WHO ‘suppressed’ scientific study into depleted uranium cancer fears in Iraq - [Sunday Herald]: "By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor
Radiation experts warn in unpublished report that DU weapons used by Allies in Gulf war pose long-term health risk
An expert report warning that the long-term health of Iraq’s civilian population would be endangered by British and US depleted uranium (DU) weapons has been kept secret.
The study by three leading radiation scientists cautioned that children and adults could contract cancer after breathing in dust containing DU, which is radioactive and chemically toxic. But it was blocked from publication by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which employed the main author, Dr Keith Baverstock, as a senior radiation advisor. He alleges that it was deliberately suppressed, though this is denied by WHO.
Baverstock also believes that if the study had been published when it was completed in 2001, there would have been more pressure on the US and UK to limit their use of DU weapons in last year’s war, and to clean up afterwards.
Hundreds of thousands of DU shells were fired by coalition tanks and planes during the conflict, and there has been no comprehensive decontamination."
Thursday, June 30, 2005
'The Christian in me says it's wrong,' ... 'But the corrections officer in me says I love to make a grown man piss himself.'"
Torture Fatigue: "By Silja J.A. Talvi | 06/29/05 - -
'The Christian in me says it's wrong,' Army Specialist Charles A. Graner Jr. said of torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. 'But the corrections officer in me says I love to make a grown man piss himself.'
...
In an exhaustive May 2005 Amnesty International report, "Guantánamo and beyond: the continuing pursuit of unchecked executive power," the running count of detentions in the global war on terror stands, at least, at 70,000 people, including the known deaths of 27 individuals in U.S. custody since 2002. To take but one example, consider this June 2004 account of Martin Mubanga, a British citizen who was kidnapped by U.S. Forces in Zambia and eventually brought to Guantánamo:
I needed the toilet and I asked the interrogator to let me go. But he just said "you'll go when I say so." I told him he had five minutes to get me to the toilet or I was going to go on the floor. He left the room. Finally, I squirmed across the floor and did it in the corner, trying to minimize the mess ... He comes back with a mop and dips it in the pool of urine. Then he starts covering me with my own waste, like he's using a big paint-brush, working methodically, beginning with my feet and ankles, and working his way up my legs. All the while, he's racially abusing me, cussing me: "Oh, the poor little negro, the poor little ####." He seemed to think it was funny. What such systemic brutality means, on some level, is that Americans bear collective responsibility for the damage our government has done. That's not an easy thing to contemplate. But the public won't find any such admission represented on the pages of our commercial newspapers and magazines. Instead we see outrage and compassion about things that we're not responsible for, the deaths of Terri Schiavo and the Pope, for instance, or the toll of the tsunami.
'The Christian in me says it's wrong,' Army Specialist Charles A. Graner Jr. said of torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. 'But the corrections officer in me says I love to make a grown man piss himself.'
...
In an exhaustive May 2005 Amnesty International report, "Guantánamo and beyond: the continuing pursuit of unchecked executive power," the running count of detentions in the global war on terror stands, at least, at 70,000 people, including the known deaths of 27 individuals in U.S. custody since 2002. To take but one example, consider this June 2004 account of Martin Mubanga, a British citizen who was kidnapped by U.S. Forces in Zambia and eventually brought to Guantánamo:
I needed the toilet and I asked the interrogator to let me go. But he just said "you'll go when I say so." I told him he had five minutes to get me to the toilet or I was going to go on the floor. He left the room. Finally, I squirmed across the floor and did it in the corner, trying to minimize the mess ... He comes back with a mop and dips it in the pool of urine. Then he starts covering me with my own waste, like he's using a big paint-brush, working methodically, beginning with my feet and ankles, and working his way up my legs. All the while, he's racially abusing me, cussing me: "Oh, the poor little negro, the poor little ####." He seemed to think it was funny. What such systemic brutality means, on some level, is that Americans bear collective responsibility for the damage our government has done. That's not an easy thing to contemplate. But the public won't find any such admission represented on the pages of our commercial newspapers and magazines. Instead we see outrage and compassion about things that we're not responsible for, the deaths of Terri Schiavo and the Pope, for instance, or the toll of the tsunami.
Team Bush paid MILLIONS to Nathan Sproul-and tried to hide it!: $8.3 million for dirty tricks in order to suppress the Democratic vote ?
News From Underground: Team Bush paid MILLIONS to Nathan Sproul-and tried to hide it!: "June 30, 2005 | A News from Underground Exclusive! | by Mark Crispin Miller and Jared Irmas
A huge expense
In the months before the presidential election, a firm called Sproul & Associates launched voter registration drives in at least eight states, most of them swing states. The group-run by Nathan Sproul, former head of the Arizona Christian Coalition and the Arizona Republican Party-had been hired by the Republican National Committee.
Sproul got into a bit of trouble last fall when, in certain states, it came out that the firm was playing dirty tricks in order to suppress the Democratic vote: concealing their partisan agenda, tricking Democrats into registering as Republicans, surreptitiously re-registering Democrats and Independents as Republicans, and shredding Democratic registration forms.
...
In fact, the RNC paid Sproul a great deal more than that. From an independent study of the original data filed by the Republicans with the Federal Election Commission, it is clear that Sproul was paid a staggering $8.3 million for its work against the Democrats.
...
... It turned out that the RNC paid Sproul not only for their pre-election work, but also paid them for work after the election. According to their Year-End Report, filed on Jan. 28, 2005, the RNC paid Sproul for "Political Consulting" in December-long after all the voter registration drives had ended.
A huge expense
In the months before the presidential election, a firm called Sproul & Associates launched voter registration drives in at least eight states, most of them swing states. The group-run by Nathan Sproul, former head of the Arizona Christian Coalition and the Arizona Republican Party-had been hired by the Republican National Committee.
Sproul got into a bit of trouble last fall when, in certain states, it came out that the firm was playing dirty tricks in order to suppress the Democratic vote: concealing their partisan agenda, tricking Democrats into registering as Republicans, surreptitiously re-registering Democrats and Independents as Republicans, and shredding Democratic registration forms.
...
In fact, the RNC paid Sproul a great deal more than that. From an independent study of the original data filed by the Republicans with the Federal Election Commission, it is clear that Sproul was paid a staggering $8.3 million for its work against the Democrats.
...
... It turned out that the RNC paid Sproul not only for their pre-election work, but also paid them for work after the election. According to their Year-End Report, filed on Jan. 28, 2005, the RNC paid Sproul for "Political Consulting" in December-long after all the voter registration drives had ended.
two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth ... Congress should ...impeachment ...
Zogby International: "June 30, 2005
No Bounce: Bush Job Approval Unchanged by War Speech; Question on Impeachment Shows Polarization of Nation; Americans Tired of Divisiveness in Congress—Want Bi-Partisan Solutions—New Zogby Poll
President Bush’s televised address to the nation produced no noticeable bounce in his approval numbers, with his job approval rating slipping a point from a week ago, to 43%, in the latest Zogby International poll. And, in a sign of continuing polarization, more than two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.
The Zogby America survey of 905 likely voters, conducted from June 27 through 29, 2005, has a margin of error of /-3.3 percentage points.
Just one week ago, President Bush’s job approval stood at a previous low of 44%—but it has now slipped another point to 43%, despite a speech to the nation intended to build support for the Administration and the ongoing Iraq War effort. The Zogby America survey includes calls made both before and after the President’s address, and the results show no discernible “bump” in his job approval, with voter approval of his job performance at 45% in the final day of polling.
Where voters live has some impact on their perceptions. The President’s job rating remains relatively strong in the South, with 51% rating his performance favorably; in all other regions, those disapproving his performance are in the majority.
In a more significant sign of the weakness of the President’s numbers, more “Red State” voters—that is, voters living in the states that cast their ballots for the Bush-Cheney ticket in 2004—now rate his job performance unfavorably, with 50% holding a negative impression of the President’s handling of his duties, and 48% holding a favorable view. The President also gets negative marks from one-in-four (25%) Republicans—as well as 86% of Democrats and 58% of independents. (Bush nets favorable marks from 75% of Republicans, 13% of Democrats and 40% of independents.)
Impeachment Question Shows Bitterness of Divide
In a sign of the continuing partisan division of the nation, more than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment. While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country."
No Bounce: Bush Job Approval Unchanged by War Speech; Question on Impeachment Shows Polarization of Nation; Americans Tired of Divisiveness in Congress—Want Bi-Partisan Solutions—New Zogby Poll
President Bush’s televised address to the nation produced no noticeable bounce in his approval numbers, with his job approval rating slipping a point from a week ago, to 43%, in the latest Zogby International poll. And, in a sign of continuing polarization, more than two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.
The Zogby America survey of 905 likely voters, conducted from June 27 through 29, 2005, has a margin of error of /-3.3 percentage points.
Just one week ago, President Bush’s job approval stood at a previous low of 44%—but it has now slipped another point to 43%, despite a speech to the nation intended to build support for the Administration and the ongoing Iraq War effort. The Zogby America survey includes calls made both before and after the President’s address, and the results show no discernible “bump” in his job approval, with voter approval of his job performance at 45% in the final day of polling.
Where voters live has some impact on their perceptions. The President’s job rating remains relatively strong in the South, with 51% rating his performance favorably; in all other regions, those disapproving his performance are in the majority.
In a more significant sign of the weakness of the President’s numbers, more “Red State” voters—that is, voters living in the states that cast their ballots for the Bush-Cheney ticket in 2004—now rate his job performance unfavorably, with 50% holding a negative impression of the President’s handling of his duties, and 48% holding a favorable view. The President also gets negative marks from one-in-four (25%) Republicans—as well as 86% of Democrats and 58% of independents. (Bush nets favorable marks from 75% of Republicans, 13% of Democrats and 40% of independents.)
Impeachment Question Shows Bitterness of Divide
In a sign of the continuing partisan division of the nation, more than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment. While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country."
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
US faces prison ship allegations
BBC NEWS | Americas | US faces prison ship allegations: Last Updated: Tuesday, 28 June, 2005, 19:46 GMT 20:46 UK
The United Nations says it has learned of serious allegations that the US is secretly detaining terrorism suspects, notably on American military ships.
The special rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, said the claims were rumours at this stage, but urged the US to co-operate with an investigation.
He said the UN wants lists of the places of detention and those held.
The comments come five days after the UN accused the US of stalling on their requests to visit Guantanamo Bay.
Investigators have been asking to visit the jail in Cuba to carry out checks into allegations of human rights abuse. ...
The United Nations says it has learned of serious allegations that the US is secretly detaining terrorism suspects, notably on American military ships.
The special rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, said the claims were rumours at this stage, but urged the US to co-operate with an investigation.
He said the UN wants lists of the places of detention and those held.
The comments come five days after the UN accused the US of stalling on their requests to visit Guantanamo Bay.
Investigators have been asking to visit the jail in Cuba to carry out checks into allegations of human rights abuse. ...
U.S. Blocked Release of CAFTA Reports: concluded that countries proposed for free-trade status have poor working environments and fail to protect work
AP: U.S. Blocked Release of CAFTA Reports - New York Times: "By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS | Published: June 29, 2005 | Filed at 2:11 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Labor Department worked for more than a year to maintain secrecy for studies that were critical of working conditions in Central America, the region the Bush administration wants in a new trade pact.
The contractor hired by the department in 2002 to conduct the studies has become a major opponent of the administration's proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA.
The government-paid studies concluded that countries proposed for free-trade status have poor working environments and fail to protect workers' rights. The department dismissed the conclusions as inaccurate and biased, according to government and contractor documents reviewed by The Associated Press."
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Labor Department worked for more than a year to maintain secrecy for studies that were critical of working conditions in Central America, the region the Bush administration wants in a new trade pact.
The contractor hired by the department in 2002 to conduct the studies has become a major opponent of the administration's proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA.
The government-paid studies concluded that countries proposed for free-trade status have poor working environments and fail to protect workers' rights. The department dismissed the conclusions as inaccurate and biased, according to government and contractor documents reviewed by The Associated Press."
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
On Day of Iraq Speech, House Conservatives Gouge Vets: conservatives shot down the measure [to make up shortfall] on a 217-189 vote."
Think Progress � On Day of Iraq Speech, House Conservatives Gouge Vets: "
This just in from the Hill. On the same day President Bush will use the soldiers at Fort Bragg as a backdrop for his address on Iraq, conservatives in the House have voted to underfund veterans’ health care by at least $1 billion.
The backstory: Last week, the Washington Post revealed that the budget for veterans’ health care was suffering a billion dollar shortfall this year, a fact unearthed “only during lengthy questioning” of a Veterans Affairs undersecretary.
The Bush administration had claimed on multiple occassions that the current budget was enough to provide full care. Back in February, Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson testified that he was “satisfied that we can get the job done with this budget.” Later, when Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) tried to add funds into the VA budget, Nicholson wrote her a letter assuring that the VA did not “need emergency supplemental funds in FY2005 to continue to provide timely, quality service that is always our goal.”
Yet today, even after the administration’s misleading claims had been exposed, and despite brand new data showing that demand for veterans health programs had grown twice as fast as the VA predicted earlier this year, House conservatives still voted to block any additional funding for veterans’ care.
Moments ago, Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX), the ranking minority member on the House Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, proposed making up the shortfall for vets’ care in a foreign aid bill that is still being considered. According to the AP, conservatives shot down the measure on a 217-189 vote."
This just in from the Hill. On the same day President Bush will use the soldiers at Fort Bragg as a backdrop for his address on Iraq, conservatives in the House have voted to underfund veterans’ health care by at least $1 billion.
The backstory: Last week, the Washington Post revealed that the budget for veterans’ health care was suffering a billion dollar shortfall this year, a fact unearthed “only during lengthy questioning” of a Veterans Affairs undersecretary.
The Bush administration had claimed on multiple occassions that the current budget was enough to provide full care. Back in February, Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson testified that he was “satisfied that we can get the job done with this budget.” Later, when Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) tried to add funds into the VA budget, Nicholson wrote her a letter assuring that the VA did not “need emergency supplemental funds in FY2005 to continue to provide timely, quality service that is always our goal.”
Yet today, even after the administration’s misleading claims had been exposed, and despite brand new data showing that demand for veterans health programs had grown twice as fast as the VA predicted earlier this year, House conservatives still voted to block any additional funding for veterans’ care.
Moments ago, Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX), the ranking minority member on the House Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, proposed making up the shortfall for vets’ care in a foreign aid bill that is still being considered. According to the AP, conservatives shot down the measure on a 217-189 vote."
Struggling to prevent political damage, Senate Republicans intend to raise spending on veterans programs by $1.5 billion: House Republicans resist
VA Confirms 103,000 Iraq and Afghan Veterans Seek Healthcare: "VA Confirms 103,000 Iraq and Afghan Veterans Seek Healthcare: Senate Plans $1.5 Billion Spending Boost for Veterans | By DAVID ESPO | The Associated Press | Tuesday, June 28, 2005; 3:26 PM
WASHINGTON -- Struggling to prevent political damage, Senate Republicans intend to raise spending on veterans programs by $1.5 billion to make up for a shortage caused partly by the return of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, officials said Tuesday.
'I'm glad they have seen the light,' said Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. He said majority Republicans had refused to provide the money when members of his party called for it earlier in the year.
Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, who chairs the Veterans Committee, said a vote was likely Tuesday or Wednesday.
The decision to approve the funds came in response to last week's disclosure that the Department of Veterans Affairs needs $1 billion more for veterans health care this year.
Republicans swiftly retreated on the issue in the Senate, but not in the House.
There, the GOP defeated a Democratic effort to provide an extra $1 billion for veterans health care. The 217-189 vote was along party lines.
'Veterans need to know that no veteran will be without his health care in 2005, nor will they be without their health care in 2006,' said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. 'There are solutions to this problem, and those solutions are being addressed.'
Democrats said that wasn't good enough.
Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, accused the GOP of hiding behind procedural excuses _ that the House was debating legislation unrelated to veterans. Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., said that either Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson misled Congress with his earlier statements or he himself had been kept in the dark by other administration officials.
Reid poked at the Republicans as Democratic officials circulated printed material accusing the GOP of having 'ignored early warnings on funding for veterans.'"
WASHINGTON -- Struggling to prevent political damage, Senate Republicans intend to raise spending on veterans programs by $1.5 billion to make up for a shortage caused partly by the return of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, officials said Tuesday.
'I'm glad they have seen the light,' said Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. He said majority Republicans had refused to provide the money when members of his party called for it earlier in the year.
Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, who chairs the Veterans Committee, said a vote was likely Tuesday or Wednesday.
The decision to approve the funds came in response to last week's disclosure that the Department of Veterans Affairs needs $1 billion more for veterans health care this year.
Republicans swiftly retreated on the issue in the Senate, but not in the House.
There, the GOP defeated a Democratic effort to provide an extra $1 billion for veterans health care. The 217-189 vote was along party lines.
'Veterans need to know that no veteran will be without his health care in 2005, nor will they be without their health care in 2006,' said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. 'There are solutions to this problem, and those solutions are being addressed.'
Democrats said that wasn't good enough.
Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, accused the GOP of hiding behind procedural excuses _ that the House was debating legislation unrelated to veterans. Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., said that either Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson misled Congress with his earlier statements or he himself had been kept in the dark by other administration officials.
Reid poked at the Republicans as Democratic officials circulated printed material accusing the GOP of having 'ignored early warnings on funding for veterans.'"
Monday, June 27, 2005
Britain rebuffs call to block anti-Aids needle exchanges
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Britain rebuffs call to block anti-Aids needle exchanges: "Sarah Boseley, health editor | Tuesday June 28, 2005 |
The Guardian
The US is pressing the UN to block the use of needle exchange programmes in countries where drug use is driving the spread of Aids, arguing that the schemes encourage users to continue their habit.
But critics, including Britain, believe that the fight against Aids in eastern Europe, central Asia and other parts of the world could be jeopardised if the US manages to water down the UN's policy.
...
He said: "We support effective harm reduction programmes, especially needle and syringe exchange and methadone substitution therapy because they have been proven to reduce HIV infection among infecting drug users and their sexual partners in many countries."
...
Europe accepts evidence from studies which have shown needle exchanges to curb the spread of infection, but the US, which will not fund such studies domestically, does not.
The issue has already become fraught. At a meeting in Vienna earlier this year the UN agency responsible for the policing of narcotics, the United Nations office on drugs and crime, was forced to accept the US line and oppose needle exchanges.
USAid, the American development agency, is not permitted to fund or be involved with programmes that include needle exchange. Democrats are lobbying against the government's position.
The Guardian
The US is pressing the UN to block the use of needle exchange programmes in countries where drug use is driving the spread of Aids, arguing that the schemes encourage users to continue their habit.
But critics, including Britain, believe that the fight against Aids in eastern Europe, central Asia and other parts of the world could be jeopardised if the US manages to water down the UN's policy.
...
He said: "We support effective harm reduction programmes, especially needle and syringe exchange and methadone substitution therapy because they have been proven to reduce HIV infection among infecting drug users and their sexual partners in many countries."
...
Europe accepts evidence from studies which have shown needle exchanges to curb the spread of infection, but the US, which will not fund such studies domestically, does not.
The issue has already become fraught. At a meeting in Vienna earlier this year the UN agency responsible for the policing of narcotics, the United Nations office on drugs and crime, was forced to accept the US line and oppose needle exchanges.
USAid, the American development agency, is not permitted to fund or be involved with programmes that include needle exchange. Democrats are lobbying against the government's position.
Records show Democrats rejected for jobs: [hiring] for merit jobs based on politics rather than qualifications, which would be illegal.
Records show Democrats rejected for jobs: "LISTS MENTION DONATIONS, BUMPER STICKERS | By John Cheves | HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER
FRANKFORT - Gov. Ernie Fletcher's administration investigated some applicants for merit jobs to determine their political loyalty, then acted against Democrats, according to internal rec-ords filed in court Friday.
In one case, an applicant had Democratic bumper stickers, which was noted next to his name on a list of job seekers. In another, Fletcher aides dropped the recommended candidate for a job when they uncovered his donations to the campaigns of Democratic Gov. Paul Patton and Ben Chandler, the Democrat who lost to Fletcher in 2003.
'From the very beginning of this administration, they have used party loyalty and campaign donations as criteria for state employment, and unfortunately, this is simply more evidence,' said Charles Wells, executive director of the Kentucky Association of State Employees.
Attorney General Greg Stumbo is investigating reports that the Fletcher administration makes decisions about whom to hire for merit jobs based on politics rather than qualifications, which would be illegal."
FRANKFORT - Gov. Ernie Fletcher's administration investigated some applicants for merit jobs to determine their political loyalty, then acted against Democrats, according to internal rec-ords filed in court Friday.
In one case, an applicant had Democratic bumper stickers, which was noted next to his name on a list of job seekers. In another, Fletcher aides dropped the recommended candidate for a job when they uncovered his donations to the campaigns of Democratic Gov. Paul Patton and Ben Chandler, the Democrat who lost to Fletcher in 2003.
'From the very beginning of this administration, they have used party loyalty and campaign donations as criteria for state employment, and unfortunately, this is simply more evidence,' said Charles Wells, executive director of the Kentucky Association of State Employees.
Attorney General Greg Stumbo is investigating reports that the Fletcher administration makes decisions about whom to hire for merit jobs based on politics rather than qualifications, which would be illegal."
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Concerns arise over Bush's pick for EPA job: lawyer who's clients includes WR Grace, under federal criminal indictment
Concerns arise over Bush's pick for EPA job: "Saturday, June 25, 2005| Lawyer works for firm that represents W.R. Grace, others | By CHARLES POPE | SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT
WASHINGTON -- President Bush has nominated Granta Nakayama, a partner in a law firm whose clients include W.R. Grace, BP, Dow Chemical and DuPont, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency's far-flung enforcement division.
Selecting a lawyer and an engineer with one of the nation's largest corporate law firms, whose clients have deep and occasionally controversial relations with the EPA, triggered concerns that Nakayama would not be able to aggressively enforce environmental laws.
Foremost among those concerns is W.R. Grace, which is under federal criminal indictment on charges related to the operation of its vermiculite mine in Libby, Mont. Hundreds of workers and Libby residents contracted lethal asbestos-related disease -- a situation that gained national attention after a Seattle Post-Intelligencer series in 1999.
A follow-up health screening in Libby showed that nearly 2,000 residents of the tiny Montana town have lung abnormalities that could herald asbestos-related disease."
WASHINGTON -- President Bush has nominated Granta Nakayama, a partner in a law firm whose clients include W.R. Grace, BP, Dow Chemical and DuPont, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency's far-flung enforcement division.
Selecting a lawyer and an engineer with one of the nation's largest corporate law firms, whose clients have deep and occasionally controversial relations with the EPA, triggered concerns that Nakayama would not be able to aggressively enforce environmental laws.
Foremost among those concerns is W.R. Grace, which is under federal criminal indictment on charges related to the operation of its vermiculite mine in Libby, Mont. Hundreds of workers and Libby residents contracted lethal asbestos-related disease -- a situation that gained national attention after a Seattle Post-Intelligencer series in 1999.
A follow-up health screening in Libby showed that nearly 2,000 residents of the tiny Montana town have lung abnormalities that could herald asbestos-related disease."
Italians issue arrest warrants for “13 American intelligence operatives": CIA Abducts Muslim, Spends $100,000 in Luxury Hotels
CIA Abducts Muslim, Spends $100,000 in Luxury Hotels: "By Kurt Nimmo | 06/25/05
The Italian dailies Corriere della Sera and Il Giorno are reporting the issuance of arrest warrants for “13 American intelligence operatives, charging that they kidnapped a radical Islamic cleric as he walked to a mosque here two years ago, held him hostage at two U.S. military bases and then covertly flew him to Cairo. He later said he was tortured by Egyptian security police,” according to the Washington Post. “The CIA and the U.S. Embassy in Rome declined to comment Friday,” although Italian court documents indicate Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, was indeed abducted. “Nasr was a longtime surveillance target of Italian counterterrorism police, who have made no secret of their frustration over how he was forcibly taken out of the country without their knowledge…. Nasr was kidnapped just after noon by eight U.S. operatives as he was walking from his house to a nearby mosque to pray. He was bundled into a van and taken to Aviano Air Base, a joint Italian-U.S. military installation. Hours later, he was put on a Learjet to Ramstein Air Base in Germany, where he was transferred to another airplane, which took him to Cairo, the documents show.”
The somnolent American taxpayer should be proud, even though the CIA operatives “spent more than $100,000 to stay in luxury hotels in Milan, Florence and Venice before and after Nasr’s disappearance.” Of course, we shouldn’t expect the CIA to stay in the Italian version of the Red Roof Inn. Violating international law (international conventions bar sending prisoners to another nation unless there are strong assurances of humane treatment, according to Nat Hentoff) and sneaking around behind the back of our supposed allies is hard and thankless work and CIA operatives deserve every perk they can get.
“[In] the post-9-11 world, the United States must make sure we protect our people and our friends from attack… One way to do so is to arrest people and send them back to their country of origin with the promise that they won’t be tortured. That’s the promise we receive. This country does not believe in torture,” our fearless fibber said on March 16. Naturally, once in Cairo, Mr. Nasr was kindly and politely interviewed in an air-conditioned office and offered gourmet coffee and Asseeda.
...
So it appears Milan prosecutor Manlio Claudio Minale has a robust case against the CIA (additional background info is available from similar cases in Germany and Sweden). However, it remains to be seen if the Italians will successfully prosecute the CIA or their case will fizzle out, as legal maneuvers against the spook agency often do. Even if the Italians fail, however, the details they unearth are more grist for the ongoing case to be made against Bush and his cronies, who believe they are above international law. ...
The Italian dailies Corriere della Sera and Il Giorno are reporting the issuance of arrest warrants for “13 American intelligence operatives, charging that they kidnapped a radical Islamic cleric as he walked to a mosque here two years ago, held him hostage at two U.S. military bases and then covertly flew him to Cairo. He later said he was tortured by Egyptian security police,” according to the Washington Post. “The CIA and the U.S. Embassy in Rome declined to comment Friday,” although Italian court documents indicate Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, was indeed abducted. “Nasr was a longtime surveillance target of Italian counterterrorism police, who have made no secret of their frustration over how he was forcibly taken out of the country without their knowledge…. Nasr was kidnapped just after noon by eight U.S. operatives as he was walking from his house to a nearby mosque to pray. He was bundled into a van and taken to Aviano Air Base, a joint Italian-U.S. military installation. Hours later, he was put on a Learjet to Ramstein Air Base in Germany, where he was transferred to another airplane, which took him to Cairo, the documents show.”
The somnolent American taxpayer should be proud, even though the CIA operatives “spent more than $100,000 to stay in luxury hotels in Milan, Florence and Venice before and after Nasr’s disappearance.” Of course, we shouldn’t expect the CIA to stay in the Italian version of the Red Roof Inn. Violating international law (international conventions bar sending prisoners to another nation unless there are strong assurances of humane treatment, according to Nat Hentoff) and sneaking around behind the back of our supposed allies is hard and thankless work and CIA operatives deserve every perk they can get.
“[In] the post-9-11 world, the United States must make sure we protect our people and our friends from attack… One way to do so is to arrest people and send them back to their country of origin with the promise that they won’t be tortured. That’s the promise we receive. This country does not believe in torture,” our fearless fibber said on March 16. Naturally, once in Cairo, Mr. Nasr was kindly and politely interviewed in an air-conditioned office and offered gourmet coffee and Asseeda.
...
So it appears Milan prosecutor Manlio Claudio Minale has a robust case against the CIA (additional background info is available from similar cases in Germany and Sweden). However, it remains to be seen if the Italians will successfully prosecute the CIA or their case will fizzle out, as legal maneuvers against the spook agency often do. Even if the Italians fail, however, the details they unearth are more grist for the ongoing case to be made against Bush and his cronies, who believe they are above international law. ...
Rep Doc Hastings, chairman of the stalled House ethics committee, accepted a $7,800 trip from a company he championed for a multibillion contract
The Seattle Times: Local News: Ethics claims target Doc Hastings: "Saturday, June 25, 2005 | By Alicia Mundy | Seattle Times Washington bureau
WASHINGTON — Rep. Doc Hastings, already under fire as chairman of the stalled House ethics committee, accepted a $7,800 trip to England in 2000 from a company he championed for a multibillion-dollar contract at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, records released by an advocacy group yesterday show.
In addition, other records released yesterday by a political Web site show that Hastings, a Republican from Pasco, did not file a required travel report for a 2004 trip to a resort on Stuart Island, B.C. That was paid for by another company also working at Hanford.
Hastings has been under fire for not scheduling hearings on ethics allegations against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. DeLay is accused of accepting a trip paid for by lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is under investigation over allegations that he defrauded clients of millions of dollars.
WASHINGTON — Rep. Doc Hastings, already under fire as chairman of the stalled House ethics committee, accepted a $7,800 trip to England in 2000 from a company he championed for a multibillion-dollar contract at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, records released by an advocacy group yesterday show.
In addition, other records released yesterday by a political Web site show that Hastings, a Republican from Pasco, did not file a required travel report for a 2004 trip to a resort on Stuart Island, B.C. That was paid for by another company also working at Hanford.
Hastings has been under fire for not scheduling hearings on ethics allegations against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. DeLay is accused of accepting a trip paid for by lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is under investigation over allegations that he defrauded clients of millions of dollars.
Bush administration has misused Material Witness law to detain at least 70 terrorism suspects: Only 28 eventually charged: all but one a Muslim
Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | Groups: U.S. Misuses Material Witness Law: "Sunday June 26, 2005 2:31 PM | By MARK SHERMAN | Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration has misused a federal law to detain at least 70 terrorism suspects since the Sept. 11 attacks, two advocacy groups contend.
Administration officials defend the detentions by pointing out that judges approved material witness warrants.
The material witness law, enacted in 1984, allows the arrest and detention of witnesses who might flee before testifying in criminal cases.
Only 28 of the suspects were eventually charged with a crime, according to the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch, and most of those charges were not related to terrorism.
Seven were charged with providing material support to terrorist organizations.
At least 30 detainees were never called to testify before a court or grand jury, the advocacy groups said in a report released Sunday. All but one of those detained are Muslim, they said.
A Justice Department spokesman, Kevin Madden, told The Associated Press that ``material witness statutes are designed with judicial oversight safeguards and are critical to aiding criminal investigations ranging from organized-crime rackets to human trafficking.''"
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration has misused a federal law to detain at least 70 terrorism suspects since the Sept. 11 attacks, two advocacy groups contend.
Administration officials defend the detentions by pointing out that judges approved material witness warrants.
The material witness law, enacted in 1984, allows the arrest and detention of witnesses who might flee before testifying in criminal cases.
Only 28 of the suspects were eventually charged with a crime, according to the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch, and most of those charges were not related to terrorism.
Seven were charged with providing material support to terrorist organizations.
At least 30 detainees were never called to testify before a court or grand jury, the advocacy groups said in a report released Sunday. All but one of those detained are Muslim, they said.
A Justice Department spokesman, Kevin Madden, told The Associated Press that ``material witness statutes are designed with judicial oversight safeguards and are critical to aiding criminal investigations ranging from organized-crime rackets to human trafficking.''"
Saturday, June 25, 2005
In attacking liberals' reaction to Sept. 11, Bush's senior advisor once again resorts to McCarthy-style tactics
Salon.com | Karl Rove is a liar: "In attacking liberals' reaction to Sept. 11, Bush's senior advisor once again resorts to McCarthy-style tactics. | By Joe Conason | June 24, 2005 |
Karl Rove is a liar and a scoundrel. He is not a patriot but a pure partisan, as his own record proved long before now.
The other night Rove lied about the liberal reaction to the Sept. 11 attacks and again exploited patriotism for narrow partisan advantage in a time of war. He seeks to divert public opinion from the failures of the Bush administration by suppressing dissent, stigmatizing "liberals" and returning to the same old tactics that the Republican far right has used ever since the McCarthy era.
His unhinged rhetoric is a sign of deep worry within the White House, of course, as polls continue to show deepening public alienation from the president and growing skepticism about the war in Iraq. Most Americans now understand that they have been deceived about the war from the beginning, and most doubt the Bush administration's strategy for extricating our troops. Moreover, Rove must cope with Republicans as well as Democrats who are openly dissenting from the administration line, not only regarding Iraq but on the Bolton nomination and Social Security privatization.
...
The truth is that liberal New York -- and the vast majority of American liberals and progressives -- stood with the president in his decision to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. On the day of the attacks, I wrote a column that endorsed "hunting down and punishing" those responsible because the dead deserved justice -- and noted that when the culpability of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban was established, the United States "is fully capable of dealing with them."
...
"We can go to the country on this issue, because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America," he said. Provocative as those remarks were, they were mild compared with the kind of slanders that ensued against Daschle -- who was paired with Saddam and bin Laden -- and many other Democratic candidates.
So when vicious little Ken Mehlman, the RNC chairman, claims that Rove was referring only to Michael Moore, he's lying too. I expect no apologies from either of them or their bullying supporters. They should expect none when those they have insulted and betrayed tell them what they are.
Karl Rove is a liar and a scoundrel. He is not a patriot but a pure partisan, as his own record proved long before now.
The other night Rove lied about the liberal reaction to the Sept. 11 attacks and again exploited patriotism for narrow partisan advantage in a time of war. He seeks to divert public opinion from the failures of the Bush administration by suppressing dissent, stigmatizing "liberals" and returning to the same old tactics that the Republican far right has used ever since the McCarthy era.
His unhinged rhetoric is a sign of deep worry within the White House, of course, as polls continue to show deepening public alienation from the president and growing skepticism about the war in Iraq. Most Americans now understand that they have been deceived about the war from the beginning, and most doubt the Bush administration's strategy for extricating our troops. Moreover, Rove must cope with Republicans as well as Democrats who are openly dissenting from the administration line, not only regarding Iraq but on the Bolton nomination and Social Security privatization.
...
The truth is that liberal New York -- and the vast majority of American liberals and progressives -- stood with the president in his decision to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. On the day of the attacks, I wrote a column that endorsed "hunting down and punishing" those responsible because the dead deserved justice -- and noted that when the culpability of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban was established, the United States "is fully capable of dealing with them."
...
"We can go to the country on this issue, because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America," he said. Provocative as those remarks were, they were mild compared with the kind of slanders that ensued against Daschle -- who was paired with Saddam and bin Laden -- and many other Democratic candidates.
So when vicious little Ken Mehlman, the RNC chairman, claims that Rove was referring only to Michael Moore, he's lying too. I expect no apologies from either of them or their bullying supporters. They should expect none when those they have insulted and betrayed tell them what they are.
Andrew Sullivan: Bush administration scores a perfect 3 for 3 on Kant's [18th philosopher] tests for the "immoral politician"
www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish: "
Last night I stumbled across something intriguing. I was reading a fairly obscure Kant essay called 'Misperceptions of Morals and Politics' (appended to Towards a Perpetual Peace.) In it, Kant distinguishes between the 'clever' but ultimately immoral politician who views everything in terms of political expedience and manipulates a superficial or false morality for political gain and that rarest of creatures, the moral politician, who recognizes the ultimate harmony between morality and good government.
Kant then cites the three tests which can be applied to discern the immoral from the moral politician. Under three Latin rubrics, as follows: (1) Fac et excusa - does he use thin pretexts to seize power in his own country, or, after coming to power, to invade and conquer another nation? (2) Si fecisti, nega. When his policies bring about ruin or failure, does he blame his own subjects for the failures, or place the blame on other nations? Or does he admit mistakes and change course to reflect this recognition? (3) Divide et impera. Does he maintain his position of power by sowing domestic hatred and discord; through the demonization of a portion of his own citizenry? (Immanuel Kant, 'S�mtliche Werke vol. 5, pp. 695-97.') I'm scoring the Bush administration a perfect 3 for 3 on Kant's test. One can accept or reject the war, but it seems clear (increasingly after the Downing Street memo documents) that the label of 'thin pretexts' is fair. The president's refusal to assume responsibility is legendary. And Rove's remarks on which you reflect is a perfect example of the 'divide et impera' approach.'"
Last night I stumbled across something intriguing. I was reading a fairly obscure Kant essay called 'Misperceptions of Morals and Politics' (appended to Towards a Perpetual Peace.) In it, Kant distinguishes between the 'clever' but ultimately immoral politician who views everything in terms of political expedience and manipulates a superficial or false morality for political gain and that rarest of creatures, the moral politician, who recognizes the ultimate harmony between morality and good government.
Kant then cites the three tests which can be applied to discern the immoral from the moral politician. Under three Latin rubrics, as follows: (1) Fac et excusa - does he use thin pretexts to seize power in his own country, or, after coming to power, to invade and conquer another nation? (2) Si fecisti, nega. When his policies bring about ruin or failure, does he blame his own subjects for the failures, or place the blame on other nations? Or does he admit mistakes and change course to reflect this recognition? (3) Divide et impera. Does he maintain his position of power by sowing domestic hatred and discord; through the demonization of a portion of his own citizenry? (Immanuel Kant, 'S�mtliche Werke vol. 5, pp. 695-97.') I'm scoring the Bush administration a perfect 3 for 3 on Kant's test. One can accept or reject the war, but it seems clear (increasingly after the Downing Street memo documents) that the label of 'thin pretexts' is fair. The president's refusal to assume responsibility is legendary. And Rove's remarks on which you reflect is a perfect example of the 'divide et impera' approach.'"
U.S. doctors linked to POW `torture' ... vs. ... "First Do No Harm", basis of US Medical ethics
TheStar.com - U.S. doctors linked to POW `torture': "Jun. 23, 2005. 06:25 AM | SHANE T. MCCOY/AP | Guantanamo medical records misused | Basis of interrogators' strategy: Report | TANYA TALAGA AND KAREN PALMER | STAFF REPORTERS
Detainee medical records are being used to design more effective interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay, says a new report.
Medical records compiled by doctors caring for prisoners at the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay are being tapped to design more effective interrogation techniques, says an explosive new report.
Doctors, nurses and medics caring for the approximately 600 prisoners at the U.S. naval base in Cuba are required to provide health information to military and CIA interrogators, according to the report in the respected New England Journal of Medicine.
"Since late 2003, psychiatrists and psychologists (at Guantanamo) have been part of a strategy that employs extreme stress, combined with behaviour-shaping rewards, to extract actionable intelligence from resistant captives," it states.
Such tactics are considered torture by many authorities, the authors note. ...
Detainee medical records are being used to design more effective interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay, says a new report.
Medical records compiled by doctors caring for prisoners at the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay are being tapped to design more effective interrogation techniques, says an explosive new report.
Doctors, nurses and medics caring for the approximately 600 prisoners at the U.S. naval base in Cuba are required to provide health information to military and CIA interrogators, according to the report in the respected New England Journal of Medicine.
"Since late 2003, psychiatrists and psychologists (at Guantanamo) have been part of a strategy that employs extreme stress, combined with behaviour-shaping rewards, to extract actionable intelligence from resistant captives," it states.
Such tactics are considered torture by many authorities, the authors note. ...
Friday, June 24, 2005
Durbin was spot on in his assessment of Guantanamo. That's why he was so roundly attacked. He told the truth.
Editorial: Durbin's message/U.S. must end prisoner abuse: "June 21, 2005 ED0621
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., set off a firestorm last week when he compared U.S. treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo to practices employed by Nazis, Soviets, Pol Pot and their ilk. His remarks were condemned by the White House, the Pentagon, the Christian Coalition, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Newt Gingrich (who called for his censure by the Senate) and by the entire right side of the talk radio/television/blog world. The heat got so bad that, late in the week, Durbin apologized if his remarks had been "misunderstood." They weren't, and Durbin should not have apologized.
Instead, the senator should have hit back hard, just as the Amnesty International did when its comparison of Guantanamo to the Soviet gulag was attacked. By caving in, Durbin did just what the orchestrated right-wing smear effort required to succeed: It made him the story rather than focusing further attention on the outrageous violations of international law and human rights being perpetrated in Guantanamo and elsewhere in the name of the American people.
The comments that were criticized came late in a long, thoughtful speech on the Senate floor in which Durbin reflected on the United States' obligation to be better than reprehensible regimes of the past. He talked at some length about mistakes American presidents made in previous wars (repealing habeas corpus during the Civil War, interning Americans of Japanese descent during World War II, taking over the steel industry during the Korean War), and he urged President Bush to recognize and rectify his mistake in prisoner treatment during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Durbin's entire speech is too long to reprint, but lengthy excerpts can be found on the page opposite.
Durbin was spot on in his assessment of Guantanamo. That's why he was so roundly attacked. He told the truth. And his message is of vital importance; the United States is better than thi
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., set off a firestorm last week when he compared U.S. treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo to practices employed by Nazis, Soviets, Pol Pot and their ilk. His remarks were condemned by the White House, the Pentagon, the Christian Coalition, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Newt Gingrich (who called for his censure by the Senate) and by the entire right side of the talk radio/television/blog world. The heat got so bad that, late in the week, Durbin apologized if his remarks had been "misunderstood." They weren't, and Durbin should not have apologized.
Instead, the senator should have hit back hard, just as the Amnesty International did when its comparison of Guantanamo to the Soviet gulag was attacked. By caving in, Durbin did just what the orchestrated right-wing smear effort required to succeed: It made him the story rather than focusing further attention on the outrageous violations of international law and human rights being perpetrated in Guantanamo and elsewhere in the name of the American people.
The comments that were criticized came late in a long, thoughtful speech on the Senate floor in which Durbin reflected on the United States' obligation to be better than reprehensible regimes of the past. He talked at some length about mistakes American presidents made in previous wars (repealing habeas corpus during the Civil War, interning Americans of Japanese descent during World War II, taking over the steel industry during the Korean War), and he urged President Bush to recognize and rectify his mistake in prisoner treatment during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Durbin's entire speech is too long to reprint, but lengthy excerpts can be found on the page opposite.
Durbin was spot on in his assessment of Guantanamo. That's why he was so roundly attacked. He told the truth. And his message is of vital importance; the United States is better than thi
US acknowledges torture at Guantanamo and Iraq, Afghanistan: UN source - Yahoo! News
US acknowledges torture at Guantanamo and Iraq, Afghanistan: UN source - Yahoo! News: "Fri Jun 24, 9:23 AM ET
GENEVA (AFP) - Washington has for the first time acknowledged to the United Nations that prisoners have been tortured at US detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, a UN source said.
The acknowledgement was made in a report submitted to the UN Committee against Torture, said a member of the ten-person panel, speaking on on condition of anonymity.
"They are no longer trying to duck this, and have respected their obligation to inform the UN," the Committee member told AFP.
"They they will have to explain themselves (to the Committee). Nothing should be kept in the dark."
UN sources said it was the first time the world body has received such a frank statement on torture from US authorities.
The Committee, which monitors respect for the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, is gathering information from the US ahead of hearings in May 2006.
Signatories of the convention are expected to submit to scrutiny of their implementation of the 1984 convention and to provide information to the Committee.
The document from Washington will not be formally made public until the hearings.
GENEVA (AFP) - Washington has for the first time acknowledged to the United Nations that prisoners have been tortured at US detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, a UN source said.
The acknowledgement was made in a report submitted to the UN Committee against Torture, said a member of the ten-person panel, speaking on on condition of anonymity.
"They are no longer trying to duck this, and have respected their obligation to inform the UN," the Committee member told AFP.
"They they will have to explain themselves (to the Committee). Nothing should be kept in the dark."
UN sources said it was the first time the world body has received such a frank statement on torture from US authorities.
The Committee, which monitors respect for the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, is gathering information from the US ahead of hearings in May 2006.
Signatories of the convention are expected to submit to scrutiny of their implementation of the 1984 convention and to provide information to the Committee.
The document from Washington will not be formally made public until the hearings.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Which camp: Do you want to know? whether President Bush knowingly 'fixed the facts' regarding Iraq or those who will cover their ears and hum loudly
Americans inching closer to a reckoning: "Americans inching closer to a reckoning | Do you want to know? | By Robert Steinback | 06/22/05 'Miami Herald' - -
Do you want to know? That's the only popular division that matters in the United States today: Those who want to determine once and for all if President Bush knowingly 'fixed the facts' regarding Iraq, thereby misleading Congress and the American people into supporting an unnecessary war, and those who will cover their ears and hum loudly in order to maintain their belief that Bush and his advisors remain above reproach.
You're in one camp or the other. Either you want to know if you've been lied to, or you don't.
The American public is inching tentatively toward a reckoning unlike any this nation has ever experienced. The oh-so-clever Bush administration strategists and their quasi-media acolytes, who have kept the reckoning at bay with a deft combination of we're-at-war patriotic fervor and fear-the-evil-liberals rhetoric, are running out of parlor tricks.
...
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, in a press briefing that day, dismissed Conyers as ``an individual who voted against the war in the first place and is simply trying to rehash old debates that have already been addressed.'
Did you catch the irony? Conyers has no credibility to challenge the president's actions toward Iraq, the White House argues, because Conyers has opposed the war from the beginning. Yet just a few months ago, the Bush people ridiculed Sen. John Kerry because Kerry allegedly supported the war before being against it -- remember all the giddy supporters chanting ``Flip-flop! Flip-flop!'
Clearly, whether you've always opposed Iraq or recently reached that conclusion, Team Bush thinks you're irrelevant.
...
Do you want to know? That's the only popular division that matters in the United States today: Those who want to determine once and for all if President Bush knowingly 'fixed the facts' regarding Iraq, thereby misleading Congress and the American people into supporting an unnecessary war, and those who will cover their ears and hum loudly in order to maintain their belief that Bush and his advisors remain above reproach.
You're in one camp or the other. Either you want to know if you've been lied to, or you don't.
The American public is inching tentatively toward a reckoning unlike any this nation has ever experienced. The oh-so-clever Bush administration strategists and their quasi-media acolytes, who have kept the reckoning at bay with a deft combination of we're-at-war patriotic fervor and fear-the-evil-liberals rhetoric, are running out of parlor tricks.
...
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, in a press briefing that day, dismissed Conyers as ``an individual who voted against the war in the first place and is simply trying to rehash old debates that have already been addressed.'
Did you catch the irony? Conyers has no credibility to challenge the president's actions toward Iraq, the White House argues, because Conyers has opposed the war from the beginning. Yet just a few months ago, the Bush people ridiculed Sen. John Kerry because Kerry allegedly supported the war before being against it -- remember all the giddy supporters chanting ``Flip-flop! Flip-flop!'
Clearly, whether you've always opposed Iraq or recently reached that conclusion, Team Bush thinks you're irrelevant.
...
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Rep. Randy 'Duke' Cunningham (R-San Diego) sells house, buyer takes a $700,000 loss ... Cunningham is living on buyer's yacht
Duke's Home Boy: " June 21, 2005
Would you hand $40 million to one of the few people who was able to lose money — big money — in the recent Southern California real estate market?
You did. MZM Inc. received that much in U.S. defense contracts in 2003, the same year that the company's president and chief executive bought a house in the San Diego area for $1,675,000. The seller was Rep. Randy 'Duke' Cunningham (R-San Diego), a member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense who has supported MZM's bid for contracts.
MZM chief Mitchell Wade put the house on the market within a month and sold it for $975,000, a $700,000 loss in a housing market that bubbles up by the month.
...
Also unclear is why Cunningham is living on Wade's yacht docked on the Potomac River and whether he is paying market-rate rent, as he claims. Even if he is, this smacks of the kind of coziness that makes taxpayers shudder.
The FBI is reportedly investigating the house sale. Good thing, because there is no longer a functional House Ethics Committee to look into such matters. Republicans, vexed by reprimands of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), gutted the committee's membership and weakened its rules.
Would you hand $40 million to one of the few people who was able to lose money — big money — in the recent Southern California real estate market?
You did. MZM Inc. received that much in U.S. defense contracts in 2003, the same year that the company's president and chief executive bought a house in the San Diego area for $1,675,000. The seller was Rep. Randy 'Duke' Cunningham (R-San Diego), a member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense who has supported MZM's bid for contracts.
MZM chief Mitchell Wade put the house on the market within a month and sold it for $975,000, a $700,000 loss in a housing market that bubbles up by the month.
...
Also unclear is why Cunningham is living on Wade's yacht docked on the Potomac River and whether he is paying market-rate rent, as he claims. Even if he is, this smacks of the kind of coziness that makes taxpayers shudder.
The FBI is reportedly investigating the house sale. Good thing, because there is no longer a functional House Ethics Committee to look into such matters. Republicans, vexed by reprimands of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), gutted the committee's membership and weakened its rules.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Red Cross, October 2003: Abu Graib beatings and the threat of imminent execution, were 'tantamount to torture'.
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | UK had advance alert of jail abuse: "Sunday June 19, 2005 | The Observer
A report on torture on Iraqis at Abu Ghraib was circulated within the army, writes Jamie Doward
The British army's senior military lawyer in Iraq was aware of allegations that human rights abuses were being committed at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison months before they were exposed by the American media.
The lawyer, who compiled regular written and oral briefings for his seniors within the British army's high command, was responsible for summarising a litany of abuses identified by the Red Cross after the charity visited the prison in October 2003.
The charity said the abuses, which included beatings and the threat of imminent execution, were 'tantamount to torture'. Following its visit, the Red Cross compiled a detailed report for the US military calling for a series of changes in the prison's regime.
The report was read by the British military lawyer, whose identity is not known, and circulated within Command Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF7), the division in charge of Abu Ghraib."
A report on torture on Iraqis at Abu Ghraib was circulated within the army, writes Jamie Doward
The British army's senior military lawyer in Iraq was aware of allegations that human rights abuses were being committed at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison months before they were exposed by the American media.
The lawyer, who compiled regular written and oral briefings for his seniors within the British army's high command, was responsible for summarising a litany of abuses identified by the Red Cross after the charity visited the prison in October 2003.
The charity said the abuses, which included beatings and the threat of imminent execution, were 'tantamount to torture'. Following its visit, the Red Cross compiled a detailed report for the US military calling for a series of changes in the prison's regime.
The report was read by the British military lawyer, whose identity is not known, and circulated within Command Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF7), the division in charge of Abu Ghraib."
Expert Says He Was Told to Soften Tobacco Testimony
Expert Says He Was Told to Soften Tobacco Testimony: "By Carol D. Leonnig | Washington Post Staff Writer | Monday, June 20, 2005; Page A03
A top Justice Department official threatened to remove a government expert from its witness list if he did not water down his recommended penalties for the tobacco industry, the witness said in an interview yesterday.
Harvard University business professor Max H. Bazerman said a career trial lawyer told him senior Justice officials wanted him to change his recommendation that the court appoint a monitor to review whether it was appropriate to remove senior tobacco company management. Bazerman said the lawyer was passing along the 'strong request' the week before Bazerman was to take the witness stand on May 4 in the government's landmark racketeering case against the industry."
A top Justice Department official threatened to remove a government expert from its witness list if he did not water down his recommended penalties for the tobacco industry, the witness said in an interview yesterday.
Harvard University business professor Max H. Bazerman said a career trial lawyer told him senior Justice officials wanted him to change his recommendation that the court appoint a monitor to review whether it was appropriate to remove senior tobacco company management. Bazerman said the lawyer was passing along the 'strong request' the week before Bazerman was to take the witness stand on May 4 in the government's landmark racketeering case against the industry."
if Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about having sex ... George Bush needs to be impeached for the deliberate lies .. to start a war ...
The Capital Times: "Dave Zweifel: We've seen enough to impeach Bush | June 20, 2005
As I said in this space two weeks ago, if Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about having sex with an intern, then George Bush needs to be impeached for the deliberate lies he and his cabal told to start a war that has now taken the lives of more than 1,700 young American men and women and countless Iraqi citizens, plus threatens to bankrupt the country."
As I said in this space two weeks ago, if Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about having sex with an intern, then George Bush needs to be impeached for the deliberate lies he and his cabal told to start a war that has now taken the lives of more than 1,700 young American men and women and countless Iraqi citizens, plus threatens to bankrupt the country."
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Freiheit und Wissen: U.S. Used WMD in Iraq
Freiheit und Wissen: U.S. Used WMD in Iraq: "Saturday, June 18, 2005 |
Consider the sorts of weapons that international law generally prohibits: unconventional weapons used to attack the civilian population of a country, either directly or indirectly by leaving behind hazardous remnants.
One example of such heinous weapons are those enriched with depleted uranium left over from either nuclear weapons or nuclear reactors. The U.S. has used D.U. enriched weapons for over a decade, in the first Gulf War, in Kosovo and the Balkans, in the U.S. war in Afghanistan, and again most recently in Iraq.
The problem with D.U. enriched weapons is that the depleted uranium spreads out over a wide area upon impact and then sinks to the ground as a heavy dust. The result has been devastating environmental damage. After the invasion, some hot spots in downtown Baghdad registered 1,000 to 2,000 times higher than normal background radiation levels.
At some locations in Iraq where the U.S. used D.U. weapons during the first Gulf War, doctors have identified a dramatic rise in both cancer and birth defects. In addition, many suspect that what is now known as “Gulf War Syndrome” is in fact the result of soldiers being expose to D.U. dust while serving in Iraq.
The effects of D.U. on a community can be long term. But other abhorrent weapons can affect a civilian population swiftly and immediately. For example, incendiary weapons such as white phosphorous ammunitions create a dense white smokescreen and burn intensely. When such ammunitions impact in close range to human targets, the burning particles will imbed in the skin. And burning white phosphorus cannot be extinguished simply by hosing it with water, but rather requires a complete smothering.
Such incendiaries have been prohibited by the 1980 Protocol III of the Geneva Convention – a protocol which the U.S. has refused to ratify to this day, despite general international agreement.
Reports from Iraq indicate that the U.S. has used white phosphorus in the current conflict. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the siege which flattened Fallujah in November 2004 involved the use of phosphorus weapons:
...
Between the D.U. enhanced weapons and the evidence of phosphorous ammunitions in Fallujah, it seems difficult to deny that the U.S. persists in using weapons that constitute criminal acts against humanity.
Yesterday we learned that the U.S. may have used – or may still be using – another United Nations banned horror: Napalm. According to The Independent, the U.S. used 30 MK77 firebombs – a new generation of incendiary weapons - during the initial Iraqi invasion between March 31 and April 2 2003.
Like white phosphorus ammunitions, napalm has a strategic role when used against civilian populations. Napalm not only produces a sticky burning gel that adheres to the skin as it burns through, leading to loss of blood pressure and eventually death in a short period of time, but it also releases clouds of carbon monoxide that can kill by asphyxiation. (Everyone will remember the Pulitzer Prize winning photograph of the naked girl in Vietnam, running down the road screaming as her skin burned with napalm.)
...
There remains little doubt that the U.S. has knowingly committed crimes against humanity in Iraq, crimes that they actively tried to keep from public knowledge.
D.U., white phosphorus, and the new generation of napalm all constitute weapons of mass destruction – weapons whose effects cannot be made precise, whose impact covers a wide area, and in the case of D.U., will remain for generations after the conflict is over.
Consider the sorts of weapons that international law generally prohibits: unconventional weapons used to attack the civilian population of a country, either directly or indirectly by leaving behind hazardous remnants.
One example of such heinous weapons are those enriched with depleted uranium left over from either nuclear weapons or nuclear reactors. The U.S. has used D.U. enriched weapons for over a decade, in the first Gulf War, in Kosovo and the Balkans, in the U.S. war in Afghanistan, and again most recently in Iraq.
The problem with D.U. enriched weapons is that the depleted uranium spreads out over a wide area upon impact and then sinks to the ground as a heavy dust. The result has been devastating environmental damage. After the invasion, some hot spots in downtown Baghdad registered 1,000 to 2,000 times higher than normal background radiation levels.
At some locations in Iraq where the U.S. used D.U. weapons during the first Gulf War, doctors have identified a dramatic rise in both cancer and birth defects. In addition, many suspect that what is now known as “Gulf War Syndrome” is in fact the result of soldiers being expose to D.U. dust while serving in Iraq.
The effects of D.U. on a community can be long term. But other abhorrent weapons can affect a civilian population swiftly and immediately. For example, incendiary weapons such as white phosphorous ammunitions create a dense white smokescreen and burn intensely. When such ammunitions impact in close range to human targets, the burning particles will imbed in the skin. And burning white phosphorus cannot be extinguished simply by hosing it with water, but rather requires a complete smothering.
Such incendiaries have been prohibited by the 1980 Protocol III of the Geneva Convention – a protocol which the U.S. has refused to ratify to this day, despite general international agreement.
Reports from Iraq indicate that the U.S. has used white phosphorus in the current conflict. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the siege which flattened Fallujah in November 2004 involved the use of phosphorus weapons:
...
Between the D.U. enhanced weapons and the evidence of phosphorous ammunitions in Fallujah, it seems difficult to deny that the U.S. persists in using weapons that constitute criminal acts against humanity.
Yesterday we learned that the U.S. may have used – or may still be using – another United Nations banned horror: Napalm. According to The Independent, the U.S. used 30 MK77 firebombs – a new generation of incendiary weapons - during the initial Iraqi invasion between March 31 and April 2 2003.
Like white phosphorus ammunitions, napalm has a strategic role when used against civilian populations. Napalm not only produces a sticky burning gel that adheres to the skin as it burns through, leading to loss of blood pressure and eventually death in a short period of time, but it also releases clouds of carbon monoxide that can kill by asphyxiation. (Everyone will remember the Pulitzer Prize winning photograph of the naked girl in Vietnam, running down the road screaming as her skin burned with napalm.)
...
There remains little doubt that the U.S. has knowingly committed crimes against humanity in Iraq, crimes that they actively tried to keep from public knowledge.
D.U., white phosphorus, and the new generation of napalm all constitute weapons of mass destruction – weapons whose effects cannot be made precise, whose impact covers a wide area, and in the case of D.U., will remain for generations after the conflict is over.
Military lawyer testified that he was assigned to represent one of the prisoners at Guantánamo, for the sole purpose of extracting a guilty plea
Who We Are - New York Times: "Published: June 18, 2005
For more than three and a half years since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Congress has been derelict in its duty to assert control over the prison camps created by President Bush in the shadows beyond the Constitution, the rule of law and a half-century of international laws and treaties. So it was a relief to watch the hearing this week by Senator Arlen Specter's Judiciary Committee on the prison camp at Guant�namo Bay, Cuba, and to hear Mr. Specter declare that it was time for Congress to do its job and bring the American chain of prison camps under the law.
...
At the hearing, four military and civilian officials overseeing the processing of prisoners at Guantánamo could not, or would not, provide the most basic information - such as how many detainees there are and what countries they came from. Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, a military lawyer, later courageously testified that he was assigned to represent one of the prisoners at Guantánamo, for the sole purpose of extracting a guilty plea. He provided a written order that contradicted the denials of the man who made the assignment, Brig. Gen. Thomas Hemingway, who oversees the military tribunals Mr. Bush created after 9/11 to screen selected prisoners away from public and judicial scrutiny.
For more than three and a half years since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Congress has been derelict in its duty to assert control over the prison camps created by President Bush in the shadows beyond the Constitution, the rule of law and a half-century of international laws and treaties. So it was a relief to watch the hearing this week by Senator Arlen Specter's Judiciary Committee on the prison camp at Guant�namo Bay, Cuba, and to hear Mr. Specter declare that it was time for Congress to do its job and bring the American chain of prison camps under the law.
...
At the hearing, four military and civilian officials overseeing the processing of prisoners at Guantánamo could not, or would not, provide the most basic information - such as how many detainees there are and what countries they came from. Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, a military lawyer, later courageously testified that he was assigned to represent one of the prisoners at Guantánamo, for the sole purpose of extracting a guilty plea. He provided a written order that contradicted the denials of the man who made the assignment, Brig. Gen. Thomas Hemingway, who oversees the military tribunals Mr. Bush created after 9/11 to screen selected prisoners away from public and judicial scrutiny.
Pummeled MP sues Pentagon / Soldier was impersonating unruly Guantanamo detainee in training
Pummeled MP sues Pentagon / Soldier was impersonating unruly Guantanamo detainee in training: "David Zucchino, Los Angeles Times | Saturday, June 18, 2005
A U.S. military policeman who was beaten by fellow MPs during a botched training drill at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison for detainees has sued the Pentagon for $15 million, alleging that the incident violated his constitutional rights.
Spec. Sean Baker, 38, was assaulted in January 2003 after he volunteered to wear an orange jumpsuit and portray an uncooperative detainee. Baker said the MPs, who were told that he was an unruly detainee who had assaulted an American sergeant, inflicted a beating that resulted in a traumatic brain injury.
Baker, a Persian Gulf War veteran who re-enlisted after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, was medically retired in April 2004. He said the assault had left him with seizures, blackouts, headaches, insomnia and psychological problems.
In the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Lexington, Ky., Baker demanded reinstatement in the Army in a position that would accommodate his medical disability. He said the Army put him on medical retirement against his wishes.
A U.S. military policeman who was beaten by fellow MPs during a botched training drill at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison for detainees has sued the Pentagon for $15 million, alleging that the incident violated his constitutional rights.
Spec. Sean Baker, 38, was assaulted in January 2003 after he volunteered to wear an orange jumpsuit and portray an uncooperative detainee. Baker said the MPs, who were told that he was an unruly detainee who had assaulted an American sergeant, inflicted a beating that resulted in a traumatic brain injury.
Baker, a Persian Gulf War veteran who re-enlisted after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, was medically retired in April 2004. He said the assault had left him with seizures, blackouts, headaches, insomnia and psychological problems.
In the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Lexington, Ky., Baker demanded reinstatement in the Army in a position that would accommodate his medical disability. He said the Army put him on medical retirement against his wishes.
70% to 90% of Iraq Prisoners 'Arrested by Mistake': ICRC report cites more than 250 allegations of mistreatment at prisons, detention centers
70% to 90% of Iraq Prisoners 'Arrested by Mistake': "Tuesday, May 11, 2004 by the Los Angeles Times by Bob Drogin
Coalition intelligence put numbers at 70% to 90% of Iraq prisoners, says a February Red Cross report, which details further abuses.
WASHINGTON — Coalition military intelligence officials estimated that 70% to 90% of prisoners detained in Iraq since the war began last year 'had been arrested by mistake,' according to a confidential Red Cross report given to the Bush administration earlier this year.
Yet the report described a wide range of prisoner mistreatment — including many new details of abusive techniques — that it said U.S. officials had failed to halt, despite repeated complaints from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
ICRC monitors saw some improvements by early this year, but the continued abuses "went beyond exceptional cases and might be considered as a practice tolerated" by coalition forces, the report concluded.
The Swiss-based ICRC, which made 29 visits to coalition-run prisons and camps between late March and November last year, said it repeatedly presented its reports of mistreatment to prison commanders, U.S. military officials in Iraq and members of the Bush administration in Washington.
The ICRC summary report, which was written in February, also said Red Cross officials had complained to senior military officials that families of Iraqi suspects usually were told so little that most arrests resulted "in the de facto 'disappearance' of the arrestee for weeks or even months."
...
Such conditions "constituted a serious violation" of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, which set minimum standards for treatment of prisoners of war and civilian internees, the report said. U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, conducted interrogations at the site, but Army units were in charge of custody operations, officials said Monday.
Portions of the ICRC report were published last week. The full 24-page report, which The Times obtained Monday, cites more than 250 allegations of mistreatment at prisons and temporary detention facilities run by U.S. and other occupation forces across Iraq.
Coalition intelligence put numbers at 70% to 90% of Iraq prisoners, says a February Red Cross report, which details further abuses.
WASHINGTON — Coalition military intelligence officials estimated that 70% to 90% of prisoners detained in Iraq since the war began last year 'had been arrested by mistake,' according to a confidential Red Cross report given to the Bush administration earlier this year.
Yet the report described a wide range of prisoner mistreatment — including many new details of abusive techniques — that it said U.S. officials had failed to halt, despite repeated complaints from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
ICRC monitors saw some improvements by early this year, but the continued abuses "went beyond exceptional cases and might be considered as a practice tolerated" by coalition forces, the report concluded.
The Swiss-based ICRC, which made 29 visits to coalition-run prisons and camps between late March and November last year, said it repeatedly presented its reports of mistreatment to prison commanders, U.S. military officials in Iraq and members of the Bush administration in Washington.
The ICRC summary report, which was written in February, also said Red Cross officials had complained to senior military officials that families of Iraqi suspects usually were told so little that most arrests resulted "in the de facto 'disappearance' of the arrestee for weeks or even months."
...
Such conditions "constituted a serious violation" of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, which set minimum standards for treatment of prisoners of war and civilian internees, the report said. U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, conducted interrogations at the site, but Army units were in charge of custody operations, officials said Monday.
Portions of the ICRC report were published last week. The full 24-page report, which The Times obtained Monday, cites more than 250 allegations of mistreatment at prisons and temporary detention facilities run by U.S. and other occupation forces across Iraq.
Friday, June 17, 2005
What's the Matter With Ohio? - New York Times
What's the Matter With Ohio? - New York Times: " By PAUL KRUGMAN | Published: June 17, 2005
...
In April, The Blade reported that the [Ohio's Bureau of Workers' Compensation], which provides financial support for workers injured on the job, had invested $50 million in Capital Coin, a rare-coin trading operation run by Tom Noe, an influential Republican fund-raiser.
At first, state officials angrily insisted that this unusual use of state funds was a good investment that had nothing to do with Mr. Noe's political connections. An accounting investigation revealed, however, that Mr. Noe's claims to be running a profitable business were fictitious: he had lost millions, and 121 valuable coins were missing.
...
Meanwhile, The Blade uncovered an even bigger story: the Bureau of Workers' Compensation invested $225 million in a hedge fund managed by MDL Capital, whose chairman had strong political connections. When this investment started to go sour, the bureau's chief financial officer told another top agency official that he had been told to "give MDL a break."
By October 2004, state officials knew that MDL had lost almost the entire investment [$225M], but they kept the loss hidden until this month.
How could such things happen? The answer, it has become clear, lies in a web of financial connections between state officials and the businessmen who got to play with state funds.
We're not just talking about campaign contributions, although Mr. Noe's contributions ranged so widely that five of the state's seven Supreme Court justices had to recuse themselves from cases associated with the scandal. (He's also under suspicion of using intermediaries to contribute large sums, illegally, to the Bush campaign.) We're talking about personal payoffs: bargain vacations for the governor's chief of staff at Mr. Noe's Florida home, the fact that MDL Capital employs the daughter of one of the members of the workers' compensation oversight board, and more.
...
The message from Ohio is that long-term dominance by a political machine leads to corruption, regardless of the policies that machine follows or the ideology it claims to represent.
...
In April, The Blade reported that the [Ohio's Bureau of Workers' Compensation], which provides financial support for workers injured on the job, had invested $50 million in Capital Coin, a rare-coin trading operation run by Tom Noe, an influential Republican fund-raiser.
At first, state officials angrily insisted that this unusual use of state funds was a good investment that had nothing to do with Mr. Noe's political connections. An accounting investigation revealed, however, that Mr. Noe's claims to be running a profitable business were fictitious: he had lost millions, and 121 valuable coins were missing.
...
Meanwhile, The Blade uncovered an even bigger story: the Bureau of Workers' Compensation invested $225 million in a hedge fund managed by MDL Capital, whose chairman had strong political connections. When this investment started to go sour, the bureau's chief financial officer told another top agency official that he had been told to "give MDL a break."
By October 2004, state officials knew that MDL had lost almost the entire investment [$225M], but they kept the loss hidden until this month.
How could such things happen? The answer, it has become clear, lies in a web of financial connections between state officials and the businessmen who got to play with state funds.
We're not just talking about campaign contributions, although Mr. Noe's contributions ranged so widely that five of the state's seven Supreme Court justices had to recuse themselves from cases associated with the scandal. (He's also under suspicion of using intermediaries to contribute large sums, illegally, to the Bush campaign.) We're talking about personal payoffs: bargain vacations for the governor's chief of staff at Mr. Noe's Florida home, the fact that MDL Capital employs the daughter of one of the members of the workers' compensation oversight board, and more.
...
The message from Ohio is that long-term dominance by a political machine leads to corruption, regardless of the policies that machine follows or the ideology it claims to represent.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war:
News: "US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war | By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor | 17 June 2005
American officials lied to British ministers over the use of 'internationally reviled' napalm-type firebombs in Iraq.
Yesterday's disclosure led to calls by MPs for a full statement to the Commons and opened ministers to allegations that they held back the facts until after the general election.
Despite persistent rumours of injuries among Iraqis consistent with the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm, Adam Ingram, the Defence minister, assured Labour MPs in January that US forces had not used a new generation of incendiary weapons, codenamed MK77, in Iraq.
But Mr Ingram admitted to the Labour MP Harry Cohen in a private letter obtained by The Independent that he had inadvertently misled Parliament because he had been misinformed by the US. 'The US confirmed to my officials that they had not used MK77s in Iraq at any time and this was the basis of my response to you,' he told Mr Cohen. 'I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position.'
Mr Ingram said 30 MK77 firebombs were used by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in the invasion of Iraq between 31 March and 2 April 2003. They were used against military targets 'away from civilian targets', he said. This avoids breaching the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which permits their use only against military targets.
Britain, which has no stockpiles of the weapons, ratified the convention, but the US did not.
The confirmation that US officials misled British ministers led to new questions last night about the value of the latest assurances by the US. Mr Cohen said there were rumours that the firebombs were used in the US assault on the insurgent stronghold in Fallujah last year, claims denied by the US. He is tabling more questions seeking assurances that the weapons were not used against civilians."
American officials lied to British ministers over the use of 'internationally reviled' napalm-type firebombs in Iraq.
Yesterday's disclosure led to calls by MPs for a full statement to the Commons and opened ministers to allegations that they held back the facts until after the general election.
Despite persistent rumours of injuries among Iraqis consistent with the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm, Adam Ingram, the Defence minister, assured Labour MPs in January that US forces had not used a new generation of incendiary weapons, codenamed MK77, in Iraq.
But Mr Ingram admitted to the Labour MP Harry Cohen in a private letter obtained by The Independent that he had inadvertently misled Parliament because he had been misinformed by the US. 'The US confirmed to my officials that they had not used MK77s in Iraq at any time and this was the basis of my response to you,' he told Mr Cohen. 'I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position.'
Mr Ingram said 30 MK77 firebombs were used by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in the invasion of Iraq between 31 March and 2 April 2003. They were used against military targets 'away from civilian targets', he said. This avoids breaching the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which permits their use only against military targets.
Britain, which has no stockpiles of the weapons, ratified the convention, but the US did not.
The confirmation that US officials misled British ministers led to new questions last night about the value of the latest assurances by the US. Mr Cohen said there were rumours that the firebombs were used in the US assault on the insurgent stronghold in Fallujah last year, claims denied by the US. He is tabling more questions seeking assurances that the weapons were not used against civilians."
Boing Boing: Hersh: children raped at Abu Ghraib, Pentagon has videos
Boing Boing: Hersh: children raped at Abu Ghraib, Pentagon has videos: "Thursday, July 15, 2004
From Daily Kos' partial transcript of a video (link to REAL stream) of Seymour Hersh speaking at an ACLU event. He says the US government has videotapes of children being raped at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
' Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out.'
...
Update 2: BB guestbar alum Russ Kick of Memory Hole reminds us of a post he made in May about the type of as-yet-unreleased evidence Hersh is presumably discussing. Here, Russ quotes Republican Senator Lindsay Graham: "The American public needs to understand, we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience. We're talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges."
...
Update 3: BoingBoing reader Lars has an update from Germany -- some European media perspective on the allegations:
"Report Mainz" is a German TV show/magazine of the SWR (Sudwest-Rundfunk = South-West broadcasting). "Report Mainz" reported already on 5th July 2004 about the potential abuse of children in Abu Ghraib. (Link). A video (in German) of the feature is available at the page (Link to streaming Real file). You can see interviews with persons who testify that they have seen children arrested in Abu Ghraib and who have seen and have heard of a boy and a 12 year old girl terrified (cold water and mud were spilled over them) by guards or military personal. The boy and the girl were then used to terrify their also arrested parents who were willing to cooperate after seeing their children terrified by the guards/military personnel.
Another TV show/magazine covered the issue too: "Kulturzeit", of the German-Austrian-Swiss broadcaster "3Sat" (Link). The main theme in these features is the concern about the fact that children are arrested and that they are used to apply pressure on their parents."
From Daily Kos' partial transcript of a video (link to REAL stream) of Seymour Hersh speaking at an ACLU event. He says the US government has videotapes of children being raped at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
' Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out.'
...
Update 2: BB guestbar alum Russ Kick of Memory Hole reminds us of a post he made in May about the type of as-yet-unreleased evidence Hersh is presumably discussing. Here, Russ quotes Republican Senator Lindsay Graham: "The American public needs to understand, we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience. We're talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges."
...
Update 3: BoingBoing reader Lars has an update from Germany -- some European media perspective on the allegations:
"Report Mainz" is a German TV show/magazine of the SWR (Sudwest-Rundfunk = South-West broadcasting). "Report Mainz" reported already on 5th July 2004 about the potential abuse of children in Abu Ghraib. (Link). A video (in German) of the feature is available at the page (Link to streaming Real file). You can see interviews with persons who testify that they have seen children arrested in Abu Ghraib and who have seen and have heard of a boy and a 12 year old girl terrified (cold water and mud were spilled over them) by guards or military personal. The boy and the girl were then used to terrify their also arrested parents who were willing to cooperate after seeing their children terrified by the guards/military personnel.
Another TV show/magazine covered the issue too: "Kulturzeit", of the German-Austrian-Swiss broadcaster "3Sat" (Link). The main theme in these features is the concern about the fact that children are arrested and that they are used to apply pressure on their parents."
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Record shows Hutchison put $2 million in energy ... has received a comparatively high amount of campaign contributions from the energy sector
HoustonChronicle.com - Record shows Hutchison put $2 million in energy: "June 14, 2005, 9:47PM | Most of Cornyn's $240,000 nest egg is in mutual funds and bank accounts | By SAMANTHA LEVINE | Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who has received a comparatively high amount of campaign contributions from the energy sector, owns as much as $2.4 million in stock in a dozen major energy companies and a slew of Fortune 500 companies, according to her personal financial disclosure for 2004.
Republican Hutchison's stock portfolio, which includes shares in some Texas-based companies, has no bearing on her actions on Capitol Hill, spokesman Chris Paulitz said.
"No matter what holdings she has, it wouldn't make any difference," he said, adding that "you can't expect a U.S. senator not to invest in their own future."
Bob Stein, dean of the social science school at Rice University, said the investment in energy shares "is clearly a conflict of interest in some people's minds, but I doubt Texans will lose too much sleep over it" because putting money in the energy sector may be considered the Texas thing to do.
WASHINGTON - U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who has received a comparatively high amount of campaign contributions from the energy sector, owns as much as $2.4 million in stock in a dozen major energy companies and a slew of Fortune 500 companies, according to her personal financial disclosure for 2004.
Republican Hutchison's stock portfolio, which includes shares in some Texas-based companies, has no bearing on her actions on Capitol Hill, spokesman Chris Paulitz said.
"No matter what holdings she has, it wouldn't make any difference," he said, adding that "you can't expect a U.S. senator not to invest in their own future."
Bob Stein, dean of the social science school at Rice University, said the investment in energy shares "is clearly a conflict of interest in some people's minds, but I doubt Texans will lose too much sleep over it" because putting money in the energy sector may be considered the Texas thing to do.
Scrutinized Investment Made Senator $822,000
Scrutinized Investment Made Senator $822,000: "Scrutinized Investment Made Senator $822,000 | By Chuck Neubauer, Times Staff Writer | June 15, 2005
WASHINGTON — Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) made $822,000 last year from the sale of a controversial real estate investment with an Anchorage developer who had obtained a huge federal contract with his help, records show.
In 1997, Stevens invested $50,000 with developer Jonathan B. Rubini. Last year, at Stevens' request, Rubini and his partner bought back the senator's interests in their deals for $872,000, according to Senate financial disclosure forms made public Tuesday.
About three years after he made that investment, Stevens helped Rubini secure a $450-million Air Force housing contract. The senator had no financial interest in that deal. ...
WASHINGTON — Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) made $822,000 last year from the sale of a controversial real estate investment with an Anchorage developer who had obtained a huge federal contract with his help, records show.
In 1997, Stevens invested $50,000 with developer Jonathan B. Rubini. Last year, at Stevens' request, Rubini and his partner bought back the senator's interests in their deals for $872,000, according to Senate financial disclosure forms made public Tuesday.
About three years after he made that investment, Stevens helped Rubini secure a $450-million Air Force housing contract. The senator had no financial interest in that deal. ...
Memo: Pentagon Concerned About Legality of Interrogation Techniques: warned his superiors that they might be breaking the law.
ABC News: Memo: Pentagon Concerned About Legality of Interrogation TechniquesDocument Shows Top Pentagon Officials Warned About Guantanamo Bay Interrogation Tactics | June 15, 2005
The interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in 2002 triggered concerns among senior Pentagon officials that they could face criminal prosecution under U.S. anti-torture laws, ABC News has learned.
Notes from a series of meetings at the Pentagon in early 2003 — obtained by ABC News — show that Alberto Mora, General Counsel of the Navy, warned his superiors that they might be breaking the law.
During a January 2003 meeting involving top Pentagon lawyer William Haynes and other officials, the memo shows that Mora warned that "use of coercive techniques … has military, legal, and political implication … has international implication … and exposes us to liability and criminal prosecution."
Mora's deep concerns about interrogations at Guantanamo have been known, but not his warning that top officials could go to prison.
In another meeting held March 8, 2003, the group of top Pentagon lawyers concluded — according to the memo — "we need a presidential letter approving the use of the controversial interrogation to cover those who may be called upon to use them."
No such letter was issued. ...
The interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in 2002 triggered concerns among senior Pentagon officials that they could face criminal prosecution under U.S. anti-torture laws, ABC News has learned.
Notes from a series of meetings at the Pentagon in early 2003 — obtained by ABC News — show that Alberto Mora, General Counsel of the Navy, warned his superiors that they might be breaking the law.
During a January 2003 meeting involving top Pentagon lawyer William Haynes and other officials, the memo shows that Mora warned that "use of coercive techniques … has military, legal, and political implication … has international implication … and exposes us to liability and criminal prosecution."
Mora's deep concerns about interrogations at Guantanamo have been known, but not his warning that top officials could go to prison.
In another meeting held March 8, 2003, the group of top Pentagon lawyers concluded — according to the memo — "we need a presidential letter approving the use of the controversial interrogation to cover those who may be called upon to use them."
No such letter was issued. ...
Monday, June 13, 2005
Guant�namo detainee: water dripped on his head, was forced to bark like a dog, and kept awake
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Guant�namo detainees are 'bad people', says Cheney: "Staff and agencies | Monday June 13, 2005
...
Pressure has been increasing on the Bush administration over allegations of torture and abuse of detainees at Guantánamo, with more allegations of abuse in yesterday's edition of Time magazine.
Time reported that a Saudi al-Qaida suspect, Mohamed al-Kahtani, had water dripped on his head, was forced to bark like a dog, and kept awake by the music of Christina Aguilera, according to extracts of prison logs. ...
...
Time said interrogators used such techniques as dripping water on Mr Kahtani's head; strip-searching him and making him stand nude; and depriving him of sleep. At one point, after receiving fluid intravenously for dehydration, Mr Kahtani was told to urinate in his pants by interrogators who refused his request to use the bathroom so they could continue with their questioning.
The US defence department would not comment on the specific allegations about Mr Kahtani. However, it said it was committed to the "unequivocal standard of humane treatment for all detainees, and Kahtani's interrogation plan was guided by that strict standard" in a " controlled environment, with active supervision and oversight".
In a 1,200 word response to the Time story, the department said the interrogation "was guided by a very detailed plan and conducted by trained professionals motivated by a desire to gain actionable intelligence, to include information that might prevent additional attacks on America".
...
Pressure has been increasing on the Bush administration over allegations of torture and abuse of detainees at Guantánamo, with more allegations of abuse in yesterday's edition of Time magazine.
Time reported that a Saudi al-Qaida suspect, Mohamed al-Kahtani, had water dripped on his head, was forced to bark like a dog, and kept awake by the music of Christina Aguilera, according to extracts of prison logs. ...
...
Time said interrogators used such techniques as dripping water on Mr Kahtani's head; strip-searching him and making him stand nude; and depriving him of sleep. At one point, after receiving fluid intravenously for dehydration, Mr Kahtani was told to urinate in his pants by interrogators who refused his request to use the bathroom so they could continue with their questioning.
The US defence department would not comment on the specific allegations about Mr Kahtani. However, it said it was committed to the "unequivocal standard of humane treatment for all detainees, and Kahtani's interrogation plan was guided by that strict standard" in a " controlled environment, with active supervision and oversight".
In a 1,200 word response to the Time story, the department said the interrogation "was guided by a very detailed plan and conducted by trained professionals motivated by a desire to gain actionable intelligence, to include information that might prevent additional attacks on America".
US environmental policy chief quits: adminstration says departure was 'completely unrelated' to his deletng scientific paragraphs and editorializing
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | US environmental policy chief quits: "Gary Younge in New York | Monday June 13, 2005 | The Guardian
A former oil industry lobbyist has resigned as a White House aide after being accused of doctoring official US policy papers on global warming to play down the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
Philip Cooney, who was chief of staff of the White House council on environmental quality, quit his job two days after a report released by a watchdog group, the government accountability project, showed he had deleted some paragraphs and edited others drafted by government scientists.
The White House said his departure was 'completely unrelated' to last week's disclosure. 'Mr Cooney has long been considering his options following four years of service to the administration,' said White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino. 'He'd accumulated many weeks of leave, and decided to resign and take the summer off.'
Mr Cooney, a lawyer with no science background, previously worked for the American Petroleum Institute, which lobbies for oil firms.
The government accountability project was unavailable for comment yesterday, but revealed last week that he changed the documents in a way that would be more beneficial to the oil industry. In a section which gauged how sound evidence was for climate change he inserted "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties".
In another sentence which claimed: "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is difficult," he included the word "extremely" before "difficult". ...
A former oil industry lobbyist has resigned as a White House aide after being accused of doctoring official US policy papers on global warming to play down the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
Philip Cooney, who was chief of staff of the White House council on environmental quality, quit his job two days after a report released by a watchdog group, the government accountability project, showed he had deleted some paragraphs and edited others drafted by government scientists.
The White House said his departure was 'completely unrelated' to last week's disclosure. 'Mr Cooney has long been considering his options following four years of service to the administration,' said White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino. 'He'd accumulated many weeks of leave, and decided to resign and take the summer off.'
Mr Cooney, a lawyer with no science background, previously worked for the American Petroleum Institute, which lobbies for oil firms.
The government accountability project was unavailable for comment yesterday, but revealed last week that he changed the documents in a way that would be more beneficial to the oil industry. In a section which gauged how sound evidence was for climate change he inserted "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties".
In another sentence which claimed: "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is difficult," he included the word "extremely" before "difficult". ...
Sunday, June 12, 2005
[FDA] US regulator suppresses vital data on prescription drugs on sale in Britain
News: "US regulator suppresses vital data on prescription drugs on sale in Britain | By Roger Dobson and Jeanne Lenzer | 12 June 2005
'IoS' investigation: Despite calls for more transparency after revelations about the side effects of ibuprofen, the FDA has withheld 28 pages of information on a new wave of painkillers
Vital data on prescription medicines found in millions of British homes has been suppressed by the powerful US drug regulators, even though the information could potentially save lives.
An investigation by The Independent on Sunday shows that, under pressure from the pharmaceutical industry, the American Food and Drug Administration routinely conceals information it considers commercially sensitive, leaving medical specialists unable to assess the true risks.
One team of investigators found that 28 pages of data had been removed from the FDA files on one of a new family of painkillers because of confidentiality.
Last week a major research study led by Professor Julia Hippisley-Cox at Nottingham University, revealed that ibuprofen, the supposedly "safe" painkiller, increases the risk of heart attack by almost a quarter. The finding was a particular blow to thousands of users who have already switched from the best-selling drug Vioxx, which was withdrawn last year after evidence that it too could increase the risk of heart attacks. ...
'IoS' investigation: Despite calls for more transparency after revelations about the side effects of ibuprofen, the FDA has withheld 28 pages of information on a new wave of painkillers
Vital data on prescription medicines found in millions of British homes has been suppressed by the powerful US drug regulators, even though the information could potentially save lives.
An investigation by The Independent on Sunday shows that, under pressure from the pharmaceutical industry, the American Food and Drug Administration routinely conceals information it considers commercially sensitive, leaving medical specialists unable to assess the true risks.
One team of investigators found that 28 pages of data had been removed from the FDA files on one of a new family of painkillers because of confidentiality.
Last week a major research study led by Professor Julia Hippisley-Cox at Nottingham University, revealed that ibuprofen, the supposedly "safe" painkiller, increases the risk of heart attack by almost a quarter. The finding was a particular blow to thousands of users who have already switched from the best-selling drug Vioxx, which was withdrawn last year after evidence that it too could increase the risk of heart attacks. ...
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Bush admin punished NewsWeek for Quran and toliet story: 3 weeks later, confirms Quran splashed with urine [... Friday night story limits coverage!]
ABC News: U.S. Confirms Gitmo Soldier Kicked Quran: "By ROBERT BURNS | Pentagon confirms for the first time That US Soldier Kicked a Quran at Guantanamo Bay Prison
WASHINGTON Jun 3, 2005 — The Pentagon on Friday released new details about mishandling of the Quran at the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects, confirming that a soldier deliberately kicked the Muslim holy book and that an interrogator stepped on a Quran and was later fired for 'a pattern of unacceptable behavior.'
In other confirmed incidents, a guard's urine came through an air vent and splashed on a detainee and his Quran; water balloons thrown by prison guards caused an unspecified number of Qurans to get wet; and in a confirmed but ambiguous case, a two-word obscenity was written in English on the inside cover of a Quran.
The findings, released after normal business hours Friday evening, are among the results of an investigation last month by Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, the commander of the detention center in Cuba, that was triggered by a Newsweek magazine report later retracted that a U.S. soldier had flushed one Guantanamo Bay detainee's Quran down a toilet."
WASHINGTON Jun 3, 2005 — The Pentagon on Friday released new details about mishandling of the Quran at the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects, confirming that a soldier deliberately kicked the Muslim holy book and that an interrogator stepped on a Quran and was later fired for 'a pattern of unacceptable behavior.'
In other confirmed incidents, a guard's urine came through an air vent and splashed on a detainee and his Quran; water balloons thrown by prison guards caused an unspecified number of Qurans to get wet; and in a confirmed but ambiguous case, a two-word obscenity was written in English on the inside cover of a Quran.
The findings, released after normal business hours Friday evening, are among the results of an investigation last month by Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, the commander of the detention center in Cuba, that was triggered by a Newsweek magazine report later retracted that a U.S. soldier had flushed one Guantanamo Bay detainee's Quran down a toilet."
Friday, June 03, 2005
US military confirms Guantanamo Koran abuse: splashed a Koran with urine, kicked it, stepped on it and soaked it with water."
US military confirms Guantanamo Koran abuse. 04/06/2005. ABC News Online: "Saturday, June 4, 2005. 10:32am (AEST)
An inquiry has looked at five cases of alleged mishandling of the Koran at Guantanamo Bay. (File photo)
US military officials have confirmed that American jailers at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba mishandled and abused the Islamic holy book, the Koran.
A newly completed military inquiry has found US personnel splashed a Koran with urine, kicked it, stepped on it and soaked it with water."
An inquiry has looked at five cases of alleged mishandling of the Koran at Guantanamo Bay. (File photo)
US military officials have confirmed that American jailers at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba mishandled and abused the Islamic holy book, the Koran.
A newly completed military inquiry has found US personnel splashed a Koran with urine, kicked it, stepped on it and soaked it with water."
US lowers standards in army numbers crisis
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | US lowers standards in army numbers crisis: "Jamie Wilson in Washington | Saturday June 4, 2005 | The Guardian
The US military has stopped battalion commanders from dismissing new recruits for drug abuse, alcohol, poor fitness and pregnancy in an attempt to halt the rising attrition rate in an army under growing strain as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
An internal memo sent to senior commanders said the growing dropout rate was 'a matter of great concern' in an army at war. It told officers: 'We need your concerted effort to reverse the negative trend. By reducing attrition 1%, we can save up to 3,000 initial-term soldiers. That's 3,000 more soldiers in our formations.'"
The US military has stopped battalion commanders from dismissing new recruits for drug abuse, alcohol, poor fitness and pregnancy in an attempt to halt the rising attrition rate in an army under growing strain as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
An internal memo sent to senior commanders said the growing dropout rate was 'a matter of great concern' in an army at war. It told officers: 'We need your concerted effort to reverse the negative trend. By reducing attrition 1%, we can save up to 3,000 initial-term soldiers. That's 3,000 more soldiers in our formations.'"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)