Existing Users: Because of an update to the forum software you will need to reset your password. Please use the "Forgot?" link on the sign in form to do so. If that doesn't work, send me an email at feedback@forzaminardi.com and I'll sort you out!
But does a car contribute more global warming going up in a blaze or just guzzling gas throughout it's life?
I say put a carbon tax on all rioters, car bombers and pyromaniacs. That will soon stop them
Applying market forces is the answer!
Just make it too expensive so the bad guys have to find more globally firendly technologies, like a suicide pill and a goodbye note saying "I just saved 50 lives!"
I think McCain's comments in Newsweek are directly on point:
Torture's Terrible Toll By Senator John McCain Newsweek
25 November 2005 issue
Abusive interrogation tactics produce bad intel, and undermine the values we hold dear. Why we must, as a nation, do better. The debate over the treatment of enemy prisoners, like so much of the increasingly overcharged partisan debate over the war in Iraq and the global war against terrorists, has occasioned many unserious and unfair charges about the administration's intentions and motives. With all the many competing demands for their attention, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have remained admirably tenacious in their determination to prevent terrorists from inflicting another atrocity on the American people, whom they are sworn to protect. It is certainly fair to credit their administration's vigilance as a substantial part of the reason that we have not experienced another terrorist attack on American soil since September 11, 2001.
It is also quite fair to attribute the administration's position-that U.S. interrogators be allowed latitude in their treatment of enemy prisoners that might offend American values-to the president's and vice president's appropriate concern for acquiring actionable intelligence that could prevent attacks on our soldiers or our allies or on the American people. And it is quite unfair to assume some nefarious purpose informs their intentions. They bear the greatest responsibility for the security of American lives and interests. I understand and respect their motives just as I admire the seriousness and patriotism of their resolve. But I do, respectfully, take issue with the position that the demands of this war require us to accord a lower station to the moral imperatives that should govern our conduct in war and peace when they come in conflict with the unyielding inhumanity of our vicious enemy.
Obviously, to defeat our enemies we need intelligence, but intelligence that is reliable. We should not torture or treat inhumanely terrorists we have captured. The abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort. In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear-whether it is true or false-if he believes it will relieve his suffering. I was once physically coerced to provide my enemies with the names of the members of my flight squadron, information that had little if any value to my enemies as actionable intelligence. But I did not refuse, or repeat my insistence that I was required under the Geneva Conventions to provide my captors only with my name, rank and serial number. Instead, I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse. It seems probable to me that the terrorists we interrogate under less than humane standards of treatment are also likely to resort to deceptive answers that are perhaps less provably false than that which I once offered.
Our commitment to basic humanitarian values affects-in part-the willingness of other nations to do the same. Mistreatment of enemy prisoners endangers our own troops who might someday be held captive. While some enemies, and Al Qaeda surely, will never be bound by the principle of reciprocity, we should have concern for those Americans captured by more traditional enemies, if not in this war then in the next. Until about 1970, North Vietnam ignored its obligations not to mistreat the Americans they held prisoner, claiming that we were engaged in an unlawful war against them and thus not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. But when their abuses became widely known and incited unfavorable international attention, they substantially decreased their mistreatment of us. Again, Al Qaeda will never be influenced by international sensibilities or open to moral suasion. If ever the term "sociopath" applied to anyone, it applies to them. But I doubt they will be the last enemy America will fight, and we should not undermine today our defense of international prohibitions against torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners of war that we will need to rely on in the future.
To prevail in this war we need more than victories on the battlefield. This is a war of ideas, a struggle to advance freedom in the face of terror in places where oppressive rule has bred the malevolence that creates terrorists. Prisoner abuses exact a terrible toll on us in this war of ideas. They inevitably become public, and when they do they threaten our moral standing, and expose us to false but widely disseminated charges that democracies are no more inherently idealistic and moral than other regimes. This is an existential fight, to be sure. If they could, Islamic extremists who resort to terror would destroy us utterly. But to defeat them we must prevail in our defense of American political values as well. The mistreatment of prisoners greatly injures that effort.
The mistreatment of prisoners harms us more than our enemies. I don't think I'm naive about how terrible are the wages of war, and how terrible are the things that must be done to wage it successfully. It is an awful business, and no matter how noble the cause for which it is fought, no matter how valiant their service, many veterans spend much of their subsequent lives trying to forget not only what was done to them, but some of what had to be done by them to prevail.
I don't mourn the loss of any terrorist's life. Nor do I care if in the course of serving their ignoble cause they suffer great harm. They have pledged their lives to the intentional destruction of innocent lives, and they have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next. What I do mourn is what we lose when by official policy or official neglect we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget that best sense of ourselves, that which is our greatest strength-that we are different and better than our enemies, that we fight for an idea, not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion, but for an idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.
Now, in this war, our liberal notions are put to the test. Americans of good will, all patriots, argue about what is appropriate and necessary to combat this unconventional enemy. Those of us who feel that in this war, as in past wars, Americans should not compromise our values must answer those Americans who believe that a less rigorous application of those values is regrettably necessary to prevail over a uniquely abhorrent and dangerous enemy. Part of our disagreement is definitional. Some view more coercive interrogation tactics as something short of torture but worry that they might be subject to challenge under the "no cruel, inhumane or degrading" standard. Others, including me, believe that both the prohibition on torture and the cruel, inhumane and degrading standard must remain intact. When we relax that standard, it is nearly unavoidable that some objectionable practices will be allowed as something less than torture because they do not risk life and limb or do not cause very serious physical pain.
For instance, there has been considerable press attention to a tactic called "waterboarding," where a prisoner is restrained and blindfolded while an interrogator pours water on his face and into his mouth-causing the prisoner to believe he is being drowned. He isn't, of course; there is no intention to injure him physically. But if you gave people who have suffered abuse as prisoners a choice between a beating and a mock execution, many, including me, would choose a beating. The effects of most beatings heal. The memory of an execution will haunt someone for a very long time and damage his or her psyche in ways that may never heal. In my view, to make someone believe that you are killing him by drowning is no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank. I believe that it is torture, very exquisite torture.
Those who argue the necessity of some abuses raise an important dilemma as their most compelling rationale: the ticking-time-bomb scenario. What do we do if we capture a terrorist who we have sound reasons to believe possesses specific knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack?
In such an urgent and rare instance, an interrogator might well try extreme measures to extract information that could save lives. Should he do so, and thereby save an American city or prevent another 9/11, authorities and the public would surely take this into account when judging his actions and recognize the extremely dire situation which he confronted. But I don't believe this scenario requires us to write into law an exception to our treaty and moral obligations that would permit cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. To carve out legal exemptions to this basic principle of human rights risks opening the door to abuse as a matter of course, rather than a standard violated truly in extremis. It is far better to embrace a standard that might be violated in extraordinary circumstances than to lower our standards to accommodate a remote contingency, confusing personnel in the field and sending precisely the wrong message abroad about America's purposes and practices.
The state of Israel, no stranger to terrorist attacks, has faced this dilemma, and in 1999 the Israeli Supreme Court declared cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment illegal. "A democratic, freedom-loving society," the court wrote, "does not accept that investigators use any means for the purpose of uncovering truth. The rules pertaining to investigators are important to a democratic state. They reflect its character."
I've been asked often where did the brave men I was privileged to serve with in North Vietnam draw the strength to resist to the best of their abilities the cruelties inflicted on them by our enemies. They drew strength from their faith in each other, from their faith in God and from their faith in our country. Our enemies didn't adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them unto death. But every one of us-every single one of us-knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or approving such mistreatment of them. That faith was indispensable not only to our survival, but to our attempts to return home with honor. For without our honor, our homecoming would have had little value to us.
The enemies we fight today hold our liberal values in contempt, as they hold in contempt the international conventions that enshrine them. I know that. But we are better than them, and we are stronger for our faith. And we will prevail. It is indispensable to our success in this war that those we ask to fight it know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to their country they are never expected to forget that they are Americans, and the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should govern their own affairs and their relations with others-even our enemies.
Those who return to us and those who give their lives for us are entitled to that honor. And those of us who have given them this onerous duty are obliged by our history, and the many terrible sacrifices that have been made in our defense, to make clear to them that they need not risk their or their country's honor to prevail; that they are always-through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss-they are always, always, Americans, and different, better and stronger than those who would destroy us.
".... What do we do if we capture a terrorist who we have sound reasons to believe possesses specific knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack?
In such an urgent and rare instance, an interrogator might well try extreme measures to extract information that could save lives. Should he do so, and thereby save an American city or prevent another 9/11, authorities and the public would surely take this into account when judging his actions and recognize the extremely dire situation which he confronted. But I don't believe this scenario requires us to write into law an exception to our treaty and moral obligations that would permit cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment."
The United States has always maintained a level of plausible deniability for the President and Cabinet. That means that there is no paper trail. there are no memo's Everyone whould know what needs to be done in a given situation.
Torture is not to be condoned EXCEPT in those very very very rare cases where time is critical and attack is already know to be immenent from other sources. e.g. we know there is a bomb ticking ready to go off in a school in 3 hours there fore I will begin by cutting off one testicle with this pruning shear and force you to eat it... etc.
in all other cases torture is not acceptable... I think that is the loose translation.
Doc - as a former soldier who has undergone training in the Rules of War as laid out in the Geneva Convention at both the Led Level as well as the Leader Level AND as a trained medic who have a whole other set of ethical traing to learn as well as having been briefed under the Rules of Emgagement when armed with live ammo I know a thing or two about this subject.
Torture is bad. It may not get you what you want to know info wise and it leaves a bad taste in everyones mouth. It lowers us to the level of other countries armies that some here hold as heroes. Like the NVA. I am sure some here hold them in high regard but they were practioniers of some of the most brutal forms of torture and muder that we have seen in the modern world.
John Mc Cain, the folk hero/demi god to many endured many years of it. Now he is out speaking about the ills of torture. He should be listened to. He may have more info then the rest of us but I cam across this story - and if this is the exten of the "torture" that the t's are having to endure then it is lpossible being a bit overblown.
Much of what is described here is used as training by US and Brit soldiers in what is called SERE - Survival, Escape Resistance and Evasion school.
The CIA sources described a list of six "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" instituted in mid-March 2002 and used, they said, on a dozen top al Qaeda targets incarcerated in isolation at secret locations on military bases in regions from Asia to Eastern Europe. According to the sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques:
1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.
2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.
3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.
4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.
5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.
6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over
There is a balance point that must be held. We NEED to remain HUMAN even though our enemy is clearly NOT. However, intelligence drives any conflict and we - the Allies - need all the BEST intel we can to help stop new attcks not just on our own troops and assest but of INNOCENT's that the t's seem not to really care much about anymore.
The National INter Fraternity Council defines Hazing as the following:
Any instance of physical abuse, psychological abuse, or improper obligations, requirements, or time restrictions associated with or involving new members (commonly known as pledge/associate members) or their activities or associated with or involving any improper continuing obligation for membership. Violations described below shall therefore be understood to be incidents of hazing.
Meeting and Time Restrictions (General Program Restrictions)
All students are recognized to have academic and collegiate obligations which must not be unduly restricted or constrained. Examples of improperly restrictive time requirements include but are not limited to the following: Any activity or requirement which is so time consuming as to significantly interfere with class work or study time. This includes but is not limited to pre-initiation and initiation periods. Conducting any non-academic pledge/associate activity within one complete week prior to final or midterm examinations each semester.
Physical Abuse
Physical abuse is understood to be any action taken or situation created which may foreseeably cause pain, injury, or undue physical stress, or fatigue. Examples of physical abuse include but are not limited to the following: Forced or required consumption of alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverages or substances Forced or required consumption of spoiled foods, raw onions, goldfish, or any unpalatable foods which an individual refuses to eat Dropping food such as eggs, grapes, liver, etc. in mouths Tying individuals to chairs, poles, or other objects Simulated or actual branding of individuals against their will Causing excessive fatigue through physical or psychological shocks, such as forced participation in extreme exercise beyond normal ability Paddling new members Pushing, shoving, tackling, or any other kind of physical abuse not associated with events of an athletic nature Throwing any toxic or otherwise harmful at an individual
Psychological Abuse
Psychological abuse is understood to be any action taken or situation created which may foreseeably produce embarrassment, ridicule, or harassment, or be threatening in nature. Examples of psychological abuse include but are not limited to the following: Line-ups, any form of verbal abuse, or any other activity which serves no constructive purpose Deception of new members prior to the ritual which is designed to convince a pledge/associate member that he will not be initiated or that he will be injured during the ritual ceremony Any individual or group interrogations of a negative nature Creating areas that are extremely uncomfortable due to temperature, noise, size, or air quality
Improper Requirements or Obligations
All membership requirements or obligations must in some way enhance the individual's emotional, spiritual, or intellectual development. Examples of improper requirements or obligations include but are not limited to the following: Assigning or endorsing pranks such as panty-raids, harassing another organization, etc. Assigning or endorsing an activity that is illegal or unlawful, that would constitute theft, burglary, or trespassing, or that would be morally objectionable to an individual Defacing trees, grounds, buildings, or objects Conducting quests, treasure hunts, scavenger hunts, paddle hunts, big sister hunts, or little sister hunts that include illegal activity, physical abuse, or psychological abuse. Requiring pledge/associate members to march in formation Carrying useless items such as coconuts, helmets, swords, burlap bags, shields, paddles, rocks, dog collars, bricks, etc. Assigning or endorsing the wearing of apparel in public which is conspicuous and not normally in good taste Requiring or endorsing the pledge/associate members to yell or chant when entering or leaving the chapter house Requiring memorization of non-fraternity and non-academic related materials Assigning or endorsing public stunts or buffoonery Requiring or encouraging pledge/associate members to act like animals or other objects Requiring pledge/associate members to participate in the act of flouring and/or showering other members
RESPONSIBILITIES
Any person (pledge/associate member, active member, guest, alumni/ae, university staff/faculty member) suffering or witnessing a hazing abuse has the responsibility to report the incidents to appropriate Greek Affairs officials.
The appropriate chapter officer (president, pledge/associate educator, etc.) must approve all new member-related activities prior to the event.
Membership-related activities should be kept within the properly reserved space. The activity must not interfere with the rights and activities of others, and should always reflect the best interest of the members of the chapter it represents and the university community as a whole.
All chapters which are members of the Interfraternity Council and their individual members will abide by this policy.
Chapters shall be held responsible for any action or situation in violation of this policy, whether incurred by pledge/associate, active, alumni/ae, or guest.
Any reprisal or threat of reprisal taken against a person for reporting a violation of this policy shall be considered a violation of this policy, even if the chapter is found innocent of the initial alleged charge.
Any violation of this policy shall be reported. If referred to the IFC Judicial Board, the board will have the responsibility to determine violations and shall choose from a broad array of possible sanctions those appropriate to the misconduct.
IMPLEMENTATION
The officers, principally the President of each chapter, are responsible for informing members (pledge/associate members, active members, alumni/ae, and guests) of the above policy. The policy shall be read by the President to the membership at the first chapter meeting of each semester and shall be posted in a prominent place for the members to see for no less than two weeks at the beginning of each semester.
Any individual or group who wishes to discuss with Greek Affairs officials any questionable activities which may be in violation of this policy shall have complete anonymity if so desired until or unless that individual or group decides to file formal charges.
The chapter is responsible for any group or individual activity determined to be a violation of this hazing policy. Violations may result in University, Greek Affairs, IFC and/or legal action.
In all cases of alleged violations of this policy, faculty and/or alumni advisors will be notified of the alleged violations. In addition, the international/national headquarters of any chapter found to be guilty of hazing will be notified of the alleged violations.
According to the IFC Constitution (Article VII, Section I), the judicial powers and authority of the IFC shall be vested in the Judicial Board. The Board may investigate and judge charges of members of the IFC involving the alleged infractions of University or IFC policies. The Board may also designate an investigative body which shall report back to the judicial board.
The Interfraternity Council will evaluate each case on its own individual merit.
In the event that formal written charges are brought against a chapter for violating the provisions contained herein, they shall be entitled to notice, hearing, and appeal in accordance with those rules outlined in the hearing procedures.
5 Questions to Ask to Determine if it's Hazing? To help you determine if an act is hazing, simply ask the following questions. Would you be in lots of trouble if a Reveille reporter were to see and report what you are doing?
Would you tell prospective members what they will go through?
Would you tell the parents of your members what you are doing?
Would you let Greek Affairs know what you are doing?
Would you let your national headquarters know what you are doing?
If you hesitate, that is telling you something!
You should be proud of all the activities you ask your new members to do. Therefore, you should not hesitate to let others know.
Remember that there is no such thing as a secret in the Greek Community. It is usually only a matter of time before what your group is doing gets out!
Finally, ethics teaches us that we should not write or say anything that we do not want repeated on the evening news or in our local papers.
Also, we should not want to do anything that we would not want video-taped and shown on the evening news.
It should be noted that I, personally enjoyed some of these things when I did them as I "pledged" under a bunch of guys who where former military...
I think that the final key point in the policy is: DON'T WRITE OR VIDEO TAPE THIS SHIT IF YOU DO IT AND DON'T TAKE PICTURES. Perhaps a lesson can be learned from this?
I know well that you have service experience and specialised training. That's fine!
What you do not seem to fully appreciate is that others, and this now goes for millions of people around the world, have enough understanding of the same subjects and of its effect on the image of America to be saying "TORTURE and ABUSE IS NOT ON".
Your comments told me nothing new. Years ago, my son underwent SERE training and enlightened me as to methods and reactions. Perhaps you didn't know it is also used outside of the US and UK. In any event the subject of torture is well documented. I don't object to tough training to prepare soldiers and agents for what they may have to endure in warfare. It is quite different when you use similar methods on prisoners. That is not training! It is also not productive of good intelligence. It degrades the whole effort for no good reason.
Now what I have a real problem with is Cheney, you, and others saying there has to be a balance point, and this point must be declared or the President can't win the war.
In reality, you are now not likely to win the war largely because you failed to set a standard where torture and abuse was completely outlawed. You lost the high ground.
I am personally offended by the double talk and affront to the intelligence of millions of informed citizens around the world by the US propaganda machine. If the average American were better informed, you wouldn't have the problems you have today, AND the administration thinks you should just solve the criticism by more propaganda.
I am also learning. Years ago, I was under the impression that "Clear Thinking" was taught in America, that respect for truth, for human life and universal rights were widely held.
Instead, opinions are given without knowledge, arguments are presented without logic, wrongs go unquestioned, legitimate questions are answered with untruths or half truths. We don't "target" civilians with white phosphorus so it's OK!
It's largely true that the American media does not cover this well. It would be very discouraging if not for the good stuff presented by some of your writers. Bernie has posted a few of these. I expect that now Murtha has spoken out, we'll see others prepared to speak up.
Watch what spin you are reading. If you travel up the link channel to get to that info regarding the white phosphorus...e.g the original article you will find the following:
"There is no hard evidence that white phosphorus was used against civilians. The claim was made in a documentary broadcast on the Italian network RAI, called “Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre”. It claimed the corpses in the pictures it ran “showed strange injuries, some burnt to the bone, others with skin hanging from their flesh … The faces have literally melted away, just like other parts of the body. The clothes are strangely intact.” These assertions were supported by a human rights advocate whom, it said, possessed “a biology degree”
However, to puit an end to the issue all the US had to do was say, we don't use WP if there are civilians in the area, which is the intent of the ban accepted by many countries.
Saying we don't " target" civilians gives too much leeway.
Bernie, please don't assume that I take information unquestioned. Some may, I try not to.
But I do appreciate your inputs and insights. ....and I very much look forward to that beer together!
You can bring Emmet along too if he leaves his guns at home.
PERSONALLY, I think it's a lot more fun to have these discussions with a few beers, a few shots and everyone armed to the teeth. it keeps everyone on their toes:D
Vegetarians Between Meals Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:47:55 -0800 By Jeremy Scahill This war cannot be stopped by a loyal opposition The refrain of the Democrats about being misled into supporting the invasion of Iraq has become really tired. And someone other than the White House smearmongers needs to say it: The Democrats cannot be allowed to use faulty intelligence as a crutch to hold up their unforgivable support for the Iraq invasion. What is DNC Chair Howard Dean’s excuse? He wasn’t in Congress and didn’t have any access to Senate intelligence. Still, on March 9, 2003, just days before the invasion began, Dean told Tim Russert, on NBC’s Meet The Press, “I don’t want Saddam staying in power with control over those weapons of mass destruction. I want him to be disarmed.” During the New Hampshire primary in January 2004, which I covered for Democracy Now!, I confronted Dean about that statement. I asked him on what intelligence he based that allegation. “Talks with people who were knowledgeable,” Dean told me. “Including a series of folks that work in the Clinton administration.” A series of folks that work in the Clinton administration. How does that jibe with the official Democratic line that they were misled by the Bush administration? Sounds like Howard Dean, head of the Democratic Party, was misled by….the Democrats. Dean’s candor offers us a rare glimpse into the painful truth of the matter. As unpopular as this is to say, when President Bush accuses the Democrats of “rewriting history” on Iraq, he is right. None of the horrors playing out in Iraq today would be possible without the Democratic Party. And no matter how hard some party leaders try to deny it, this is their war too and will remain so until every troop is withdrawn. There is no question that the Bush administration is one of the most corrupt, violent and brutal in the history of this country but that doesn’t erase the serious responsibility the Democrats bear for the bloodletting in Iraq. As disingenuous as the Administration’s claims that Iraq had WMDs is the flimsy claim by Democratic lawmakers that they were somehow duped into voting for the war. The fact is that Iraq posed no threat to the United States in 2003 any more than it did in 1998 when President Clinton bombed Baghdad. John Kerry and his colleagues knew that. The Democrats didn’t need false intelligence to push them into overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s regime. It was their policy; a policy made the law of the land not under George W. Bush, but under President Bill Clinton when he signed the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, formally initiating the process of regime change in Iraq. Manipulated intelligence is but a small part of a bigger, bipartisan15-year assault on Iraq’s people. If the Democrats really want to look at how America was led into this war, they need to go back further than the current president’s inauguration. As bloody and deadly as the occupation has been, it was Bill Clinton who refined the art of killing innocent Iraqis following the Gulf War.One of his first acts as president was to bomb Iraq, following the alleged assassination plot against George HW Bush. Clinton’s missiles killed the famed Iraqi painter Leila al Attar as they smashed into her home. Clinton presided enthusiastically over the most deadly and repressive regime of economic sanctions in history—his UN ambassadorMadeline Albright calling the reported deaths of half a million children “worth the price.” Clinton initiated the longest sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam with his illegal no-fly zone bombings, attacking Iraq once every three days for the final years of his presidency. It was under Clinton that Ahmed Chalabi was given tens of millions of dollars and made a key player in shaping Washington’s Iraq policy. It was Clinton that mercilessly attacked Iraq in December of1998, destroying dozens of Baghdad buildings and killing scores of civilians. It was Clinton that codified regime change in Iraq as U.S. policy. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq but he could not have done it without the years of groundwork laid by Clinton and the Democrats. How ironic it was recently to hear Clinton call the war “a big mistake.” It’s easy to resist war with a president like Bush in the White House. Where were these Democrats when it was Clinton’s bombs raining down on Iraq, when it was Clinton’s economic sanctions targeting the most vulnerable? Many of them were right behind him and his deadly policies the same way they were behind Bush when he asked their consent to use force against Iraq. As the veteran Iraq activist and Nobel Prize nominee Kathy Kelly said often during the Clinton years, “It’s easy to be a vegetarian between meals.” The fact is that one of the great crimes of our times was committed by the Clinton administration withthe support of many of the politicians now attacking Bush. Herein lies the real political crisis in this country: the Democratsare not an opposition party, nor are they an antiwar party—never were. At best, they are a loyal opposition. The Democrats ran a pro-war campaign in 2004 with Kerry struggling to convince people that Dems do occupation and war better. The current head of the DNC, Howard Dean, never met a war he didn’t adore until he realized he could exploit the energy and sincere hopes of millions of peace-loving Americans. Dean wasn’t ever antiwar. In fact, during the 2004 campaign he attacked Kerry for opposing the Gulf War while laying out his own pro-war record. “In 1991, I supported Gulf War. I supported the first President Bush,” declared Dean. “Senator Kerry who criticizes my foreign policy, he voted against that war. I supported the Afghanistan war, because I felt it was about our national defense—3,000 of our people were killed. I supported President Clinton going into Bosnia and Kosovo.” How can Howard Dean look people in the eye today and pretend to speak with any credibility as an antiwar voice? When the hawkish Democrat Rep. John Murtha bravely stepped forward to call for an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq this week, he was quickly blasted by the White House and simultaneously disowned by powerful Democrats like John Kerry. Occupation lovers together again. The bloody scandal of the Iraq occupation has opened a rare and clear window into the truth about this country: there is one party represented in Washington—one that supports preemptive war and regime change. The reality is that the Democrats could stop this war if the will was there. They could shut down the Senate every day, not just for a few hours one afternoon. They could disrupt business as usual and act as though the truth were true: this war should never have happened and it must end now. The country would be behind them if they did it. But they won’t. They will hem and haw and call for more troops and throw out epic lies about the US becoming a stabilizing force in Iraq and blame the Republicans for their own complicity and enthusiasm in the 15 years of bipartisan crimes against Iraq. All of this begs for a multiparty system in this country and thee mergence of a true opposition. The epic scale of the disaster in Iraq calls for epic lessons to be learned at home. Like the Bush White House, the Democrats have lost their credibility. They are undeserving of the blank check of “Anybody But Bush” and should never be allowed to cash it again. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who heads up the House Democrats’ election campaign, criticized Murtha’s call for immediate withdrawal, saying, “At the right time, we will have a position.” It is statements like that that should result in Emanuel and his colleagues losing theirs. Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who reports frequently for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now!, has spent extensive time reporting from Iraq and Yugoslavia. He is currently a Puffin Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute. He can be reached at jeremy at democracynow.org.
But Bernie, the rest of the world just wants the US to get back on track. Politics aside, the US needs to fix some problems it helped create.
Bush did take a trust me, line!
Most Americans did their patriotic thing and supported him.
Now the facts show he abused that position.
If you can't get rid of him, at least demand that he admits the error in order to warrant any further support.
We really aren't interested in the politics of GOP vs D'Crats, the Exercutive is supoposed to see the big picture and lead in administering matters of state.
But the Whitehouse shamelessy plays politics every time.
At least please recognise why no other country wants the American model.
A day can be a long time in politics! Forget who said that! or was it a week?
But 4 years can be too much. Actually I do agree the model isn't too bad, but the people have to be involved, and they really need to get this reality lag down. I was interested to see the reports today about how many people turned to the internet, including overseas news sites like the BBC for updates during Katrina.
Comments
As soon as Bush planned his trip to Japan, what happened?
An earthquake and tsunami!
I tell you this guy is bad news! :)
Watch out China!
But does a car contribute more global warming going up in a blaze or just guzzling gas throughout it's life?
I say put a carbon tax on all rioters, car bombers and pyromaniacs. That will soon stop them
Applying market forces is the answer!
Just make it too expensive so the bad guys have to find more globally firendly technologies, like a suicide pill and a goodbye note saying "I just saved 50 lives!"
Torture's Terrible Toll
By Senator John McCain
Newsweek
25 November 2005 issue
Abusive interrogation tactics produce bad intel, and undermine the values we hold dear. Why we must, as a nation, do better.
The debate over the treatment of enemy prisoners, like so much of the increasingly overcharged partisan debate over the war in Iraq and the global war against terrorists, has occasioned many unserious and unfair charges about the administration's intentions and motives. With all the many competing demands for their attention, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have remained admirably tenacious in their determination to prevent terrorists from inflicting another atrocity on the American people, whom they are sworn to protect. It is certainly fair to credit their administration's vigilance as a substantial part of the reason that we have not experienced another terrorist attack on American soil since September 11, 2001.
It is also quite fair to attribute the administration's position-that U.S. interrogators be allowed latitude in their treatment of enemy prisoners that might offend American values-to the president's and vice president's appropriate concern for acquiring actionable intelligence that could prevent attacks on our soldiers or our allies or on the American people. And it is quite unfair to assume some nefarious purpose informs their intentions. They bear the greatest responsibility for the security of American lives and interests. I understand and respect their motives just as I admire the seriousness and patriotism of their resolve. But I do, respectfully, take issue with the position that the demands of this war require us to accord a lower station to the moral imperatives that should govern our conduct in war and peace when they come in conflict with the unyielding inhumanity of our vicious enemy.
Obviously, to defeat our enemies we need intelligence, but intelligence that is reliable. We should not torture or treat inhumanely terrorists we have captured. The abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort. In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear-whether it is true or false-if he believes it will relieve his suffering. I was once physically coerced to provide my enemies with the names of the members of my flight squadron, information that had little if any value to my enemies as actionable intelligence. But I did not refuse, or repeat my insistence that I was required under the Geneva Conventions to provide my captors only with my name, rank and serial number. Instead, I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse. It seems probable to me that the terrorists we interrogate under less than humane standards of treatment are also likely to resort to deceptive answers that are perhaps less provably false than that which I once offered.
Our commitment to basic humanitarian values affects-in part-the willingness of other nations to do the same. Mistreatment of enemy prisoners endangers our own troops who might someday be held captive. While some enemies, and Al Qaeda surely, will never be bound by the principle of reciprocity, we should have concern for those Americans captured by more traditional enemies, if not in this war then in the next. Until about 1970, North Vietnam ignored its obligations not to mistreat the Americans they held prisoner, claiming that we were engaged in an unlawful war against them and thus not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. But when their abuses became widely known and incited unfavorable international attention, they substantially decreased their mistreatment of us. Again, Al Qaeda will never be influenced by international sensibilities or open to moral suasion. If ever the term "sociopath" applied to anyone, it applies to them. But I doubt they will be the last enemy America will fight, and we should not undermine today our defense of international prohibitions against torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners of war that we will need to rely on in the future.
To prevail in this war we need more than victories on the battlefield. This is a war of ideas, a struggle to advance freedom in the face of terror in places where oppressive rule has bred the malevolence that creates terrorists. Prisoner abuses exact a terrible toll on us in this war of ideas. They inevitably become public, and when they do they threaten our moral standing, and expose us to false but widely disseminated charges that democracies are no more inherently idealistic and moral than other regimes. This is an existential fight, to be sure. If they could, Islamic extremists who resort to terror would destroy us utterly. But to defeat them we must prevail in our defense of American political values as well. The mistreatment of prisoners greatly injures that effort.
The mistreatment of prisoners harms us more than our enemies. I don't think I'm naive about how terrible are the wages of war, and how terrible are the things that must be done to wage it successfully. It is an awful business, and no matter how noble the cause for which it is fought, no matter how valiant their service, many veterans spend much of their subsequent lives trying to forget not only what was done to them, but some of what had to be done by them to prevail.
I don't mourn the loss of any terrorist's life. Nor do I care if in the course of serving their ignoble cause they suffer great harm. They have pledged their lives to the intentional destruction of innocent lives, and they have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next. What I do mourn is what we lose when by official policy or official neglect we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget that best sense of ourselves, that which is our greatest strength-that we are different and better than our enemies, that we fight for an idea, not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion, but for an idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.
Now, in this war, our liberal notions are put to the test. Americans of good will, all patriots, argue about what is appropriate and necessary to combat this unconventional enemy. Those of us who feel that in this war, as in past wars, Americans should not compromise our values must answer those Americans who believe that a less rigorous application of those values is regrettably necessary to prevail over a uniquely abhorrent and dangerous enemy. Part of our disagreement is definitional. Some view more coercive interrogation tactics as something short of torture but worry that they might be subject to challenge under the "no cruel, inhumane or degrading" standard. Others, including me, believe that both the prohibition on torture and the cruel, inhumane and degrading standard must remain intact. When we relax that standard, it is nearly unavoidable that some objectionable practices will be allowed as something less than torture because they do not risk life and limb or do not cause very serious physical pain.
For instance, there has been considerable press attention to a tactic called "waterboarding," where a prisoner is restrained and blindfolded while an interrogator pours water on his face and into his mouth-causing the prisoner to believe he is being drowned. He isn't, of course; there is no intention to injure him physically. But if you gave people who have suffered abuse as prisoners a choice between a beating and a mock execution, many, including me, would choose a beating. The effects of most beatings heal. The memory of an execution will haunt someone for a very long time and damage his or her psyche in ways that may never heal. In my view, to make someone believe that you are killing him by drowning is no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank. I believe that it is torture, very exquisite torture.
Those who argue the necessity of some abuses raise an important dilemma as their most compelling rationale: the ticking-time-bomb scenario. What do we do if we capture a terrorist who we have sound reasons to believe possesses specific knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack?
In such an urgent and rare instance, an interrogator might well try extreme measures to extract information that could save lives. Should he do so, and thereby save an American city or prevent another 9/11, authorities and the public would surely take this into account when judging his actions and recognize the extremely dire situation which he confronted. But I don't believe this scenario requires us to write into law an exception to our treaty and moral obligations that would permit cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. To carve out legal exemptions to this basic principle of human rights risks opening the door to abuse as a matter of course, rather than a standard violated truly in extremis. It is far better to embrace a standard that might be violated in extraordinary circumstances than to lower our standards to accommodate a remote contingency, confusing personnel in the field and sending precisely the wrong message abroad about America's purposes and practices.
The state of Israel, no stranger to terrorist attacks, has faced this dilemma, and in 1999 the Israeli Supreme Court declared cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment illegal. "A democratic, freedom-loving society," the court wrote, "does not accept that investigators use any means for the purpose of uncovering truth. The rules pertaining to investigators are important to a democratic state. They reflect its character."
I've been asked often where did the brave men I was privileged to serve with in North Vietnam draw the strength to resist to the best of their abilities the cruelties inflicted on them by our enemies. They drew strength from their faith in each other, from their faith in God and from their faith in our country. Our enemies didn't adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them unto death. But every one of us-every single one of us-knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or approving such mistreatment of them. That faith was indispensable not only to our survival, but to our attempts to return home with honor. For without our honor, our homecoming would have had little value to us.
The enemies we fight today hold our liberal values in contempt, as they hold in contempt the international conventions that enshrine them. I know that. But we are better than them, and we are stronger for our faith. And we will prevail. It is indispensable to our success in this war that those we ask to fight it know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to their country they are never expected to forget that they are Americans, and the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should govern their own affairs and their relations with others-even our enemies.
Those who return to us and those who give their lives for us are entitled to that honor. And those of us who have given them this onerous duty are obliged by our history, and the many terrible sacrifices that have been made in our defense, to make clear to them that they need not risk their or their country's honor to prevail; that they are always-through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss-they are always, always, Americans, and different, better and stronger than those who would destroy us.
--------
McCain is the senior US senator from Arizona.
McCain is absolutely spot on.
You can't have this both ways.
You don't have to write in the exemptions. The principle must be absolutely clear, and it is to nearly every civilised person
Think about where you stand!
Spin
".... What do we do if we capture a terrorist who we have sound reasons to believe possesses specific knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack?
In such an urgent and rare instance, an interrogator might well try extreme measures to extract information that could save lives. Should he do so, and thereby save an American city or prevent another 9/11, authorities and the public would surely take this into account when judging his actions and recognize the extremely dire situation which he confronted. But I don't believe this scenario requires us to write into law an exception to our treaty and moral obligations that would permit cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment."
The United States has always maintained a level of plausible deniability for the President and Cabinet. That means that there is no paper trail. there are no memo's Everyone whould know what needs to be done in a given situation.
Torture is not to be condoned EXCEPT in those very very very rare cases where time is critical and attack is already know to be immenent from other sources. e.g. we know there is a bomb ticking ready to go off in a school in 3 hours there fore I will begin by cutting off one testicle with this pruning shear and force you to eat it... etc.
in all other cases torture is not acceptable... I think that is the loose translation.
Torture is bad. It may not get you what you want to know info wise and it leaves a bad taste in everyones mouth. It lowers us to the level of other countries armies that some here hold as heroes. Like the NVA. I am sure some here hold them in high regard but they were practioniers of some of the most brutal forms of torture and muder that we have seen in the modern world.
John Mc Cain, the folk hero/demi god to many endured many years of it. Now he is out speaking about the ills of torture. He should be listened to. He may have more info then the rest of us but I cam across this story - and if this is the exten of the "torture" that the t's are having to endure then it is lpossible being a bit overblown.
Much of what is described here is used as training by US and Brit soldiers in what is called SERE - Survival, Escape Resistance and Evasion school.
The CIA sources described a list of six "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" instituted in mid-March 2002 and used, they said, on a dozen top al Qaeda targets incarcerated in isolation at secret locations on military bases in regions from Asia to Eastern Europe. According to the sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques:
1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.
2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.
3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.
4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.
5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.
6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over
There is a balance point that must be held. We NEED to remain HUMAN even though our enemy is clearly NOT. However, intelligence drives any conflict and we - the Allies - need all the BEST intel we can to help stop new attcks not just on our own troops and assest but of INNOCENT's that the t's seem not to really care much about anymore.
Any instance of physical abuse, psychological abuse, or improper obligations, requirements, or time restrictions associated with or involving new members (commonly known as pledge/associate members) or their activities or associated with or involving any improper continuing obligation for membership. Violations described below shall therefore be understood to be incidents of hazing.
Meeting and Time Restrictions (General Program Restrictions)
All students are recognized to have academic and collegiate obligations which must not be unduly restricted or constrained. Examples of improperly restrictive time requirements include but are not limited to the following:
Any activity or requirement which is so time consuming as to significantly interfere with class work or study time. This includes but is not limited to pre-initiation and initiation periods.
Conducting any non-academic pledge/associate activity within one complete week prior to final or midterm examinations each semester.
Physical Abuse
Physical abuse is understood to be any action taken or situation created which may foreseeably cause pain, injury, or undue physical stress, or fatigue. Examples of physical abuse include but are not limited to the following:
Forced or required consumption of alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverages or substances
Forced or required consumption of spoiled foods, raw onions, goldfish, or any unpalatable foods which an individual refuses to eat
Dropping food such as eggs, grapes, liver, etc. in mouths
Tying individuals to chairs, poles, or other objects
Simulated or actual branding of individuals against their will
Causing excessive fatigue through physical or psychological shocks, such as forced participation in extreme exercise beyond normal ability
Paddling new members
Pushing, shoving, tackling, or any other kind of physical abuse not associated with events of an athletic nature
Throwing any toxic or otherwise harmful at an individual
Psychological Abuse
Psychological abuse is understood to be any action taken or situation created which may foreseeably produce embarrassment, ridicule, or harassment, or be threatening in nature. Examples of psychological abuse include but are not limited to the following:
Line-ups, any form of verbal abuse, or any other activity which serves no constructive purpose
Deception of new members prior to the ritual which is designed to convince a pledge/associate member that he will not be initiated or that he will be injured during the ritual ceremony
Any individual or group interrogations of a negative nature
Creating areas that are extremely uncomfortable due to temperature, noise, size, or air quality
Improper Requirements or Obligations
All membership requirements or obligations must in some way enhance the individual's emotional, spiritual, or intellectual development. Examples of improper requirements or obligations include but are not limited to the following:
Assigning or endorsing pranks such as panty-raids, harassing another organization, etc.
Assigning or endorsing an activity that is illegal or unlawful, that would constitute theft, burglary, or trespassing, or that would be morally objectionable to an individual
Defacing trees, grounds, buildings, or objects
Conducting quests, treasure hunts, scavenger hunts, paddle hunts, big sister hunts, or little sister hunts that include illegal activity, physical abuse, or psychological abuse.
Requiring pledge/associate members to march in formation
Carrying useless items such as coconuts, helmets, swords, burlap bags, shields, paddles, rocks, dog collars, bricks, etc.
Assigning or endorsing the wearing of apparel in public which is conspicuous and not normally in good taste
Requiring or endorsing the pledge/associate members to yell or chant when entering or leaving the chapter house
Requiring memorization of non-fraternity and non-academic related materials
Assigning or endorsing public stunts or buffoonery
Requiring or encouraging pledge/associate members to act like animals or other objects
Requiring pledge/associate members to participate in the act of flouring and/or showering other members
RESPONSIBILITIES
Any person (pledge/associate member, active member, guest, alumni/ae, university staff/faculty member) suffering or witnessing a hazing abuse has the responsibility to report the incidents to appropriate Greek Affairs officials.
The appropriate chapter officer (president, pledge/associate educator, etc.) must approve all new member-related activities prior to the event.
Membership-related activities should be kept within the properly reserved space. The activity must not interfere with the rights and activities of others, and should always reflect the best interest of the members of the chapter it represents and the university community as a whole.
All chapters which are members of the Interfraternity Council and their individual members will abide by this policy.
Chapters shall be held responsible for any action or situation in violation of this policy, whether incurred by pledge/associate, active, alumni/ae, or guest.
Any reprisal or threat of reprisal taken against a person for reporting a violation of this policy shall be considered a violation of this policy, even if the chapter is found innocent of the initial alleged charge.
Any violation of this policy shall be reported. If referred to the IFC Judicial Board, the board will have the responsibility to determine violations and shall choose from a broad array of possible sanctions those appropriate to the misconduct.
IMPLEMENTATION
The officers, principally the President of each chapter, are responsible for informing members (pledge/associate members, active members, alumni/ae, and guests) of the above policy. The policy shall be read by the President to the membership at the first chapter meeting of each semester and shall be posted in a prominent place for the members to see for no less than two weeks at the beginning of each semester.
Any individual or group who wishes to discuss with Greek Affairs officials any questionable activities which may be in violation of this policy shall have complete anonymity if so desired until or unless that individual or group decides to file formal charges.
The chapter is responsible for any group or individual activity determined to be a violation of this hazing policy. Violations may result in University, Greek Affairs, IFC and/or legal action.
In all cases of alleged violations of this policy, faculty and/or alumni advisors will be notified of the alleged violations. In addition, the international/national headquarters of any chapter found to be guilty of hazing will be notified of the alleged violations.
According to the IFC Constitution (Article VII, Section I), the judicial powers and authority of the IFC shall be vested in the Judicial Board. The Board may investigate and judge charges of members of the IFC involving the alleged infractions of University or IFC policies. The Board may also designate an investigative body which shall report back to the judicial board.
The Interfraternity Council will evaluate each case on its own individual merit.
In the event that formal written charges are brought against a chapter for violating the provisions contained herein, they shall be entitled to notice, hearing, and appeal in accordance with those rules outlined in the hearing procedures.
5 Questions to Ask to Determine if it's Hazing?
To help you determine if an act is hazing, simply ask the following questions.
Would you be in lots of trouble if a Reveille reporter were to see and report what you are doing?
Would you tell prospective members what they will go through?
Would you tell the parents of your members what you are doing?
Would you let Greek Affairs know what you are doing?
Would you let your national headquarters know what you are doing?
If you hesitate, that is telling you something!
You should be proud of all the activities you ask your new members to do. Therefore, you should not hesitate to let others know.
Remember that there is no such thing as a secret in the Greek Community. It is usually only a matter of time before what your group is doing gets out!
Finally, ethics teaches us that we should not write or say anything that we do not want repeated on the evening news or in our local papers.
Also, we should not want to do anything that we would not want video-taped and shown on the evening news.
It should be noted that I, personally enjoyed some of these things when I did them as I "pledged" under a bunch of guys who where former military...
I think that the final key point in the policy is: DON'T WRITE OR VIDEO TAPE THIS SHIT IF YOU DO IT AND DON'T TAKE PICTURES. Perhaps a lesson can be learned from this?
I know well that you have service experience and specialised training. That's fine!
What you do not seem to fully appreciate is that others, and this now goes for millions of people around the world, have enough understanding of the same subjects and of its effect on the image of America to be saying "TORTURE and ABUSE IS NOT ON".
Your comments told me nothing new. Years ago, my son underwent SERE training and enlightened me as to methods and reactions. Perhaps you didn't know it is also used outside of the US and UK. In any event the subject of torture is well documented. I don't object to tough training to prepare soldiers and agents for what they may have to endure in warfare. It is quite different when you use similar methods on prisoners. That is not training! It is also not productive of good intelligence. It degrades the whole effort for no good reason.
Now what I have a real problem with is Cheney, you, and others saying there has to be a balance point, and this point must be declared or the President can't win the war.
In reality, you are now not likely to win the war largely because you failed to set a standard where torture and abuse was completely outlawed. You lost the high ground.
I am personally offended by the double talk and affront to the intelligence of millions of informed citizens around the world by the US propaganda machine. If the average American were better informed, you wouldn't have the problems you have today, AND the administration thinks you should just solve the criticism by more propaganda.
I am also learning. Years ago, I was under the impression that "Clear Thinking" was taught in America, that respect for truth, for human life and universal rights were widely held.
Instead, opinions are given without knowledge, arguments are presented without logic, wrongs go unquestioned, legitimate questions are answered with untruths or half truths. We don't "target" civilians with white phosphorus so it's OK!
It's largely true that the American media does not cover this well. It would be very discouraging if not for the good stuff presented by some of your writers. Bernie has posted a few of these. I expect that now Murtha has spoken out, we'll see others prepared to speak up.
The open debate is long overdue.
Spin
Watch what spin you are reading. If you travel up the link channel to get to that info regarding the white phosphorus...e.g the original article you will find the following:
"There is no hard evidence that white phosphorus was used against civilians. The claim was made in a documentary broadcast on the Italian network RAI, called “Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre”. It claimed the corpses in the pictures it ran “showed strange injuries, some burnt to the bone, others with skin hanging from their flesh … The faces have literally melted away, just like other parts of the body. The clothes are strangely intact.” These assertions were supported by a human rights advocate whom, it said, possessed “a biology degree”
The video can be seen here:
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/video.asp
[Edited on 24/11/2005 by bernie]
However, to puit an end to the issue all the US had to do was say, we don't use WP if there are civilians in the area, which is the intent of the ban accepted by many countries.
Saying we don't " target" civilians gives too much leeway.
Bernie, please don't assume that I take information unquestioned. Some may, I try not to.
But I do appreciate your inputs and insights.
....and I very much look forward to that beer together!
You can bring Emmet along too if he leaves his guns at home.
Spin
Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:47:55 -0800
By Jeremy Scahill
This war cannot be stopped by a loyal opposition
The refrain of the Democrats about being misled into supporting the invasion of Iraq has become really tired. And someone other than the White House smearmongers needs to say it: The Democrats cannot be allowed to use faulty intelligence as a crutch to hold up their unforgivable support for the Iraq invasion. What is DNC Chair Howard Dean’s excuse? He wasn’t in Congress and didn’t have any access to Senate intelligence. Still, on March 9, 2003, just days before the invasion began, Dean told Tim Russert, on NBC’s Meet The Press, “I don’t want Saddam staying in power with control over those weapons of mass destruction. I want him to be disarmed.”
During the New Hampshire primary in January 2004, which I covered for Democracy Now!, I confronted Dean about that statement. I asked him on what intelligence he based that allegation. “Talks with people who were knowledgeable,” Dean told me. “Including a series of folks that work in the Clinton administration.”
A series of folks that work in the Clinton administration.
How does that jibe with the official Democratic line that they were misled by the Bush administration? Sounds like Howard Dean, head of the Democratic Party, was misled by….the Democrats. Dean’s candor offers us a rare glimpse into the painful truth of the matter. As unpopular as this is to say, when President Bush accuses the Democrats of “rewriting history” on Iraq, he is right.
None of the horrors playing out in Iraq today would be possible without the Democratic Party. And no matter how hard some party leaders try to deny it, this is their war too and will remain so until every troop is withdrawn. There is no question that the Bush administration is one of the most corrupt, violent and brutal in the history of this country but that doesn’t erase the serious responsibility the Democrats bear for the bloodletting in Iraq.
As disingenuous as the Administration’s claims that Iraq had WMDs is the flimsy claim by Democratic lawmakers that they were somehow duped into voting for the war. The fact is that Iraq posed no threat to the United States in 2003 any more than it did in 1998 when President Clinton bombed Baghdad. John Kerry and his colleagues knew that. The Democrats didn’t need false intelligence to push them into overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s regime. It was their policy; a policy made the law of the land not under George W. Bush, but under President Bill Clinton when he signed the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, formally initiating the process of regime change in Iraq.
Manipulated intelligence is but a small part of a bigger, bipartisan15-year assault on Iraq’s people. If the Democrats really want to look at how America was led into this war, they need to go back further than the current president’s inauguration.
As bloody and deadly as the occupation has been, it was Bill Clinton who refined the art of killing innocent Iraqis following the Gulf War.One of his first acts as president was to bomb Iraq, following the alleged assassination plot against George HW Bush. Clinton’s missiles killed the famed Iraqi painter Leila al Attar as they smashed into her home. Clinton presided enthusiastically over the most deadly and repressive regime of economic sanctions in history—his UN ambassadorMadeline Albright calling the reported deaths of half a million children “worth the price.” Clinton initiated the longest sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam with his illegal no-fly zone bombings, attacking Iraq once every three days for the final years of his presidency. It was under Clinton that Ahmed Chalabi was given tens of millions of dollars and made a key player in shaping Washington’s Iraq policy. It was Clinton that mercilessly attacked Iraq in December of1998, destroying dozens of Baghdad buildings and killing scores of civilians. It was Clinton that codified regime change in Iraq as U.S. policy. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq but he could not have done it without the years of groundwork laid by Clinton and the Democrats. How ironic it was recently to hear Clinton call the war “a big mistake.”
It’s easy to resist war with a president like Bush in the White House. Where were these Democrats when it was Clinton’s bombs raining down on Iraq, when it was Clinton’s economic sanctions targeting the most vulnerable? Many of them were right behind him and his deadly policies the same way they were behind Bush when he asked their consent to use force against Iraq. As the veteran Iraq activist and Nobel Prize nominee Kathy Kelly said often during the Clinton years, “It’s easy to be a vegetarian between meals.” The fact is that one of the great crimes of our times was committed by the Clinton administration withthe support of many of the politicians now attacking Bush.
Herein lies the real political crisis in this country: the Democratsare not an opposition party, nor are they an antiwar party—never were. At best, they are a loyal opposition. The Democrats ran a pro-war campaign in 2004 with Kerry struggling to convince people that Dems do occupation and war better. The current head of the DNC, Howard Dean, never met a war he didn’t adore until he realized he could exploit the energy and sincere hopes of millions of peace-loving Americans. Dean wasn’t ever antiwar. In fact, during the 2004 campaign he attacked Kerry for opposing the Gulf War while laying out his own pro-war record.
“In 1991, I supported Gulf War. I supported the first President Bush,” declared Dean. “Senator Kerry who criticizes my foreign policy, he voted against that war. I supported the Afghanistan war, because I felt it was about our national defense—3,000 of our people were killed. I supported President Clinton going into Bosnia and Kosovo.”
How can Howard Dean look people in the eye today and pretend to speak with any credibility as an antiwar voice?
When the hawkish Democrat Rep. John Murtha bravely stepped forward to call for an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq this week, he was quickly blasted by the White House and simultaneously disowned by powerful Democrats like John Kerry. Occupation lovers together again. The bloody scandal of the Iraq occupation has opened a rare and clear window into the truth about this country: there is one party represented in Washington—one that supports preemptive war and regime change. The reality is that the Democrats could stop this war if the will was there. They could shut down the Senate every day, not just for a few hours one afternoon. They could disrupt business as usual and act as though the truth were true: this war should never have happened and it must end now. The country would be behind them if they did it. But they won’t. They will hem and haw and call for more troops and throw out epic lies about the US becoming a stabilizing force in Iraq and blame the Republicans for their own complicity and enthusiasm in the 15 years of bipartisan crimes against Iraq.
All of this begs for a multiparty system in this country and thee mergence of a true opposition. The epic scale of the disaster in Iraq calls for epic lessons to be learned at home. Like the Bush White House, the Democrats have lost their credibility. They are undeserving of the blank check of “Anybody But Bush” and should never be allowed to cash it again. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who heads up the House Democrats’ election campaign, criticized Murtha’s call for immediate withdrawal, saying, “At the right time, we will have a position.” It is statements like that that should result in Emanuel and his colleagues losing theirs.
Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who reports frequently for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now!, has spent extensive time reporting from Iraq and Yugoslavia. He is currently a Puffin Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute. He can be reached at jeremy at democracynow.org.
But Bernie, the rest of the world just wants the US to get back on track. Politics aside, the US needs to fix some problems it helped create.
Bush did take a trust me, line!
Most Americans did their patriotic thing and supported him.
Now the facts show he abused that position.
If you can't get rid of him, at least demand that he admits the error in order to warrant any further support.
We really aren't interested in the politics of GOP vs D'Crats, the Exercutive is supoposed to see the big picture and lead in administering matters of state.
But the Whitehouse shamelessy plays politics every time.
At least please recognise why no other country wants the American model.
Spin
Forget who said that! or was it a week?
But 4 years can be too much.
Actually I do agree the model isn't too bad, but the people have to be involved, and they really need to get this reality lag down. I was interested to see the reports today about how many people turned to the internet, including overseas news sites like the BBC for updates during Katrina.
There is hope!
With politicians, there is one rule.
TRY to keep the bastards honest!
Spin
"don't let the bastards grind you down"