerald said. But "the only person [Libby] told is the vice president. Think about that." The suggestion by Fitzgerald that Cheney was complicit in the unmasking of Valerie Plame Wilson's undercover CIA status led to immediate speculation by pundits that the special prosecutor is widening his probe and may have Cheney in his crosshairs. A year ago, truthout published a series of investigative reports that stated Fitzgerald was digging deeper into the role Cheney played in the leak itself. Those reports were largely ignored and in some cases dismissed by other media organizations. Fitzgerald also excoriated President Bush for failing to uphold a promise to fire anyone in his administration that was found to have been involved in the Plame leak. Fitzgerald reminded the jury that in October 2003, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters of the president's intentions during a morning news briefing at the White House. "Any sane person would think, based on what McClellan said in October 2003, that anyone involved in this would be fired," Fitzgerald said, referring to the leak, according to the transcript of the prosecutor's remarks. The charges leveled against Libby stem from how and when he discovered the CIA-employed Plame and whether he shared the information with reporters. Libby told FBI investigators that NBC News reporter Tim Russert disclosed Plame's identity to him in July, 2003, but evidence presented at the trial shows Libby was told about Plame by Cheney nearly a month earlier and [Libby] divulged the information to several journalists on numerous occasions thereafter. Libby's attorney, Theodore Wells, told jurors Tuesday that Libby innocently forgot about the conversation his client had with Cheney because he had been dealing with more pressing issues, such as the war in Iraq and national security. Wells added that Russert did not have any notes to back up his assertion that he did not tell Libby about Plame, and told jurors it boiled down to Libby's word against Russert's. But Fitzgerald rejected Wells' argument saying Libby discussed Plame with reporters on a Monday and then claims to have forgotten the information and learned about her for the first time on a Thursday. "This is not 'he said, she said,'" Fitzgerald said. "He [Libby] made up a story and he stuck to it. If Tim Russert were run over by a bus and had gone to the great news desk in the sky, you can still find plenty of evidence that the defendant lied." Peter Zeidenberg, the deputy special prosecutor, told jurors earlier in the day Tuesday that Libby had "nine conversations about [Valerie Plame]. He remembers none of them. The one conversation he says he has, with Tim Russert, is a conversation we now know never happened." "Libby "lied to the FBI and the grand jury about how he learned about [former ambassador] Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie [Plame] Wilson, who he talked to about Mr. Wilson's wife and what he said when he discussed Mr. Wilson's wife with others," Zeidenberg added, according to the court transcript. Wilson had traveled to Niger in February, 2002, to investigate claims that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium to build an atomic bomb. He reported back to the CIA that the allegations were baseless, but the claims were cited as fact in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address. Wilson spent months criticizing the White House's use of the Niger claims in background interviews with reporters before publishing an opinion column in the New York Times on July 6, 2003, saying he was the special envoy who was sent to Niger to check out the intelligence. He asserted that the administration knowingly misled the public and Congress into war. Fitzgerald said Libby and Cheney were incensed at Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who publicly accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence to win support for a US led invasion against Iraq. Fitzgerald said Cheney was "obsessed" with Wilson and had taken the former ambassador's attacks against the administration personally. "Cheney," Fitzgerald told jurors, "enlisted Libby to act as his surrogate and personally respond to reporters' queries about the veracity of Wilson's allegations by authorizing his chief of staff to leak classified information to journalists. The classified information that was leaked may have included Plame's covert status," Fitzgerald said, "in retaliation for her husband's stinging rebukes of the administration's Iraq policies." Cheney had suspected that Plame set up her husband's trip to Niger, Fitzgerald said, and the prosecutor told jurors that in July 2003, "the number one question on the vice president's mind" had been to find out who was responsible for sending Wilson to Niger."
Next time, vote Democratic. Vote for the people that care.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
More evidence of where the American public is at from Newsweek:
Q4. All in all, do you think the United States is making progress or losing ground in its efforts to establish security and democracy in Iraq?
Making Progress: 29% Losing Ground: 61% Don't know: 10%
Q5. In general, do you favor or oppose President Bush’s decision earlier this year to increase the level of U.S. troops in Iraq?
Favor: 32% Oppose: 64% Don't Know: 4%
Q6. Do you favor or oppose Congressional legislation that would require the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the fall of 2008?
Favor: 59% Oppose: 34% Don't Know: 7% "
But they don't vote that way. I've heard that before, and that is still true. The people tell pollsters that they overwhelmingly oppose the U.S. continued military occupation in Iraq, but they keep re-electing "stay the course" Republican incumbents over their Democratic opponents. That happened in the Kentucky Fifth District last year, and throughout the country. Of course, if you say you oppose the war, but keep electing "stay the course" candidates, like you did last year, we will just "stay the course" and keep American troops being bombed and ambushed in Iraq, until you have a change of heart and quit re-electing "stay the course" candidates and incumbents. I know you need a lot of money from Washington, but how many American lives, lost in Iraq, is that worth?
Q4. All in all, do you think the United States is making progress or losing ground in its efforts to establish security and democracy in Iraq?
Making Progress: 29% Losing Ground: 61% Don't know: 10%
Q5. In general, do you favor or oppose President Bush’s decision earlier this year to increase the level of U.S. troops in Iraq?
Favor: 32% Oppose: 64% Don't Know: 4%
Q6. Do you favor or oppose Congressional legislation that would require the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the fall of 2008?
Favor: 59% Oppose: 34% Don't Know: 7% "
But they don't vote that way. I've heard that before, and that is still true. The people tell pollsters that they overwhelmingly oppose the U.S. continued military occupation in Iraq, but they keep re-electing "stay the course" Republican incumbents over their Democratic opponents. That happened in the Kentucky Fifth District last year, and throughout the country. Of course, if you say you oppose the war, but keep electing "stay the course" candidates, like you did last year, we will just "stay the course" and keep American troops being bombed and ambushed in Iraq, until you have a change of heart and quit re-electing "stay the course" candidates and incumbents. I know you need a lot of money from Washington, but how many American lives, lost in Iraq, is that worth?
Valerie Plame's Opening Statement, Escalation.
These two blogs, thanks to the Daily Kos:
"Valerie Plame Wilson's Opening Statement
"by BarbinMD
"Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:29:07 AM PDT
"Valerie Plame Wilson's opening statement before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
"Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee. My name is Valerie Plame Wilson and I am honored to have been invited to testify under oath before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on the critical issue of safeguarding classified information. I'm grateful for this opportunity to set the record straight. I've served the United States loyally and to the best of my ability as a covert operations officer for the Central Intelligence Agency. I worked on behalf of the national security of our country, on behalf of the people of the United States until my name and true affiliation were exposed in the national media on July 14, 2003, after a leak by administration officials. Today, I can tell this Committee even more.
In the run-up to the war with Iraq, I worked in the Counter Proliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer, whose affiliation with the CIA was classified. I raced to discover solid intelligence for senior policy makers on Iraq's presumed weapons of mass destruction programs. While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington, I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence.
"I love my career because I love my country. I was proud of the serious responsibilities entrusted to me as a CIA covert operations officer. And I was dedicated to this work. It was not common knowledge on the Georgetown cocktail circuit, that everyone knew where I worked. But all of my efforts on behalf of the national security of the United States, all of my training, all of the value of my years of service were abruptly ended when my name and identity were exposed irresponsibly.
"In the course of the trial of Vice President Cheney's former Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby, I was shocked at the evidence that emerged. My name and identity were carelessly and recklessly abused by senior government officials in both the White House and the State Department. All of them understood that I worked for the CIA, and having signed oaths to protect national security secrets, they should have been diligent in protecting me and every CIA officer. "The CIA took great lengths to protect all of its employees, provided at significant taxpayer expense, painstakingly devised creative covers for its most sensitive staffers. The harm that is done when a CIA cover is blown is grave, but I can't provide details beyond that in this public hearing. But the concept is obvious. Not only have breaches of national security endangered CIA officers, it has jeopardized, even destroyed entire networks of foreign agents, who in turn risk their own lives and those of their families to provide the United States with needed intelligence. Lives are literally at stake. Every single one of my former CIA collegues, my fellow covert officers, to analysts to technical operations officers, even the secretaries, understand the vulnerabilities of our officers and recognize that the travesty of what happened to me could happen to them.
"We in the CIA always know that we might be exposed and threatened by foreign enemies. It was a terrible irony that administration officials were the ones who destroyed my cover. Furthermore, testimony in the criminal trial of Vice President Cheney's former Chief of Staff, who has now been convicted of serious crimes, indicates that my exposure arose from purely political motives. Within the CIA, it is essential that all intelligence be evaluated on the basis of its merits and actual credibility. National security depends upon it. The tradecraft of intelligence is not a product of speculation. I feel passionately as an intelligence professional about the creeping, insidious politicizing of our intelligence process. All intelligence professionals are dedicated to the ideal that they would rather be fired on the spot than distort the facts to fit a political view. Any political view or any ideology. As our intelligence agencies go through reorganizations and experience the painful aspects of change, and our country faces profound challenges, injecting partisanship or ideology into the equation makes effective and accurate intelligence that much more difficult to develop. Politics and ideology must be stripped completely from our intelligence services or the consequences will be even more severe than they have been and our country placed in even greater danger. It is imperative for any President to be able to make decisions based on intelligence that is unbiased. The Libby trial and the events leading to the Iraq War highlight the urgent need to restore the highest professional standards to intelligence collection and analysis and the protection of our officers and operations. The Congress has a Constitutional duty to defend our national security and that includes safeguarding our intelligence. That is why I am grateful for this opportunity to appear before this Committee today and to assist in its important work.
"Thank you and I welcome any questions."
Permalink ::
Discuss (333 comments)
My comment is that "Loose lips sink ships!" Don't the people running our government know that you don't publish the names of your spies? Some people claim this is wartime. Don't the people running our government know that you don't publish the names of your spies in newspapers during wartime? A famous American spy, Nathan Hale, before he was hanged by the British for being an American spy in the American Revolution, said his famous last words, "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country." I know the Administration considered it politically expedient to leak the names of our spy Valerie Plame, to get even with her husband for not backing up their tale of nuclear weapons for Iraq. Well, the American people fell for their ploy to get us into war in Iraq, and they should not be leaking the names of spies to get even with people who did not help their evil schemes. I hope that whatever American leaked the name of our spy Nathan Hale to the British is burning in hell, now. Kenneth Stepp.
This also from the Daily Kos:
"Escalating the Escalation
"by BarbinMD
"Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 06:59:03 AM PDT
"On January 10th, George Bush announced that he was sending an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq. Since then we've learned that that number didn't include 6,000 to 7,000 additional support troops, and today?
"The top US commander in Iraq has requested another Army brigade, in addition to five already on the way, as part of the controversial "surge" of American troops designed to clamp down on sectarian violence and insurgent groups, senior Pentagon officials said yesterday.
"The appeal -- not yet made public -- by General David Petraeus for a combat aviation unit would involve between 2,500 and 3,000 more soldiers and dozens of transport helicopters and powerful gunships, said the Pentagon sources. That would bring the planned expansion of US forces to close to 30,000 troops.
"This even as the White House continues to insist that the initial results of their escalation are "encouraging."
Permalink ::
Discuss (115 comments)
My comment is bring the troops home and shut down the U.S. military occupation of Iraq. A majority of the people in Kentucky and throughout the South voted to "stay the course" in the U.S. military occupation of Iraq, by re-electing the "stay the course" candidates throughout the South--with a minority of exceptions. The U.S. military occupation of Iraq will continue until we the people decide that we have had enough, and elect public officials who will put an end to it. Kenneth Stepp
"Valerie Plame Wilson's Opening Statement
"by BarbinMD
"Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:29:07 AM PDT
"Valerie Plame Wilson's opening statement before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
"Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee. My name is Valerie Plame Wilson and I am honored to have been invited to testify under oath before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on the critical issue of safeguarding classified information. I'm grateful for this opportunity to set the record straight. I've served the United States loyally and to the best of my ability as a covert operations officer for the Central Intelligence Agency. I worked on behalf of the national security of our country, on behalf of the people of the United States until my name and true affiliation were exposed in the national media on July 14, 2003, after a leak by administration officials. Today, I can tell this Committee even more.
In the run-up to the war with Iraq, I worked in the Counter Proliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer, whose affiliation with the CIA was classified. I raced to discover solid intelligence for senior policy makers on Iraq's presumed weapons of mass destruction programs. While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington, I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence.
"I love my career because I love my country. I was proud of the serious responsibilities entrusted to me as a CIA covert operations officer. And I was dedicated to this work. It was not common knowledge on the Georgetown cocktail circuit, that everyone knew where I worked. But all of my efforts on behalf of the national security of the United States, all of my training, all of the value of my years of service were abruptly ended when my name and identity were exposed irresponsibly.
"In the course of the trial of Vice President Cheney's former Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby, I was shocked at the evidence that emerged. My name and identity were carelessly and recklessly abused by senior government officials in both the White House and the State Department. All of them understood that I worked for the CIA, and having signed oaths to protect national security secrets, they should have been diligent in protecting me and every CIA officer. "The CIA took great lengths to protect all of its employees, provided at significant taxpayer expense, painstakingly devised creative covers for its most sensitive staffers. The harm that is done when a CIA cover is blown is grave, but I can't provide details beyond that in this public hearing. But the concept is obvious. Not only have breaches of national security endangered CIA officers, it has jeopardized, even destroyed entire networks of foreign agents, who in turn risk their own lives and those of their families to provide the United States with needed intelligence. Lives are literally at stake. Every single one of my former CIA collegues, my fellow covert officers, to analysts to technical operations officers, even the secretaries, understand the vulnerabilities of our officers and recognize that the travesty of what happened to me could happen to them.
"We in the CIA always know that we might be exposed and threatened by foreign enemies. It was a terrible irony that administration officials were the ones who destroyed my cover. Furthermore, testimony in the criminal trial of Vice President Cheney's former Chief of Staff, who has now been convicted of serious crimes, indicates that my exposure arose from purely political motives. Within the CIA, it is essential that all intelligence be evaluated on the basis of its merits and actual credibility. National security depends upon it. The tradecraft of intelligence is not a product of speculation. I feel passionately as an intelligence professional about the creeping, insidious politicizing of our intelligence process. All intelligence professionals are dedicated to the ideal that they would rather be fired on the spot than distort the facts to fit a political view. Any political view or any ideology. As our intelligence agencies go through reorganizations and experience the painful aspects of change, and our country faces profound challenges, injecting partisanship or ideology into the equation makes effective and accurate intelligence that much more difficult to develop. Politics and ideology must be stripped completely from our intelligence services or the consequences will be even more severe than they have been and our country placed in even greater danger. It is imperative for any President to be able to make decisions based on intelligence that is unbiased. The Libby trial and the events leading to the Iraq War highlight the urgent need to restore the highest professional standards to intelligence collection and analysis and the protection of our officers and operations. The Congress has a Constitutional duty to defend our national security and that includes safeguarding our intelligence. That is why I am grateful for this opportunity to appear before this Committee today and to assist in its important work.
"Thank you and I welcome any questions."
Permalink ::
Discuss (333 comments)
My comment is that "Loose lips sink ships!" Don't the people running our government know that you don't publish the names of your spies? Some people claim this is wartime. Don't the people running our government know that you don't publish the names of your spies in newspapers during wartime? A famous American spy, Nathan Hale, before he was hanged by the British for being an American spy in the American Revolution, said his famous last words, "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country." I know the Administration considered it politically expedient to leak the names of our spy Valerie Plame, to get even with her husband for not backing up their tale of nuclear weapons for Iraq. Well, the American people fell for their ploy to get us into war in Iraq, and they should not be leaking the names of spies to get even with people who did not help their evil schemes. I hope that whatever American leaked the name of our spy Nathan Hale to the British is burning in hell, now. Kenneth Stepp.
This also from the Daily Kos:
"Escalating the Escalation
"by BarbinMD
"Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 06:59:03 AM PDT
"On January 10th, George Bush announced that he was sending an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq. Since then we've learned that that number didn't include 6,000 to 7,000 additional support troops, and today?
"The top US commander in Iraq has requested another Army brigade, in addition to five already on the way, as part of the controversial "surge" of American troops designed to clamp down on sectarian violence and insurgent groups, senior Pentagon officials said yesterday.
"The appeal -- not yet made public -- by General David Petraeus for a combat aviation unit would involve between 2,500 and 3,000 more soldiers and dozens of transport helicopters and powerful gunships, said the Pentagon sources. That would bring the planned expansion of US forces to close to 30,000 troops.
"This even as the White House continues to insist that the initial results of their escalation are "encouraging."
Permalink ::
Discuss (115 comments)
My comment is bring the troops home and shut down the U.S. military occupation of Iraq. A majority of the people in Kentucky and throughout the South voted to "stay the course" in the U.S. military occupation of Iraq, by re-electing the "stay the course" candidates throughout the South--with a minority of exceptions. The U.S. military occupation of Iraq will continue until we the people decide that we have had enough, and elect public officials who will put an end to it. Kenneth Stepp
Friday, March 16, 2007
Ghost Plane--a book review.
The following are excerpts of a book review published in The New American magazine.
"Torture, Inc. (Excerpt)
"By Dennis Behreandt
"Published: 2007-03-06 15:58
"Email this page printer friendly version
"Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program,
" by Stephen Grey, New York: St. Martin's Press, 2006, 372 pages, hardcover.
"It was a plot worthy of Ian Fleming. In the days before February 17, 2003, a group of CIA agents gathered in Milan, Italy. In that city, famous for its Medieval and Renaissance intrigues, the American agents, perhaps trying to live up to the Bond mythos, checked in to the most luxurious hotels under assumed names, pretending to be wealthy power brokers of business and industry. The truth was less glamorous. They were there to perpetrate a crime.
"On the morning of the 17th, Osama Nasr, better known as Abu Omar ("father of Omar" in Arab tradition), left home to walk to a Milan mosque to pray. Soon after leaving, he briefly noticed a white van. It appeared again as he got near the mosque. This time, the van stopped and two men jumped out, demanding in Italian that Nasr show them his papers. Nasr, an Egyptian, complied, showing the men papers documenting that he had been granted political asylum in Italy.
"It was all a ruse. The men, CIA agents who the night before were living the high life in Milan's best accommodations, grabbed Nasr, sprayed something into his mouth and nose, then threw him into the back of the van where they covered his mouth with a sticky plaster-like gag. With their victim restrained, the kidnappers drove five hours to the U.S. air base at Aviano where Nasr says he was then beaten, tortured, and interrogated bafore being bundled onto an airplane and flown first to Rome and then to Cairo, Egypt. Abu Omar had just become the latest victim of 'extraordinary rendition,' the program adopted by the Bush administration after 9/11 as the best way to deal with those captured in Afghanistan and in the wider 'War on Terror.'
"The history of that program is now the subject of an important book by investigative journalist Stephen Grey. The importance of the book cannot be overstated and it warrants an extended review. Titled Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program, the book tells the stories of several of those who, like Abu Omar, got caught in the wide net cast by the CIA in the wake of 9/11. Along the way, as a result of painstaking research, Grey unravels the unsavory details of the super-secret program of extraordinary rendition, a program that its proponents argue is needed to keep America safe from terrorism but that has proven to be a dangerous betrayal of the values that historically have made America uniquely the land of the free.
"Slippery Slope
"As a tool of law enforcement, rendition--essentially kidnapping a suspect, even overseas, and returning him to the United States for trial--dates back at least to the 1880s. Grey points to the case of Frederick Ker who was wanted for larceny in Cook County, Illinois. Ker was captured by a federal agent in Peru and shipped back to the United States to stand trial. Grey notes that in its December 6, 1886 ruling in Ker v. Illinois, "The Supreme Court judged that the manner in which [Ker] arrived before the court was of no importance to a U.S. court.' Over the next 100 years, what became known as the 'Ker doctrine' was upheld by the courts several times. But in all such cases, the suspect was brought back to the United States to stand trial. That began to change in the fight against terrorism.
"According to Grey, 'when the CIA started covertly targeting Al Qaeda in the mid-1990s, the approach was different.' Under the new doctrine, suspects need no longer be returned to the United States. 'This was now . . . defined as 'extraordinary rendition'--the transfer of the suspect not back to the United States but to a third country, usually the suspect's native home, for incarceration and imprisonment there,' Grey writes.
"Even so, the program as constructed in the mid-1990s does not seem to have been intended to be as subversive and dangerous as it would later become. Instead, it was created by people within the CIA who were struggling to come to grips with the danger posed by terrorists, especially Osama bin Laden, but who were given very little suport in their efforts by political higher-ups in the then-Clinton administration.
"Leading this effort was Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden (OBL) unit. Scheuer had been frustrated by the lack of support his work received within the agency. 'One of the things that I think is probably not very well appreciated is that, even within the agency, people thought we were nuts,' Scheuer told Grey. Still, the CIA was tasked with disrupting terrorist networks abroad and, though Scheuer told Grey it was not intended to become a 'policy of first choice,' extraordinary rendition of suspects became one of the only options policymakers afforded the agency. According to Scheuer, when it was approved by the executive branch, the 'CIA came back and said to the policy maker, where do you want to take them, the answer was--'that's your job.' And so,' Scheuer recalled, 'we developed this system of assisting countries, who want individuals who have either been charged with or convicted of crimes, to capture them overseas and bring them back to the particular country where they are wanted by the legal system.'
"Though that policy may have sounded reasonable, it was fraught with danger. That became apparent even before 9/11. In 1998, CIA agents took custody of a number of Egyptians who were arrested in Albania for allegedly plotting to blow up the U.S. embassy. Grey recounts that a total of five Egyuptians of this 'Tirana cell' were captured, interrogated by the CIA, and flown to Egypt. They included, according to Grey, Ahmed Saleh, who 'was suspended from the ceiling and given electric shocks; he was later hanged for a conviction from a trial held in his absence.' Another member of the Tirana cell was Ahmed al-Naggar, who, Grey recounts, 'was kept in a room for thirty-five days with water up to his knees, and had electric shocks to his nipples and penis. He was later hanged without attending a trial for his alleged crime; his sentence of death had been pronounced before his arrival.' Others had similar fates. These members of the Tirana cell may have been criminals, but they received only retribution, not justice, in Cairo, and the CIA's participatiion in their fates made a mockery of the rule of law in the united States. As bad as this was, it would get worse after 9/11.
"Tortured To Death
"The aim of the terrorist is to cause a nation to destroy itself. * * *
"Betrayal
"There are far too many victims of the CIA's torture programs to cite here. Along with Abu Omar and Manadel al-Jamadi, some of the more notorious cases that have come to light include the kidnapping of Canadian computer technician Maher Arar from New York's JFK Airport and the kidnapping of German citizen Khaled el-Masri. In the first case, Arar was renditioned to Syria, the country of his birth, where he was held in a three-foot by six-foot jail cell for almost a year in the notorious 'Palestine Branch' jail run by Syrian military intelligence and where he was beaten with a shredded electrical cable and threatened with a variety of other torture methods.
"In the second case, el-Masri was kidnapped by the CIA while on vacation in Macedonia in December 2003. He was then renditioned to Afghanistan where, as el-Masri himself described it in the Los Angeles Times, 'They told me that I was now in a country with no laws, and did I understand what that meant?' What it meant, to the CIA , was that the agency was no longer bound by U.S. law and could treat el-Masri and other captives any way they wished. As Grey writes, el-Masri 'said he was roughed up in interrogations, beaten in Macedonia, photographed nude, and both injected with drugs and given suppositories against his will.' When he began a hunger strike, he was force-fed through a tube in his nose. 'I was dragged to the interrogation room, where a feeding tube was forced through my nose into my stomach. I became extremely ill, suffering the worst pain of my life,' el-Masri recalled in his LA Times article.
"Post 9/11, is this what America stands for: disregard for the rule of law, disdain for civilized behavior, and torture? Near the end of Ghost Plane, Grey concludes that torture is both ineffective and wrong. 'It is wrong,' he writes, 'because it degrades our own societies.' That is true, but Grey puts it much too mildly. The founding documents of this nation declare boldly that all men are created equal, that they have rights that governments may not subvert or destroy, and that the U.S. government, alone among nations, was founded to protect. That federal authorities now violate those rights with impunity abroad suggests that it will do so at home as well, given the chance. So writes Grey concerning extraordinary rendition. 'It could happen to any citizen of either the West or the Orient,' he says.
"That is, unless the practice is stopped and those responsible for it are brought to justice. That likely can't happen until knowledge of the CIA's torture programs becomes widespread. And that is where Grey's Ghost Plane comes in. The book makes for chilling reading, but it's one that every American citizen should read carefully. If we remain blissfully unaware of what is done to others in our name as American citizens, it won't be long before it is done to us as well."
Kenneth Stepp continues to stand against "extraordinary rendition", torture, and continued U.S. military occupation of Iraq. Where do you stand? Did you vote to "stay the course" on the last election? You'd better check and see what course you voted to stay. "But I am not an Arab!" you say. Next year it might not be just Arabs that are sent on "extraordinary renditions" to military prisons in Syria and Egypt by the CIA. Next year, it might not be just strangers' children shipped home in boxes from Iraq. While you are "staying the course" you'd better watch what course you're staying.
To continue reading the complete article, place an online order for a PDF version of the March 19th issue of The New American, and get instant access to the full-text of this article along with the full-text of all the other articles in the same issue. Similarly, if you place an online order for one or more copies of the print version of the March 19th issue, you'll receive a complimentary link to the PDF version of that issue, also giving you instant access to the full-text of "Torture, Inc." article and all of the other articles in that issue.
Stay the Course? or Return to Americanism? Kenneth Stepp believes it is time for America to return to the Americanism of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, and leave behind the Old World practices of torture, and pre-emptive invasions and military occupations of smaller countries. Did you vote to "stay the course"? How is it going? How far do we go in "staying the course?" Kenneth Stepp says bring the troops home, and return to the strategies that made America great.
"Torture, Inc. (Excerpt)
"By Dennis Behreandt
"Published: 2007-03-06 15:58
"Email this page printer friendly version
"Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program,
" by Stephen Grey, New York: St. Martin's Press, 2006, 372 pages, hardcover.
"It was a plot worthy of Ian Fleming. In the days before February 17, 2003, a group of CIA agents gathered in Milan, Italy. In that city, famous for its Medieval and Renaissance intrigues, the American agents, perhaps trying to live up to the Bond mythos, checked in to the most luxurious hotels under assumed names, pretending to be wealthy power brokers of business and industry. The truth was less glamorous. They were there to perpetrate a crime.
"On the morning of the 17th, Osama Nasr, better known as Abu Omar ("father of Omar" in Arab tradition), left home to walk to a Milan mosque to pray. Soon after leaving, he briefly noticed a white van. It appeared again as he got near the mosque. This time, the van stopped and two men jumped out, demanding in Italian that Nasr show them his papers. Nasr, an Egyptian, complied, showing the men papers documenting that he had been granted political asylum in Italy.
"It was all a ruse. The men, CIA agents who the night before were living the high life in Milan's best accommodations, grabbed Nasr, sprayed something into his mouth and nose, then threw him into the back of the van where they covered his mouth with a sticky plaster-like gag. With their victim restrained, the kidnappers drove five hours to the U.S. air base at Aviano where Nasr says he was then beaten, tortured, and interrogated bafore being bundled onto an airplane and flown first to Rome and then to Cairo, Egypt. Abu Omar had just become the latest victim of 'extraordinary rendition,' the program adopted by the Bush administration after 9/11 as the best way to deal with those captured in Afghanistan and in the wider 'War on Terror.'
"The history of that program is now the subject of an important book by investigative journalist Stephen Grey. The importance of the book cannot be overstated and it warrants an extended review. Titled Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program, the book tells the stories of several of those who, like Abu Omar, got caught in the wide net cast by the CIA in the wake of 9/11. Along the way, as a result of painstaking research, Grey unravels the unsavory details of the super-secret program of extraordinary rendition, a program that its proponents argue is needed to keep America safe from terrorism but that has proven to be a dangerous betrayal of the values that historically have made America uniquely the land of the free.
"Slippery Slope
"As a tool of law enforcement, rendition--essentially kidnapping a suspect, even overseas, and returning him to the United States for trial--dates back at least to the 1880s. Grey points to the case of Frederick Ker who was wanted for larceny in Cook County, Illinois. Ker was captured by a federal agent in Peru and shipped back to the United States to stand trial. Grey notes that in its December 6, 1886 ruling in Ker v. Illinois, "The Supreme Court judged that the manner in which [Ker] arrived before the court was of no importance to a U.S. court.' Over the next 100 years, what became known as the 'Ker doctrine' was upheld by the courts several times. But in all such cases, the suspect was brought back to the United States to stand trial. That began to change in the fight against terrorism.
"According to Grey, 'when the CIA started covertly targeting Al Qaeda in the mid-1990s, the approach was different.' Under the new doctrine, suspects need no longer be returned to the United States. 'This was now . . . defined as 'extraordinary rendition'--the transfer of the suspect not back to the United States but to a third country, usually the suspect's native home, for incarceration and imprisonment there,' Grey writes.
"Even so, the program as constructed in the mid-1990s does not seem to have been intended to be as subversive and dangerous as it would later become. Instead, it was created by people within the CIA who were struggling to come to grips with the danger posed by terrorists, especially Osama bin Laden, but who were given very little suport in their efforts by political higher-ups in the then-Clinton administration.
"Leading this effort was Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden (OBL) unit. Scheuer had been frustrated by the lack of support his work received within the agency. 'One of the things that I think is probably not very well appreciated is that, even within the agency, people thought we were nuts,' Scheuer told Grey. Still, the CIA was tasked with disrupting terrorist networks abroad and, though Scheuer told Grey it was not intended to become a 'policy of first choice,' extraordinary rendition of suspects became one of the only options policymakers afforded the agency. According to Scheuer, when it was approved by the executive branch, the 'CIA came back and said to the policy maker, where do you want to take them, the answer was--'that's your job.' And so,' Scheuer recalled, 'we developed this system of assisting countries, who want individuals who have either been charged with or convicted of crimes, to capture them overseas and bring them back to the particular country where they are wanted by the legal system.'
"Though that policy may have sounded reasonable, it was fraught with danger. That became apparent even before 9/11. In 1998, CIA agents took custody of a number of Egyptians who were arrested in Albania for allegedly plotting to blow up the U.S. embassy. Grey recounts that a total of five Egyuptians of this 'Tirana cell' were captured, interrogated by the CIA, and flown to Egypt. They included, according to Grey, Ahmed Saleh, who 'was suspended from the ceiling and given electric shocks; he was later hanged for a conviction from a trial held in his absence.' Another member of the Tirana cell was Ahmed al-Naggar, who, Grey recounts, 'was kept in a room for thirty-five days with water up to his knees, and had electric shocks to his nipples and penis. He was later hanged without attending a trial for his alleged crime; his sentence of death had been pronounced before his arrival.' Others had similar fates. These members of the Tirana cell may have been criminals, but they received only retribution, not justice, in Cairo, and the CIA's participatiion in their fates made a mockery of the rule of law in the united States. As bad as this was, it would get worse after 9/11.
"Tortured To Death
"The aim of the terrorist is to cause a nation to destroy itself. * * *
"Betrayal
"There are far too many victims of the CIA's torture programs to cite here. Along with Abu Omar and Manadel al-Jamadi, some of the more notorious cases that have come to light include the kidnapping of Canadian computer technician Maher Arar from New York's JFK Airport and the kidnapping of German citizen Khaled el-Masri. In the first case, Arar was renditioned to Syria, the country of his birth, where he was held in a three-foot by six-foot jail cell for almost a year in the notorious 'Palestine Branch' jail run by Syrian military intelligence and where he was beaten with a shredded electrical cable and threatened with a variety of other torture methods.
"In the second case, el-Masri was kidnapped by the CIA while on vacation in Macedonia in December 2003. He was then renditioned to Afghanistan where, as el-Masri himself described it in the Los Angeles Times, 'They told me that I was now in a country with no laws, and did I understand what that meant?' What it meant, to the CIA , was that the agency was no longer bound by U.S. law and could treat el-Masri and other captives any way they wished. As Grey writes, el-Masri 'said he was roughed up in interrogations, beaten in Macedonia, photographed nude, and both injected with drugs and given suppositories against his will.' When he began a hunger strike, he was force-fed through a tube in his nose. 'I was dragged to the interrogation room, where a feeding tube was forced through my nose into my stomach. I became extremely ill, suffering the worst pain of my life,' el-Masri recalled in his LA Times article.
"Post 9/11, is this what America stands for: disregard for the rule of law, disdain for civilized behavior, and torture? Near the end of Ghost Plane, Grey concludes that torture is both ineffective and wrong. 'It is wrong,' he writes, 'because it degrades our own societies.' That is true, but Grey puts it much too mildly. The founding documents of this nation declare boldly that all men are created equal, that they have rights that governments may not subvert or destroy, and that the U.S. government, alone among nations, was founded to protect. That federal authorities now violate those rights with impunity abroad suggests that it will do so at home as well, given the chance. So writes Grey concerning extraordinary rendition. 'It could happen to any citizen of either the West or the Orient,' he says.
"That is, unless the practice is stopped and those responsible for it are brought to justice. That likely can't happen until knowledge of the CIA's torture programs becomes widespread. And that is where Grey's Ghost Plane comes in. The book makes for chilling reading, but it's one that every American citizen should read carefully. If we remain blissfully unaware of what is done to others in our name as American citizens, it won't be long before it is done to us as well."
Kenneth Stepp continues to stand against "extraordinary rendition", torture, and continued U.S. military occupation of Iraq. Where do you stand? Did you vote to "stay the course" on the last election? You'd better check and see what course you voted to stay. "But I am not an Arab!" you say. Next year it might not be just Arabs that are sent on "extraordinary renditions" to military prisons in Syria and Egypt by the CIA. Next year, it might not be just strangers' children shipped home in boxes from Iraq. While you are "staying the course" you'd better watch what course you're staying.
To continue reading the complete article, place an online order for a PDF version of the March 19th issue of The New American, and get instant access to the full-text of this article along with the full-text of all the other articles in the same issue. Similarly, if you place an online order for one or more copies of the print version of the March 19th issue, you'll receive a complimentary link to the PDF version of that issue, also giving you instant access to the full-text of "Torture, Inc." article and all of the other articles in that issue.
Stay the Course? or Return to Americanism? Kenneth Stepp believes it is time for America to return to the Americanism of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, and leave behind the Old World practices of torture, and pre-emptive invasions and military occupations of smaller countries. Did you vote to "stay the course"? How is it going? How far do we go in "staying the course?" Kenneth Stepp says bring the troops home, and return to the strategies that made America great.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Grandpa was a Democrat
Grandpa Stepp was a Democrat. He is shown left seated with four of his grandsons, Ben Stepp, John Stepp, the Democratic candidate Kenneth Stepp, and Jimmy Stepp. John Marvin (Grandpa) Stepp, our grandfather had been a Democrat for a long time. It was in the 1920 Presidential election--the first time that women were allowed to vote in North Carolina--that my Grandpa voted for the Cox/F.Roosevelt Democratic ticket, but our Grandmother (she died before I was born) voted for the Harding/Coolidge Republican ticket. The Democratic Cox/F.Roosevelt ticket carried North Carolina but lost the election, and Harding became President. When Harding died, Coolidge became President. Finally, in 1933, the same F. Roosevelt became President.My Grandpa, pictured above, was always proud to be a Democrat. He was in independent businessman, and, with his wife, ran a Mom-and-Pop grocery store in Marion, North Carolina, in the mountains. He was proud of his two sons, and after they both graduated from Berea College in Kentucky, and received Doctor of Philosophy Degrees in Economics from the University of Virginia, he named his store the Economy Grocery store, which was located in downtown Marion, North Carolina. He was also proud of his daughter who attended Berea College in Kentucky, graduated from Winthrop College, and married an Air Force Officer, who became a Major in the Air Force. Grandpa Stepp passed away after ninety years of living in the mountains of North Carolina with short periods away while he worked in Florida and in Wyoming.
U.S. Troops in 130 nations.
An internet search of the Project for the New American Century shows:
"The real or exaggerated fear of terrorism is being used to drive the militarization of U.S. foreign policy. There are now U.S. troops in 130 countries around the world, permanent bases in 40, and a growing number of others providing basing rights. The Wall Street Journal recently described it as "one of the biggest shifts in U.S. military thinking in the past 50 years," and noted that the new strategy is "pushing U.S. forces into far more remote and dangerous corners of the world." Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, architect of the strategy, is "preparing U.S. forces for a future that could involve lots of small, dirty fights in remote and dangerous places."
Not if Kenneth Stepp can help it. It's time to bring the United States troops home from Iraq. We have a treaty to be in NATO--a purely defensive alliance to keep Western Europe safe from attack. It is good that NATO has new Central European and Eastern European members. Its membership should increase. NATO should not be deploying troops outside of Europe. It is a regional defense force, designed to protect Europe. Kenneth Stepp supports continued American participation in NATO. There is no need, and no justification for U.S. troops being in 130 nations. It is time to bring troops home from those countries that we are not obligated by treaty to defend. Bring them home. Have them home for Christmas. America is not an empire, and we should not act like one. Bring the American troops home from Iraq by January 8, 2006. Hal Rogers wants to keep the American troops in 130 nations because he is a George Bush rubberstamp; Kenneth Stepp will vote to bring the American troops home from Iraq, and from most of the 130 nations where they are deployed. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House of Representatives, KY-05.
"The real or exaggerated fear of terrorism is being used to drive the militarization of U.S. foreign policy. There are now U.S. troops in 130 countries around the world, permanent bases in 40, and a growing number of others providing basing rights. The Wall Street Journal recently described it as "one of the biggest shifts in U.S. military thinking in the past 50 years," and noted that the new strategy is "pushing U.S. forces into far more remote and dangerous corners of the world." Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, architect of the strategy, is "preparing U.S. forces for a future that could involve lots of small, dirty fights in remote and dangerous places."
Not if Kenneth Stepp can help it. It's time to bring the United States troops home from Iraq. We have a treaty to be in NATO--a purely defensive alliance to keep Western Europe safe from attack. It is good that NATO has new Central European and Eastern European members. Its membership should increase. NATO should not be deploying troops outside of Europe. It is a regional defense force, designed to protect Europe. Kenneth Stepp supports continued American participation in NATO. There is no need, and no justification for U.S. troops being in 130 nations. It is time to bring troops home from those countries that we are not obligated by treaty to defend. Bring them home. Have them home for Christmas. America is not an empire, and we should not act like one. Bring the American troops home from Iraq by January 8, 2006. Hal Rogers wants to keep the American troops in 130 nations because he is a George Bush rubberstamp; Kenneth Stepp will vote to bring the American troops home from Iraq, and from most of the 130 nations where they are deployed. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House of Representatives, KY-05.
The Secret CIA Prisons in Europe.
The majority of the voters in the Kentucky Fifth Congressional District voted to "stay the course" in CIA abuses of human rights. Apparently, our European allies were on board for "staying the course" also, as hillbillyreport.com explains:
"11 EU Countries Knew of Secret CIA Prisons
"Germany and 10 other states knew about secret CIA prisons in Europe, and obstructed investigations into the case, the European Parliament said in a report.There were 11 European countries that knew about secret US jails for terror suspects and obstructed the investigation into the transport and illegal detention of prisoners within Europe, a European Parliament committee said in a draft report on Tuesday."Many governments cooperated passively or actively (with the CIA)," the committee's rapporteur Claudio Fava said. "They knew."
Continue reading "11 EU Countries Knew of Secret CIA Prisons" »
"11 EU Countries Knew of Secret CIA Prisons
"Germany and 10 other states knew about secret CIA prisons in Europe, and obstructed investigations into the case, the European Parliament said in a report.There were 11 European countries that knew about secret US jails for terror suspects and obstructed the investigation into the transport and illegal detention of prisoners within Europe, a European Parliament committee said in a draft report on Tuesday."Many governments cooperated passively or actively (with the CIA)," the committee's rapporteur Claudio Fava said. "They knew."
Continue reading "11 EU Countries Knew of Secret CIA Prisons" »
3000 U.S. Troops have died in Iraq.
Sadly the 3000th troop has died in Iraq. Let us rededicate ourselves to a commitment to bring our soldiers out of Iraq. The entire populace is open to our message now. Only 11% support "the surge" in the last poll. We will win!
U.S. attack of Iran likely, says The New American.
Concerning a U.S. Attack on Iran, The New American Magazine reports:
" * * * However, according to former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the deception and provocation strategy for war against Iraq preceded the 9/11 attacks. O’Neill says that from day one of the Bush administration, there was discussion only of “how” to effect regime change in Iraq and not “why.” No sooner had the Bush team taken office, O’Neill has stated, than “there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.” He added: “It was all about finding a way to do it. The president was saying: ‘Go find me a way to do this.’”
"Iran: Iraq Redux?
"It is no secret that the Ahmadinejad/Khameini regime in Tehran is malevolent and a major font of subversion and terrorism. This magazine has reported on that in detail over the past three decades. Moreover, it is clear that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. However, best estimates are that Iran is several years away from being able to produce nuclear weapons.
"Are we now witnessing the same kind of deception, propaganda, and provocation to get America to support an unprovoked attack on Iran? The evidence overwhelmingly screams, “YES.” A successful repeat of that deception/propaganda/provocation campaign would spell utter disaster for the United States.There is no evidence of a grave and imminent danger requiring a pre-emptive military attack, especially since the consequences could be horrendous, and other more reasonable options exist. What are some of those potential consequences? Here are but a few:
"As already mentioned, an immediate widening and intensification of the violence in Iraq, as Shi’ite forces join the fray, resulting in a drastic increase in U.S. casualties.
"Rather than causing Iranians to revolt against Ahmadinejad, as the neocons claim, an attack on Iran will most likely solidify Iranian nationalism behind the regime, causing even moderate Iranians to rally against the invaders, as Saddam found out when he tried the same thing.
"The whole Middle East will be further destabilized; many oil fields, pipelines, tankers, and shipping ports in the region will be damaged, destroyed, or shut down; oil prices will skyrocket, and America’s economy will be greatly harmed.
"Russia and China will be the big winners in the region, as both powers continue to solidify their influence and play against America’s image as the imperialist, anti-Muslim, anti-Arab superpower.
"Anti-Americanism and Islamic jihadism will be whipped into a new frenzy.
"Terrorist cells already allowed into the United States, due to our government’s suicidal refusal to protect our own borders while policing the world, will embark on a campaign of terror attacks.
"That’s just for starters. But it doesn’t need to turn out that way. We can, and must, prevail upon our fellow Americans to activate Congress to stop any plans for an attack upon Iran.
"How then can we protect against the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran? "As we have stated in these pages before, the key to that dilemma rests with our policies toward Moscow and Beijing. The facts and the experts attest that the Iranian nuclear threat has been and remains completely dependent on expertise, technology, and components from Russia and China. Without their continued help, it is unlikely that Iran could complete its nuclear WMD program. Yet the current Bush administration, like the Clinton and Bush Senior administrations before it, pretends that Russia and China are our “partners” in helping rein in Iran, North Korea and other “rogue” regimes. Putting all of the pressure at our disposal against Moscow and Beijing to cease this dangerous proliferation is the key to stopping the threat from Tehran.
"Who Decides?
"Since World War II, presidents have time and again illegally taken the United States to war — in Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq (to name but a few cases) — and always with disastrous results. Our “law of the land,” the Constitution, wrote Founding Father James Madison, has “with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.” Alexander Hamilton noted that the president’s war powers “would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral,” while the main power of the sword would rest with Congress. The Constitution grants to Congress alone the power: “To declare War”; “To raise and support Armies”; “To provide and maintain a Navy”; “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” The people must not allow presidents to usurp these powers, or the Congress to allow or abet such usurpation."
Kenneth Stepp believes that Congress alone has the power to declare war, and that Congress should not surrender that power to any President, nor to any international organization. If it's not worth a declaration of war, it's not worth American blood being shed.
" * * * However, according to former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the deception and provocation strategy for war against Iraq preceded the 9/11 attacks. O’Neill says that from day one of the Bush administration, there was discussion only of “how” to effect regime change in Iraq and not “why.” No sooner had the Bush team taken office, O’Neill has stated, than “there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.” He added: “It was all about finding a way to do it. The president was saying: ‘Go find me a way to do this.’”
"Iran: Iraq Redux?
"It is no secret that the Ahmadinejad/Khameini regime in Tehran is malevolent and a major font of subversion and terrorism. This magazine has reported on that in detail over the past three decades. Moreover, it is clear that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. However, best estimates are that Iran is several years away from being able to produce nuclear weapons.
"Are we now witnessing the same kind of deception, propaganda, and provocation to get America to support an unprovoked attack on Iran? The evidence overwhelmingly screams, “YES.” A successful repeat of that deception/propaganda/provocation campaign would spell utter disaster for the United States.There is no evidence of a grave and imminent danger requiring a pre-emptive military attack, especially since the consequences could be horrendous, and other more reasonable options exist. What are some of those potential consequences? Here are but a few:
"As already mentioned, an immediate widening and intensification of the violence in Iraq, as Shi’ite forces join the fray, resulting in a drastic increase in U.S. casualties.
"Rather than causing Iranians to revolt against Ahmadinejad, as the neocons claim, an attack on Iran will most likely solidify Iranian nationalism behind the regime, causing even moderate Iranians to rally against the invaders, as Saddam found out when he tried the same thing.
"The whole Middle East will be further destabilized; many oil fields, pipelines, tankers, and shipping ports in the region will be damaged, destroyed, or shut down; oil prices will skyrocket, and America’s economy will be greatly harmed.
"Russia and China will be the big winners in the region, as both powers continue to solidify their influence and play against America’s image as the imperialist, anti-Muslim, anti-Arab superpower.
"Anti-Americanism and Islamic jihadism will be whipped into a new frenzy.
"Terrorist cells already allowed into the United States, due to our government’s suicidal refusal to protect our own borders while policing the world, will embark on a campaign of terror attacks.
"That’s just for starters. But it doesn’t need to turn out that way. We can, and must, prevail upon our fellow Americans to activate Congress to stop any plans for an attack upon Iran.
"How then can we protect against the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran? "As we have stated in these pages before, the key to that dilemma rests with our policies toward Moscow and Beijing. The facts and the experts attest that the Iranian nuclear threat has been and remains completely dependent on expertise, technology, and components from Russia and China. Without their continued help, it is unlikely that Iran could complete its nuclear WMD program. Yet the current Bush administration, like the Clinton and Bush Senior administrations before it, pretends that Russia and China are our “partners” in helping rein in Iran, North Korea and other “rogue” regimes. Putting all of the pressure at our disposal against Moscow and Beijing to cease this dangerous proliferation is the key to stopping the threat from Tehran.
"Who Decides?
"Since World War II, presidents have time and again illegally taken the United States to war — in Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq (to name but a few cases) — and always with disastrous results. Our “law of the land,” the Constitution, wrote Founding Father James Madison, has “with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.” Alexander Hamilton noted that the president’s war powers “would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral,” while the main power of the sword would rest with Congress. The Constitution grants to Congress alone the power: “To declare War”; “To raise and support Armies”; “To provide and maintain a Navy”; “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” The people must not allow presidents to usurp these powers, or the Congress to allow or abet such usurpation."
Kenneth Stepp believes that Congress alone has the power to declare war, and that Congress should not surrender that power to any President, nor to any international organization. If it's not worth a declaration of war, it's not worth American blood being shed.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Rumsfeld Indictment update..
A lot of you checked this web site for information on a Rumsfeld indictment. Thank you.
The following is an update on that subject.
This report from U.S. News & World Report, March 16, 2007, page 30:
"A DIFFERENT BRAND OF WARFARE
"By Chitra Ragavan
"* * *
"Law war. Publicly, the Pentagon has described the suit as without merit. But privately, Bush administration officials acknowledge that this type of 'legal warefare,' or 'lawfare,' is a diplomatic time bomb that could create huge 'bilateral headaches.' Separately, arrest warrants issued by a Munich court against 13 CIA officers allegedly involved in the kidnapping and torture of German citizen Khaled el-Masri have also aggravated U.S.-German tensions. In Milan, Italian prosecutors are seeking the arrest of 26 Americans, many of them CIA operatives alleged to be involved in the kidnapping, rendition to Egypt, and alleged torture of an Egyptian refugee from Italy, Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr. Portugal and Switzerland are conducting similar criminal probes. U.S. officials have no intention of turning over any of the accused, but 'there's a growing risk for current and former officials [who could be arrested] when they travel abroad,' says John Bellinger, the State Department's legal adviser. 'Senior officials may be harassed by lawsuits and subpoenas for the rest of their lives.' Yoo, the former Justice Department official, was dissuaded from teaching in Italy, sources say, because prosecutors there were mulling over legal action against him. Yoo declined to comment, as did the Justice Department. Rumsfeld's office did not respond to a request for comment.
"The criminal complaint was filed on behalf of Qahtani and 11 Iraqi citizens allegedly tortured in Iraq's notorious Abu Ghraib prison, under Germany's tough universal jurisdiction statute, which allows the German federal prosecutor to investigate and prosecute crimes against humanity anywhere. International human-rights groups groups have long used such statutes, passed by several countries, including the United States, to target foreign dictators. . . . Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet . . . .
"The Center for Constitutional Rights' current complaint is a repeat performance. In November 2004, CCR filed a similar complaint against Rumsfeld and the other defendants. But the U.S. threatened a range of sanctions against Germany, and the complaint was dismissed on the eve of the Rumsfeld trip to Munich. The German federal prosecutor said then that the U.S. investigation of the Abu Ghraib scandal displayed the Bush administration's willingness to address possible crimes there. New York City Bar Association lawyer Scott Horton, a leading international law expert, predicts that this time around, German prosecutors will conclude that the complaint against Rumsfeld and others is meritorious, 'but for political reasons, they will not proceed with it.' * * *
After World War II, the United States helped install strong Anti-Nazi, Anti-Fascist, and somewhat Libertarian regimes in West Germany and in Italy after Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini had been overthrown. Apparently our new allies did not understand that those policies of their former leaders and former ruling political parties are outlawed except when they are carried out on behalf of the United States--that beacon of liberty, freedom, and Constitutional government. One of the Nazi slogans was "strength through joy"; a satire of the Nazis spoke the slogan "strength through cruelty." Is that the new slogan of the Bush Administration, "Strength through cruelty."?
The following is an update on that subject.
This report from U.S. News & World Report, March 16, 2007, page 30:
"A DIFFERENT BRAND OF WARFARE
"By Chitra Ragavan
"* * *
"Law war. Publicly, the Pentagon has described the suit as without merit. But privately, Bush administration officials acknowledge that this type of 'legal warefare,' or 'lawfare,' is a diplomatic time bomb that could create huge 'bilateral headaches.' Separately, arrest warrants issued by a Munich court against 13 CIA officers allegedly involved in the kidnapping and torture of German citizen Khaled el-Masri have also aggravated U.S.-German tensions. In Milan, Italian prosecutors are seeking the arrest of 26 Americans, many of them CIA operatives alleged to be involved in the kidnapping, rendition to Egypt, and alleged torture of an Egyptian refugee from Italy, Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr. Portugal and Switzerland are conducting similar criminal probes. U.S. officials have no intention of turning over any of the accused, but 'there's a growing risk for current and former officials [who could be arrested] when they travel abroad,' says John Bellinger, the State Department's legal adviser. 'Senior officials may be harassed by lawsuits and subpoenas for the rest of their lives.' Yoo, the former Justice Department official, was dissuaded from teaching in Italy, sources say, because prosecutors there were mulling over legal action against him. Yoo declined to comment, as did the Justice Department. Rumsfeld's office did not respond to a request for comment.
"The criminal complaint was filed on behalf of Qahtani and 11 Iraqi citizens allegedly tortured in Iraq's notorious Abu Ghraib prison, under Germany's tough universal jurisdiction statute, which allows the German federal prosecutor to investigate and prosecute crimes against humanity anywhere. International human-rights groups groups have long used such statutes, passed by several countries, including the United States, to target foreign dictators. . . . Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet . . . .
"The Center for Constitutional Rights' current complaint is a repeat performance. In November 2004, CCR filed a similar complaint against Rumsfeld and the other defendants. But the U.S. threatened a range of sanctions against Germany, and the complaint was dismissed on the eve of the Rumsfeld trip to Munich. The German federal prosecutor said then that the U.S. investigation of the Abu Ghraib scandal displayed the Bush administration's willingness to address possible crimes there. New York City Bar Association lawyer Scott Horton, a leading international law expert, predicts that this time around, German prosecutors will conclude that the complaint against Rumsfeld and others is meritorious, 'but for political reasons, they will not proceed with it.' * * *
After World War II, the United States helped install strong Anti-Nazi, Anti-Fascist, and somewhat Libertarian regimes in West Germany and in Italy after Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini had been overthrown. Apparently our new allies did not understand that those policies of their former leaders and former ruling political parties are outlawed except when they are carried out on behalf of the United States--that beacon of liberty, freedom, and Constitutional government. One of the Nazi slogans was "strength through joy"; a satire of the Nazis spoke the slogan "strength through cruelty." Is that the new slogan of the Bush Administration, "Strength through cruelty."?
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Democrats oppose war escalation.
This report from hillbillyreport shows the Democrats in Washington plan to fight against the war escalation:
"Kennedy Introduces Bill Requiring Congressional Approval For Iraq Escalation-WMV Video
Hillbilly ReportJan. 10, 2007Think ProgressThe legislation claims the people’s right to a full voice in the President’s plan to send more troops into the Iraq civil war. It says that no funds can be spent to send additional troops to Iraq unless Congress approves the President’s proposed escalation of American forces.President Bush should not be permitted to increase the number of United States troops in harm’s way in the civil war without a specific new authorization from Congress.To see the proposed bill click here.To see video wmv 4.7mb click here."
"Kennedy Introduces Bill Requiring Congressional Approval For Iraq Escalation-WMV Video
Hillbilly ReportJan. 10, 2007Think ProgressThe legislation claims the people’s right to a full voice in the President’s plan to send more troops into the Iraq civil war. It says that no funds can be spent to send additional troops to Iraq unless Congress approves the President’s proposed escalation of American forces.President Bush should not be permitted to increase the number of United States troops in harm’s way in the civil war without a specific new authorization from Congress.To see the proposed bill click here.To see video wmv 4.7mb click here."
Monday, March 12, 2007
Former Detainees seek Rumsfeld Indictment.
The following news article is from the Denver Post:
"Former detainees ask Germay to indict Rumsfeld
By Jeff St.Onge
Bloomberg News
Article Last Updated:11/10/2006 03:56:23 PM MST
"A group of former detainees in the U.S. war on terror will ask German prosecutors next week to indict former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration officials for torture and other war crimes, a lawyer for the group said today.
"Eleven Iraqis who were held at Abu Ghraib prison and other U.S.-run facilities in Iraq and a Saudi detainee at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will file a criminal complaint on Nov. 14, said Michael Rattner of the Center for Constitutionals Rights.
"I don't think there's any doubt anymore that Rumsfeld and these guys authorized torture," Rattner said in a telephone interview. "I don't think that these facts are in issue." He said the criminal complaint will ask the German Federal Prosecutor to begin an investigation into what role Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other high-ranking U.S. officials had in torture and other prisoner abuses and to eventually charge them as war criminals.
"Air Force Major Patrick Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman, declined comment. "We have not seen the lawsuit itself" and "have nothing to provide," he said in a telephone interview.
"Photos of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees sparked worldwide outrage when they were made public in April 2004. Rumsfeld and other members of President George W. Bush's administration said in congressional hearings in 2004 that prisoner abuses were confined largely to a group of soldiers on the night shift during a few months at Abu Ghraib prison.
"The Guantanamo detainee is Abdullah Hamid al-Qahtani, who U.S. officials have said was to be the 20th Sept. 11 hijacker. Rattner said Al-Qahtani kept a "log of his torture" that includes weeks of sleep deprivation and being chained to the floor.
'Universal Jurisdiction'
" The suit will allege that the administration officials ordered, assisted or failed to prevent war crimes. German law provides "universal jurisdiction," allowing for prosecution of war crimes committed anywhere, said Rattner, who is in Berlin preparing to file case. "German law is very favorable." Former Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone, Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff David Addington, former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez and Colonel Thomas Pappas, the former top intelligence official in Iraq, will also be named in the suit, Rattner said.
"He said about a dozen rights groups and individuals are joining the case, including the International Federation of Human Rights, the International Peace Bureau, a German lawyers' group and 1980 Nobel Peace Prize recipient Adolfo Perez Esquivel of Argentina.
"Karpinski's Role Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, who commanded military police units at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, will take part in a news conference when the suit is filed next week, Rattner said.
"The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights charged in a Nov. 2004 lawsuit in Germany that Rumsfeld bears direct responsibility for the torture of U.S. detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and the U.S. Navy prison at Guantanamo by approving illegal interrogation techniques.
"German prosecutors dropped the suit in February 2005, saying U.S. authorities were still investigating the charges. Rumsfeld refused to visit a security conference in Munich that month until the case was dropped, according to Rattner.
"Offered to Resign Rumsfeld twice in 2004 offered his resignation over the prison abuses, he said in a Cable News Network television interview last year. Rumsfeld resigned Nov. 8 and will be replaced by former CIA Director Robert Gates.
"Now that Rumsfeld has resigned he no longer has the type of immunity typically given to heads of state and high-ranking government officials, Rattner said.
"Since the Military Commissions Act signed by Bush last month gives immunity to U.S. officials in connection with detainee interrogations, the "German courts no longer have the excuse of saying these cases are going to be prosecuted in U.S. courts," Rattner said."
Although certain people in certain Congressional Districts have, by their actions, expressed their approval of govermental torture of individual persons, the new Democratic majority in the U.S. House is expected to put an end to U.S. sanctioned torture. Apparently, Mr. Rumsfeld will have to confine his vacations and travels to the United States, where he remains immune from prosecution.
"Former detainees ask Germay to indict Rumsfeld
By Jeff St.Onge
Bloomberg News
Article Last Updated:11/10/2006 03:56:23 PM MST
"A group of former detainees in the U.S. war on terror will ask German prosecutors next week to indict former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration officials for torture and other war crimes, a lawyer for the group said today.
"Eleven Iraqis who were held at Abu Ghraib prison and other U.S.-run facilities in Iraq and a Saudi detainee at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will file a criminal complaint on Nov. 14, said Michael Rattner of the Center for Constitutionals Rights.
"I don't think there's any doubt anymore that Rumsfeld and these guys authorized torture," Rattner said in a telephone interview. "I don't think that these facts are in issue." He said the criminal complaint will ask the German Federal Prosecutor to begin an investigation into what role Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other high-ranking U.S. officials had in torture and other prisoner abuses and to eventually charge them as war criminals.
"Air Force Major Patrick Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman, declined comment. "We have not seen the lawsuit itself" and "have nothing to provide," he said in a telephone interview.
"Photos of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees sparked worldwide outrage when they were made public in April 2004. Rumsfeld and other members of President George W. Bush's administration said in congressional hearings in 2004 that prisoner abuses were confined largely to a group of soldiers on the night shift during a few months at Abu Ghraib prison.
"The Guantanamo detainee is Abdullah Hamid al-Qahtani, who U.S. officials have said was to be the 20th Sept. 11 hijacker. Rattner said Al-Qahtani kept a "log of his torture" that includes weeks of sleep deprivation and being chained to the floor.
'Universal Jurisdiction'
" The suit will allege that the administration officials ordered, assisted or failed to prevent war crimes. German law provides "universal jurisdiction," allowing for prosecution of war crimes committed anywhere, said Rattner, who is in Berlin preparing to file case. "German law is very favorable." Former Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone, Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff David Addington, former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez and Colonel Thomas Pappas, the former top intelligence official in Iraq, will also be named in the suit, Rattner said.
"He said about a dozen rights groups and individuals are joining the case, including the International Federation of Human Rights, the International Peace Bureau, a German lawyers' group and 1980 Nobel Peace Prize recipient Adolfo Perez Esquivel of Argentina.
"Karpinski's Role Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, who commanded military police units at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, will take part in a news conference when the suit is filed next week, Rattner said.
"The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights charged in a Nov. 2004 lawsuit in Germany that Rumsfeld bears direct responsibility for the torture of U.S. detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and the U.S. Navy prison at Guantanamo by approving illegal interrogation techniques.
"German prosecutors dropped the suit in February 2005, saying U.S. authorities were still investigating the charges. Rumsfeld refused to visit a security conference in Munich that month until the case was dropped, according to Rattner.
"Offered to Resign Rumsfeld twice in 2004 offered his resignation over the prison abuses, he said in a Cable News Network television interview last year. Rumsfeld resigned Nov. 8 and will be replaced by former CIA Director Robert Gates.
"Now that Rumsfeld has resigned he no longer has the type of immunity typically given to heads of state and high-ranking government officials, Rattner said.
"Since the Military Commissions Act signed by Bush last month gives immunity to U.S. officials in connection with detainee interrogations, the "German courts no longer have the excuse of saying these cases are going to be prosecuted in U.S. courts," Rattner said."
Although certain people in certain Congressional Districts have, by their actions, expressed their approval of govermental torture of individual persons, the new Democratic majority in the U.S. House is expected to put an end to U.S. sanctioned torture. Apparently, Mr. Rumsfeld will have to confine his vacations and travels to the United States, where he remains immune from prosecution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
