Governing council put in frame as US makes no bones about how situation is unravelling

Rory McCarthy
Thursday November 13, 2003
The Guardian

The unscheduled summit in Washington over the future of Iraq reflected intense White House unease about the way the situation is unravelling in the country.

Paul Bremer, who was flying back to Baghdad last night, has been leading a Coalition Provisional Authority that has become frustrated with the work of the Iraqi Governing Council.

In private, American and British officials in the CPA can barely disguise their disappointment at a body which has been criticised for tardiness and inefficiency.

The council, now 24 people, was intended to be an advisory group, but under pressure from Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN special representative killed in a bombing in August, it was handed more responsibility. US officials hoped its members would quickly chose a leader, then appoint ministers. But it took several weeks even to decide who should be president and in the end settled on a compromise: nine of them would lead the council in a rotating presidency.

Weeks later, ministers were named, but the council has yet to make a decision on its most important task: the creation of a committee to draft Iraq's new constitution - the Americans had hoped the drafting would begin as early as last August. Last month a committee reported to the council on forming a group to write the constitution. Yet no decision has been taken on its proposals.

Officials complain that several council members are routinely absent from the three days of meetings each week, often leaving only four or five of the original members at the table.

For their part, the Iraqis on the council are aware that as American appointees they lack the legitimacy of an elected body. They say they lack authority and that key decisions are taken without reference to the council.

The disarray of the Iraqi Governing Council merely reflects the disarray of the Bush Administration and the Coalition Provisional Authority regarding policy in Iraq. Howdy et al went into Iraq with absolutely no frim plan for a port war Iraq. They went in on the assumption that America would be welcomed as a savior, an assumption fostered by Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and our beloved President himself. This assumption was based on information from Iraqi National Congress and thoroughly spun through the "Office of Special Projects" (Rummy's ideologically bent intel office).

The Administration has no one to blame for the quagmire in Iraq but themselves. But following the pattern they have throughout their political careers, they seek to blame others for their failings.

US wants ban on protests during Bush visit

By Kim Sengupta, 12 November 2003

Anti-war protesters claim that US authorities have demanded a rolling "exclusion zone" around President George Bush during his visit, as well as a ban on marches in parts of central London.

The Stop The War Coalition said yesterday that it had been told by the police that it would not be allowed to demonstrate in Parliament Square and Whitehall next Thursday - a ban it said it was determined to resist. The coalition says that it has also been told by British officials that American officials want a distance kept between Mr Bush and protesters, for security reasons and to prevent their appearance in the same television shots.

The Metropolitan Police banned the Parliament Square and Whitehall route by the use of Sessional Orders - which can be enforced for such a purpose when Parliament is in session.

MPs supporting the protests say demonstrations have been allowed while Parliament was sitting, and, in any case, it was unlikely it will be doing so on the day of the proposed march.

The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said yesterday that Mr Bush should not be shielded from public anger about the Iraq war, and Londoners should not have to pick up the £4m policing bill. He said: "To create a situation in which perhaps 60,000 people remain unseen would require a shutdown of central London which is just not acceptable."

It seems that London is about to deliver a big, fat "Fuck You!" to Howdy. But in a move reminiscent of Joesph Stalin, Howdy wants public demonstrations banned during his visit. Wouldn't be good press you know, him being the self-annointed Champion of Democracy that he is. Yep, all them furinners screaming "Yankee go home!", and burning his effigies in public just wouldn't do his image any good...if they actually made on the air in the US that is.

Trials and Error

By Philip Allen Lacovara

Wednesday, November 12, 2003; Page A23

Two years ago this week, President Bush authorized trials by military commission for people accused of membership in al Qaeda or attacks on the United States. Six men have been identified thus far to appear before these commissions.

Shortly before the president issued his executive order, and just weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, I raised my voice in strong support of military commissions. As deputy solicitor general in the Nixon administration, I had been in charge of the government's criminal and internal security cases before the Supreme Court. I understood how the Bush administration could invoke the laws of war sanctioned by the Supreme Court to deal with international terrorists -- as distinct from "mere felons" (including mass murderers) and legitimate combatants entitled to protection under the 1949 Geneva Convention as prisoners of war. I urged the administration to do so.

When I proposed using military commissions to try terrorists, I conceived of trials with fair and reliable procedures designed to ascertain guilt -- or, equally important, innocence. I knew there would be critics of this approach but was confident that both legal and policy factors justified such trials.

Now, two years later, I reluctantly conclude that the administration's approach to military commissions confirms many of the critics' worst fears.

The rules governing military commissions depart substantially from standards of fair procedure. Most problematic, they undermine the basic right to effective counsel by imposing significant legal constraints on civilian defense attorneys. The rules negate normal attorney-client confidentiality and authorize the withholding of key evidence from defendants and their civilian counsel. In addition, the military commission rules permit the Defense Department to restrict defense lawyers' ability to speak publicly about a case -- while Pentagon officials face no such constraint.

It appears that George "Staunch Defender of Democracy" W. Bush has no compunction about abrogating the rights of others, especially when it is convenient for him. Consider the cases of Yasser Hamdi and Jose Padilla. These two men are US citizens, yet they have had all rights to due process negated at the whim of the President. They have been declared enemy combatants and stripped of ALL of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. They are being held incommunicado. They have no access to nor, apparently, any right to counsel. They cannot confront their accusers. They cannot see the evidence against them.

Their cases are the first on a slippery slope which endagers all of us, and renders null and void the promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as set forth in the Constitution. Their case if not challenged and overturned will pave the path to unbridled presidential power and firmly set the foundations for an American police state.

The Bush administration poses a greater threat to peace and freedom in this country than any terrorist threat ever could. Bush et al prey upon the fears of America and turn those fears to their own use, namely the consolidation of their power. It is time to remove this administration from office. It matteres not whether it is by impeachment or election, but the sooner the better.

Countering the Radical GOP

By E.J. Dionne Jr.

Tuesday, November 11, 2003; Page A25

Our foreign policy debate right now pits radicals against conservatives. Republicans are the radicals. Democrats are the conservatives.

That jarring but shrewd perspective, offered by Anthony Lake, President Clinton's former national security adviser, explains much that is strange in our national discussion. And while Lake is critical of President Bush's policies, he does not use the word "radical" to make a partisan point. He is also critical of his own party's newly discovered conservatism.

In Bush's speech last Thursday on the need to promote democracy, particularly in the Arab world, the president embraced much of what liberal human rights advocates have been saying for years. Lake himself, when he worked for Clinton, proposed the idea of "democratic enlargement" as the underlying principle of American foreign policy.

Bush explicitly rebuked a narrowly realist worldview. "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe," Bush said, "because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty." The United States, said Bush, must promote democratic change even in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, nations ruled by America's longtime friends.

..."because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty."

A significant point missed by Mr. Dionne is that Howdy isn't practicing what he preaches at home. There are changes being made to the electoral system, across this nation, that would not be tolerated in an internationally monitored election in a third world country. Perhaps we should have international monitors at our polling places in 2004. At the rate things are going, we're gonna need 'em. And let's not forget that horribly mis-named "PATRIOT" Act and the Administrations attempts to strenghten many of its provisions. No, listening to Howdy preach about the vitues of democracy is like listening to a whore preach about the virtue of chastity in Sunday school.

George W. Bush...Our Commander-in-Chief?

As a veteran, it truly burns my ass to hear Howdy talk about the sacrifices our soldiers are making in his dirty little war. It disgusts me to think of him placing a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Listening to him talk about fighting for freedom and democracy around the world makes my gorge rise.

Yes, George W. Bush, aka "shrub", aka "Howdy-Doody", scored just above not-being-able-to-walk-and-chew-gum-at-the-same-time, and leapfrogs over hundreds of other far more qualified applicants to a sinecure in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam war. Just goes to show that money talks and shit walks. That wouldn't have been so bad, but the arrogant little peckerwood didn't even finish his term in the Guard. After being grounded for failing to take a flight physical, he goes AWOL for the last two years of his term in the ANG. The $10,000 reward for anyone who can verify that he showed up at ANY drills during that time frame still goes unclaimed.

Yes, this snivelling little craven is our Commander-in-Chief or, more appropriately, our Commander-in-Thief.

Sorry...I got a little carried away there.