The price of pain

January 15, 2005

Declassified FBI and military documents point the finger at the White House for allowing the torture of suspected terrorists. Marian Wilkinson reports on the investigations and their implications for Australia.

The "urgent report" landed on the desk of the FBI director, Robert Mueller, just as Washington was preparing for the summer vacation last June. It was carefully copied to every key law enforcement officer in the bureau. It could not be lost, destroyed, misplaced or overlooked. It was explosive.

A witness had walked into the Sacramento office of the FBI with first-hand accounts of "serious physical abuses of civilian detainees" in Iraq. He described to agents "strangulation, beatings, placement of cigarettes into detainees' ear openings and unauthorised interrogations".

But these claims alone did not hold the shock value in the report. Two months earlier, sensational photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq depicting gross sexual and physical abuse of Iraqi detainees had been splashed across front pages and television screens around the world. What was more disturbing in this report was the allegation from the witness that US officials "were engaged in a cover-up of these abuses".

With Charles Graner, an army reserve Spc, found guilty on ten charges regarding the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, the first scapegoat has been sacrificed. And there seems to be little impetus to look higher up the chain of command, let alone the Oval Office. This despite continued allegations from FBI officers that the orders condoning torture seem to have emanated from that source.

Also at issue here is the apparent transfer of prisoners to third party nations which are neither signatories to UN Convention Against Torture and are known for there lack of inhibition regarding torture. According to the Convention, which the US is signatory to, "No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." - Article 3; Para 1. This is a clear violation of the convention and while the US is signatory to the Convention, it has not yet ratified it, it is not legally bound to abide by its provisions. There is, however, a moral obligation to do so. However, the Bush Administration seems to be singularly lacking in morals.

A few, though, are questioning the policy put forth in the infamous torture memos. Among them is Senator Lindsay Graham, R- South Carolina. Senator Graham states,

"When you start looking at torture statutes and you look at ways around the spirit of the law ... you are losing the moral high ground," he said. The abuse at Abu Ghraib "has hurt us in many ways," he added. "I travel throughout the world like the rest of the members of the Senate, and I can tell you it is a club that our enemies use, and we need to take that club out of their hands."

This warning was also sounded by military commanders and lawyers even as these memos and orders were disseminated for implememtation. But they were ignored. So too were the protestations of trained interogators, who KNOW that torture provides little or no useful intel, ignored.

The pattern of abuse at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere, shows very clearly that these acts were not isolated cases of abuse carried out by a few "bad apples". But rather, they are the product of policy decisions made at the highest levels of US government, possiblly even to the Oval Office and George W. Bush. All due diligence must be applied to ferreting out the truth of this matter, regardless of where, or how high, the trail leads. And with that, the perpetrators brought to justice.

However, I am cynical enough to think that this will never happen. To many vested interests are at stake for the Bush Dynasty to be toppled over this issue. So, a few non-coms, and perhaps even a few low-ranking officers, will be thrown to the wolves while the true perpetrators go free. And this will be to our detriment. America wil have truly and thoroughly lost the moral high ground. The values of freedom and democracy will be made a mockery of and the Republic will perish from the face of this earth.

Those Who Forget History...

Of course, it helps to have learned history in the first place.

In 1215, a document was produced that became the foundation for western jurisprudence and our own Constitution. That document was the Magna Carta. Most relevant to the discussion at hand are are articles 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta, which is the basis of habeas corpus.

38 In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

"39 No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.

Heady stuff in those days, but the application was strictly for landed gentry and nobles until about 1628. Until then, the typical yeoman could be imprisoned by the king without charge or recourse to the courts.

In 1628, several knights, imprisoned over a tax-dispute with the king. These knights invoked habeas corpus, where they were to be freed or on bail unless they have been convicted of a crime.

In response, Charles I invoked his right, as king, to imprison anybody he wanted, any time he wanted. This led to the a series of laws over the next 50 years which strengthened habeas corpus to the point where only Parliament could revoke it, which they did in the case of Napoleon Bonaparte.

Mow, fast forward to the 21st century. Dubbyuh has invoked per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis, or the right to imrison anyone he wishes any time he wishes. But unlike George III in the case of Napoleon, Dubbyuh feels he needs no act of Congress to overturn the 4th through 8th amendments to the Constitution. In order to circumvent these protections, new legal terms such a 'enemy combatants' and 'terrorists' were created as well as a whole new set of laws to deal with them.

Dubbyuh forgot one thing though. He does not have the right to suspend habeas corpus. While the Constitution provides a mechanism for the temporary suspension of habeas corpus, he does not have the power to do so...Only Congress has that power, and they have...not...done...so.

Since this country was founded, there are two classses of people who can be legally imprisoned, prisoners of war and criminals. This first class is protected under the Geneva Convention and US law while the second class is protected under the US Constitution. These two classes have covered every threat to nations and their people in the 800+ years since the Magna Carta was signed on the banks of the Thames.

But jast as Hitler and his fellow travelers used the burning of the Reichstag to justify an unending war on terrorism and suspension of habeas corpus, so to have George W. Buhs and his merry band, including Alberto Gonzalez.

"The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus ... are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it [the Constitution] contains. ...[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious [British 18th century legal scholar] Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital:

"'To bereave a man of life,' says he, 'or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS ENGINE of arbitrary government.''' [Capitals all Hamilton's from the original.]

This by Alexander Hamilton, one of the most conservative authors of the Federalist Papers. The Founding Fathers recognized no situation in which the President could arbitrarily suspend habeas corpus.

While we are all familiar with Mr. Gonzales' involvement in the torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, this is just a part of a larger issue. That being whether the POTUS has the right to ignore the Constitution, international law and treatties, violate civil and human rights and build concentration camps for the permanent imprisonment of untired and uncharged individuals. Dubbyuh's exercise of per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis puts us all at risk of imprisonment by presidential fiant. Do we really want a man as Attorney General of the US who agrees with such policy? They always start with the terrorists first.

"A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE THE BUSH SUPPORTER"

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune. It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like me!

The Myth Exploded, or, The Emperor STILL Has No Clothes

Four months after Charles A. Duelfer, who led the weapons hunt in 2004, submitted an interim report to Congress that contradicted nearly every prewar assertion about Iraq made by top Bush administration officials, a senior intelligence official said the findings will stand as the ISG's final conclusions and will be published this spring.

And the conclusion is...SURPRISE!...no different than it was four months ago. No evidence of reconstituted NBC programs has been found. No evidence of the movement of stockpiles of NBC weapons to other countries has been found. No evidence of transfer of said weapons or technologies to third parties has been found. Zero...Zilch...Nada...Zip. And the Bush administration stands, yet again, naked and blinking stupidly into the sun still trying to convince us that they are clothed in magnificent robes of righteous indignation.

They are still trying to spin their fabric of lies in a futile attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq. They continue to defend the indefensible. They still try to convince us of their good intentions, as they pave the road to hell with them.

Now, I'm sure there are those of you who will buy the party line and say, "But intelligence agencies all over the world said...", blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Mohammed El Baradei, Hans Blix, and former UNSCOM inspectors, including Scott Ritter stated flat out, before this whole nightmare even began, that there were no WMD's in Iraq...That these programs had not be reconstituted. They had the most recent experience in Iraq. They had most recently had boots on the ground in Iraq. The intel available to Bush, Blair, and others was had from the since discredited Ahmed Chalabi and other members of the Iraqi National Congress, who were all looking to set themselves up as the leaders of a new Iraq. And in case you haven't noticed, as soon as it looked as if the whole premise for war was going to be exposed as a lie, Chalabi was branded a criminal and and a traitor, with a warrant issued for his arrest on murder charges. What was it Machiavelli said about "foreign princes"?

As this new information comes to light, if it ever does, you can be certain that the Adminstration will go on high spin cycle. Even though the initial Duelfer Report exploded the myth that Iraq had WMD's and was poised to strike with them, Dick Cheney went so far as to say the Duelfer Report "confirmed our assertions". This in the hopes that enough people who would never read the report would accept his word as the gospel truth. As November 2 showed, enough did buy into the lie.

Reagan's Ghost Haunts the Bush Administration

The shade of Ronald Reagan has been spotted in the White House. He keeps moaning "El Salvador...! El Salvador...!"

Since then, there has been talk in the Administration, the military and the CIA about instituting US special forces trained and/or led Iraqi units to engage in operations throughout Iraq and even into Syria. What has yet to be decided though is whether these operations will be snatch-and-grabs or outright assassination. Having seen what occured in El Salvador and Central America during the Reagan administration, the latter choice seems to be the likely one.

Another strange reminder of that era is that John Negroponte is now the ambassador to Iraq, despite the fact that he has no previous experience in the Middle-East. He was however, US ambassador to Honduras during the Reagan administration. During that time, he was the goto for coordination between the the CIA and Nicaraguan Contra death-squads as well as the death-squad in Honduras. These two items, taken together seem to make the death-squad option the most likely choice.

That this discussion is occuring now...on the eve of elections in Iraq...shows just how desperate the situation is becoming in that country. The insurgents strike with impunity and increasing ferocity against both Iraqis and our troops, who were wrongly sent into harms way to begin with. We have the mass resignation of the members of the Independent Election Commission in Mosul...Polling places will not be named until shortly before the election...insurgents have warned that snipers will be stationed around polling places.

The best hope of salvaging the situation will be if Iraqi voters, as did voters in El Salvador, remain undeterred by these threats and turn out to vote despite them. Equally important is the participation of ALL parties...Sunni, Shia'a and Kurd as well as the other ethnic minorities. Failing either of these two things will lead to further chaos and likley a bloody civil war.

While we may fervently wish for a peaceful transfer of power to a legitimately elected government in Iraq and the safe return of our troops, wishing accomplishes nothing. We can only watch an wait. And pray to whatever powers we might believe in that peace, or at least a semblance of it, comes to pass.

We don't need no steenkeen mandate...!

As the day of Dubbyuh's coronation...er...inauguration approaches, we should examine Dubbyuh's mandate or rather, his lack thereof.

Let's take a brief look at the historical record. In 2000, Dubbyuh lost the popular vote, and his "political capital" was non-existent though he claimed a mandate even then. He barely maintained his hold on power in 2004, and his "political capital" was only marginally better than that in 2000.

As for this election cycle Dubbyuh only won by 34 electors, the smallest margin of electoral victory for any US president. His margin of victory in the popular vote was 51%, hardly an overwhelming majority and not the mandate he claims. His 3% margin of victory is well within the margin of error given most polls.

As for the mandate he claims, reforming social security, selecting conservative judges and "simplifying" the tax code, were not the issue he ran on in the election. Had he run on those issue he would have been soundly defeated. Intsead, Karl Rove played the fear card. Fear of terrorism...fear of attack...fear of same-gender marriage...He did not run on substantive domestic issues. He ran on intangible emotional issues.

In the end, Dubbyuh's mandate is, like the rest of his administration, a fabric of obfuscation, disinformation, misdirection and outright lies. The emperor has no clothes, nor does he have a mandate.