Friday, February 12, 2010

Is Our Democracy Becoming a Joke?

Published on Thursday, February 11, 2010 by CommonDreams.org

by Daphne Wysham

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce held a dramatic press conference in October. The group promised to stop lobbying against pending climate legislation, and pledged to help make it even stronger. A few minutes later, the jig was up when an authentic Chamber representative barged in, sputtering, aghast.

The Yes Men had struck again. A lawsuit ensued, with the Chamber accusing the humorous anti-corporate activists of trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false advertising.

Established a century ago, the Chamber was originally intended to help state and local business leaders advise lawmakers on how best to meet American business needs. Together with its national subsidiaries, the Chamber spent $144.5 million last year on lobbying, grassroots efforts, and advertising—often aimed at defeating health care, climate change, and financial reform legislation.

America’s most profitable corporations tend to be oil companies. Even after a steep decline in profits from the year before, Exxon Mobil earned profits totaling nearly $20 billion in 2009. Not coincidentally, the Chamber has increasingly urged skepticism on action on climate change. The Chamber’s leaders have gone so far as to equate climate legislation with “suicide bombing the American economy for the promise of green jobs in heaven.”

A handful of major companies, including Pacific Gas & Electric Corp. and Apple Inc., have left the Chamber to protest its climate change positions. The Yes Men’s stunt drew attention to the outrageous propositions the Chamber of Commerce was putting forward while bankrolling a campaign so out of step with climate science.

Many newspapers around the country are slashing reporters' budgets and growing ever more reliant on powerful interests, including oil companies. As a result, the chances a local paper will track the insidiousness of the fossil fuel industry and its handmaidens at the Chamber of Commerce are pretty remote.

Opinion polls suggest the public has been lulled back to sleep on the issue of climate change, putting it last on our list of priorities. As a result, we may see little or no U.S. action on climate change any time soon. And a recent Supreme Court decision has made that slim chance slimmer.

With a 5–4 vote, the Court ruled last month in Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission that corporations like Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and others can now spend as much money as they wish promoting political candidates.

This virtually ensures that politicians will be increasingly beholden to oil interests. We’ll soon have in place a situation where “Citizen” Exxon will be lobbying “Politician” Chevron, with no evidence of their corporate sponsorship.

So, where do we go from here? The Yes Men have tried to wake us up to this crisis of democracy—one that affects the planet’s fate. But things seem to have only gotten worse since they pulled this stunt.

Here are three suggestions on how we can disentangle the fossil-fuel lobby from our democracy:

First we’ve got to revisit what it means to be a nonprofit, and ensure that nonprofits are in fact serving public interests, not corporate interests. All nonprofits should be required to disclose their corporate sponsors. If they're primarily serving those private interests, they should lose their nonprofit status.

For example, why is it that newspapers, which provide a vital public service—informing the public on issues vital to our democracy—must appeal to the corporations to survive, but a massively profitable corporation can secretly bankroll a non-profit, like the Chamber of Commerce, and take tax write-offs for activity that’s clearly in the private interest?

Second, we must amend our Constitution to make it clear, once and for all, that corporations aren’t people and don’t have the same rights as people in upholding our democracy.

And third, we must ensure all elected offices are supported with free coverage by nonprofit media in their race for office or by free advertising in for-profit media.

The Yes Men tried to wake us up with humor. But the fate of our democracy and our planet is anything but a joke.

Distributed by Minuteman Media

Daphne Wysham is a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, a community of public scholars and organizers linking peace, justice, and the environment in the U.S. and globally. www.ips-dc.org Find out more about the Yes Men by visiting their website http://theyesmen.org

An American Way of War for the Record Books

Published on Thursday, February 11, 2010 by TomDispatch.com

by Tom Engelhardt

Once is an anomaly; twice is the beginning of a pattern.  Right now, we're seeing the same sequence of events for the second time in less than a decade, and it looks like the signature American way of war in our time is coming into focus.

In 2003, when the Bush administration invaded Iraq, the Pentagon already had on its drawing boards plans for building a series of permanent mega-bases in that country.  (They were charmingly called "enduring camps.")  Once Baghdad fell and it turned out that, Saddam Hussein or no, the U.S. was going to have to fight rather than settle in and let the good times roll, hundreds of micro-bases were added to the mega ones -- 106 of them by 2005, more than 300 in all.  Then, in 2005, Washington decided to trade in its embassy in one of Saddam's old palaces for something a little spiffier.  In its place, on a 104-acre plot by the Tigris River in the middle of Baghdad, for at least three-quarters of a billion dollars after cost overruns, it built the largest, most expensive embassy on the planet.  It was planned for a staff of 1,000 "diplomats" with all the accoutrements of the good life and plenty of hired help.  (Even now, despite much discussion about "ending" the American role in Iraq, further plans are reportedly being made for the embassy's staff to double.)  This was clearly to be U.S. mission control for the Greater Middle East.

Building of this expansive kind is, of course, a staggering imperial undertaking.  It implies a global power with resources beyond measure, for which waste means nothing.  The mega-bases and the embassy were, in that sense, American wonders of the world, our own ziggurat-equivalents in Mesopotamia, right down to the multiple PXs, familiar fast food outlets, and miniature golf.  No empire had ever launched a base-building program quite like it (if, that is, you leave out the precursor to this whole experience, the U.S. in Vietnam in the 1960s).

The Iraqi base-building project alone had already absorbed several billion taxpayer dollars in just the first half-year of construction in 2003.  But it did look like a one-of-a-kind architectural adventure -- until, that is, the "forgotten war," the one in Afghanistan, came back into view.  Starting in 2008, base building ramped up there, went into overdrive in 2009, and hasn't come out of it yet.  The result: according to Nick Turse, author of The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives, an even more staggering base-construction splurge, and with it, the announcement last year that another monster embassy would go up, this time in Pakistan's capital, Islamabad, for another cool near-billion. (The already large U.S. embassy in the Afghan capital, Kabul, would also be further expanded to the tune of $175-200 million).  And keep in mind that none of this even includes the huge ring of supporting bases for America's Afghan and Iraq operations in the Persian Gulf, South and Central Asia, and even on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

Does anyone see a pattern here?  The American military must be the heaviest occupation force in history.  According to reports, it now has 1.5 million pieces of equipment, micro to mega, to get out of Iraq as U.S. forces draw down.  This is war and occupation of Guinness World Records proportions, a veritable Ripley's Believe It Or Not of imperial military construction.  The only thing that won't make the record books, of course, is the results: in war-fighting terms, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the world's mightiest military has been battled to at least a draw by rag-tag, lightly armed, minority insurgencies.

Who would believe any of this, if it weren't happening?  Given how our media reports on such things, who would even know about it if you didn't read it first here at TomDispatch.com?

Copyright 2010 Tom Engelhardt

Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. He is the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of the Cold War and beyond, as well as of a novel, The Last Days of Publishing. He also edited The World According to TomDispatch: America in the New Age of Empire (Verso, 2008), an alternative history of the mad Bush years.

Intra Civilization Clash

By Mustafa Khan

11 February, 2010
Countercurrents.org

Bernard Lewis was the most remarkable critic of Islam for he never saw any good either in the faith or the people who live by it. It was he who had counselled George W Bush to attack Iraq because he thought that the Muslims were primitive people of barbaric practices incapable of any refinement of civilization. His hatred for the Muslim fuelled his epithet, The Clash of Civilization. Much after him Samuel Huntington developed it into an elaborate theory which the likes of Tony Blair and AB Vajpayee very eagerly bought outright.

However, as it turned out the clash of civilizations is rather intra than inter civilizations. As Attorney General Eric Holder of US said about Abdulmuttallab case : "There’s a desire to ignore the facts to try to score political points. It’s a little shocking.” This present trend in US of neo cons opposing the upholders of the civil laws and liberties is intra civilization clash. Much of the violations of human rights and collateral damages inflicted on civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan as well as the extraordinary renditions, manoeuring intelligence reports to prepare for war and water boarding are the works of Dick Cheny, George W Bush, Paul Wolfwitz, Elizabeth Cheny and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, etc. Eric Holder and Samantha Power among many others would like to turn against use of drones killing innocents or what transpired in the case of Dr Aafia Siddiqui and her two missing children.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded a plane on Christmas day 2009. He was cleared by ICTS International security agency (founded by Shin Bet, Israel's civil security agency) at Schipho airport at Amsterdam. There was no passport with him. Strangely enough he bought first class ticket. He had a bomb sewn in the underwear. The security agency could see his crotch very well in the x-ray and yet it cleared him. He tried to blow up the plane but it failed because there was no blasting cap attached to it. The initial report did not mention about the Israeli company clearing him. Nor was it revealed that the amount of explosive could hardly destroy the arm rest. By the time it came out the harm was done. His name and alleged link to al Qaeda had been the headline news around the world. The purpose behind this is clear: stereotyping him as a fanatic Muslim terrorist. This happened notwithstanding the fact that his own father had alerted CIA station chief in Nigeria about it. What was not disclosed at first was that his father was a banker who oversaw defence deal with Israeli Defence Forces personnel to train Nigerians in security. FBI said that the radical Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki had told Abdulmutallab to blow the bomb. But there is no proof that he ever went to the cleric or had any contact with him. Thus he was made to fit in the pattern of 9/11 hijackers who were trained in San Diego, New Mexico (where Awlaki was born) and Mjor Nidal Hasan who were inspired by the cleric.

In India we have the cross fertilized breed. Far too long the IB and RAW and local investigation agencies in tandem with the police had been creating false impression. Their objective was more or less communal. When the truth dawned upon some it was stunningly shocking. It is pertinent to remember what the Union home secretary Gopal Krishna Pillai said on December 9 2009 about Hindu fringe groups' involvement when bombs went off in mosques in Hyderabad, Malegaon, Delhi and elsewhere. "It took us a few years to convince the system that we need to look out, and we were able to finally lay our hands on the Colonel Purohit (of the Malegaon blasts) network," Similarly, there have been several inputs that showed that terror against India has tentacles outside Pakistan. He said some of the emails and communication linked to Indian Mujahideen had originated from the US.

Inaddition to the truth that home secretary asserted there are other dark forces represented by RSS, Shiv Sena Shri Ram Sena in India who simply refuse to accept the truth. They vehemently opposed ATS chief Hemant Karkare and hinted darkly that unless he stopped in his track he would be in grave trouble. What happened thereafter is now history. These people are like Jack and his bloody hunters in "Lord of the Flies." In contrast Karkare was like Ralph the epitome of brilliance of mind and social harmony and commitment to civil laws. Both these groups are the product of the same civilization.

Bal Thackeray, Narendra Modi and VHP were breathing down the neck of Karkare when he caught sadhvi Pragyasingh Thakur and Purohit, etc. But when Karkare was killed they totally changed their stance and started calling him a martyr. Shiv Sena and Uma Bharti even offered Purohit tickets in the election. Shiv Sena wanted to pay for the lawyer who would defend Purohit and Sadhvi. On the other hand they openly threatened lawyers of any Muslim accused of the similar crimes. In most other cases like Samjhauta express incident the police and the investigating agencies fabricated all kinds of lies to blame Muslims when it was becoming clear that Purohit and Abhinav Bharat were behind them.

The recent report of arrest of Shahzad Ahmad has again refocused attention on the pattern of lies. Now we are told that he had fired a single bullet at inspector Mohan Chand Sharma. Till his capture we were told that Atif Ameen and Sajjad had fired from their guns and that caused the death of Sharma. Even the NCHR had bought this claim and accepted it. The neighbours in Batla house have maintained that there is one exit with two doors opening on the samd place and if Shahzas and Junaid had escaped the peple should have seen them. They did not see anyone escape. The cops who rushed up at hearing the shooting would have surely met and apprehended Junaid and Shahzad. They did not apprehend them. Then reports of Shahzad attending a flying course in Banglore to mount a 9/11 in India was leaked to media by the police obviously. The phodia rose in a crescendo. The route of escape Shahzad and Junaid took is another cocktail of lies. According to Indian Express the duo went to the bust station on foot and boarded a bus to Badarpur. Then they took train to Mumbai without knowing twhere it was bound. The Times of India carries two versions. One, the two went to Aligarh by train or bus, then to Lucknow and finally to Azamgarh. Two, they went to Aligarh, then to Blundhaer, Lucknow, Khalispure, Jaipur, Jodhpur and finally to Mumbai.

The police did not make an inventory of bullets and cartridges,etc. The scene was also without any residual evidence there much like the incident of Aafia Siddiqui. In her case she was accused of assaulting eight American military officers at Bagram prison in Afghanistan. She was too feeble to lift a gun let alone snatching it from the burly soldiers and belabouring them and then shooting them. Neither the soldiers nor the site gave any trace of the shoot out on July 18 2008. The American ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson had been denying till then that Aafia was even held by the Americans. In fact she, a US citizen as well as her two children, was kidnapped from Pakistan on March 30 2003 and put through the ignominious extraordinary renditions and taken to Bagram. She was raped and tortured for five years. She wailed so loudly in the lonely nights that her cries were heard ringing in the air far and wide. The US soldiers started calling her Lady Gray of Bagram. The ambassador would arrange luxurious parties and brief the journalists the version that the army gave out. In this way falsehoold was deliberately spread.

Her wailing and agonized shrieks would remind people here how Khawaja Yunus was tortured and given water boarding punishment in Mumbai. His mother also wept and cried in the stillness of the night in Parbhani. Police Inspector Vaze disposed off the body of Yunus much the same way Vanzara had done the body of Kauserbi, wife of Sohrabuddin in Gujarat. In all such cases the forces of evil were at work, forces which would like to use the extreme extent of terrorizing their hapless victims.

To oppose such evils there are people like Karkare and of late Chidambrum who would be upright and more responsive to human rights. This kind of clash is within the homeland culture of a country.

Currently Mumbai is a witness to this. The police and intelligence agencies have never bothered about the fiefdom over which Bal Thackeray ruled like a feudal lord. On the eve of the serial bomb blasts in locals on 7/11, the Shiv Sainiks had burnt vehicles and vandalized shops and commercial establishments protesting over the alleged mud slung at the statue of Thackeray's wife. When Annad Dighe, Shiv Sena pramukh of Thane, died, the sainiks had vandalized the Singhania hospital where Mr Singhania's aeroplane was also kept. In the emergency wards of the hospital there were very serious cases in ICUs. They had a hell of a time. There was also the murder case of Ramesh Kini in which a finger of suspicion pointed at the Thackerays. To show solidarity with the victims of medieval revenge even the prime minister, VP Singh, had visited the widow of Kini. This last captures the clash between the people who let loose the law of the jungle and those who abide by the rule of law. In the countdown to the release of My Name is Khan we wait with baited breath what might the hordes shouting My Name is Thackeray would do. Would they again set upon the hapless North Indians commuting long distances for jobs, interviews, examinations, driving their taxis, etc.

Politics, War And Yes Love!

By Aakanksha Mohan Sharma

11 February, 2010

Politicians love politics. Love for politics results into conflicts. Conflicts results into wars. Violence, killings, and destruction happen in wars. There is one more thing which happens in wars- LOVE. There are many forms of love which happen in politics and wars. The first one to talk about is jingoism. Well, these are not only policy makers and men with guns at borders in the trap of this love but countless others also. Media often shows it’s over whelming “love” with policies. Media’s love for getting trapped into this love is not exceptional. Coverage of Iraq’s invasion and bombing of Afghanistan shows that the government’s capacity to overwhelm the means of communication is truly awesome. Media is at consensus with officials at the helm of affairs.

Recently, Indian media reported about an avalanche in Kashmir which killed few Indian security officials and injured few of them when it made an Army training camp its target. They covered it in details but they forgot to report about the teenagers who got killed allegedly by Indian security forces in the same week. Earlier this week Wamiq Farooq was hit by a tear gas shell in his head when police was throwing tear gas shells on the protestors. Zahid Farooq also fed to death by a gun shot when he was playing cricket. Another teenager named as Inayat khan was also killed in such incident in the same week.

Killings of these teenagers could be dramatic breaking news if these killing would have happened in some other part of the country. But it got just one minute coverage in the era of 24/7 news channels. The Kashmir’s story is a prime example in this league of state lead journalism. This is not the first time police bullets killed innocent civilians but it has been happening since an armed insurgency broke against Indian administration twenty two years ago which hardly gets any coverage in national media.

Well, everything is fair in love and war. Though there are many who do not agree with benett’s indexing hypothesis but there is a fair degree of relevance of his indexing hypothesis in defining relationship between media and policies. . According to Gregory Nokes, a former correspondent with the associated press, the administration dominates the national news agenda “about 70 percent of the time. It determines when something becomes news, and how long it stays in the news.”

Well, much of this love which brings out hatred. There is another love which happens in wars and conflicts. Love which makes moon looks bigger, birds singing when actually they are just doing their daily routine, breeze flowing in rhythms, music becomes more musical, and even stars seems like falling from a blazing sky when actually they are the meteors heading towards earth. Every thing becomes beautiful when one gets trapped into this form of love.

A real life Romeo and Juliet story happened recently in Middle East with a Palestinian- Israeli twist. The boy was from Gaza and the girl lived in the West Bank. They communicated though internet and political problems prevented them to meet each other. So, this modern day Juliet travelled through dangerous tunnels to Egypt where she met her Romeo for the first time and they went to Gaza to marry. He saw her first time covered with sand all over head to toes.

One of my Hungarian friends told me about a play which she had watched about Romeo and Juliet in Budapest. It was about an Israeli Romeo and Palestinian Juliet. This time they weren’t the families on the opposition but the religion, culture and nationalities took the place. They didn’t die in the end as in the classic Romantic epic but they regained consciousness after consuming poison. She looked at as the solution for the political problem between Israel and Palestine. She thought that even they need to regain humanism and love for each other in solving their political problems.

There was another famous play “Palestinian Romeo and Israeli Juliet produced in 1990’s which talked about love in war.

In the same league is a docu- drama, “In fair Palestine- Romeo and Juliet” acted, directed and produced by the Palestinian high school students in Ramallah. It gives a picture of life of young people in Palestine.

Even in this production by young Palestinians, the Romeo and Juliet did consume poison but didn’t die in the end. Here, Romeo does not hear of Juliet's faked death because a messenger sent to bring him the news is stopped at an Israeli checkpoint.

There is a famous real life love story with American- Iraqi twist. The American soldier left Army to wed his Iraqi love who was a doctor. So, love do happens amidst all the bombs and destruction and so do the politics happen and so the do the war.

The trailer of this docu drama produced by young Palestinians high school students is for all those who are in love with love in the month of Love…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkGSGlpwUyw

Aakanksha Mohan Sharma

MA Political Communication, University of Leeds
email id- aakanksha.pallavi@gmail.com

US Says It Has Right To Kill American Terror Suspects Abroad Without Trial

By Sherwood Ross

11 February, 2010
Countercurrents.org

Aping the assassination tactics of Josef Stalin, the U.S. has created an illegal “hit list” of Americans abroad marked for murder.

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told a House Intelligence Committee hearing February 3rd the U.S. may, with executive approval, target and kill American terrorist suspects, Inter Press News Service of Rome reported. ”We take direct action against terrorists in the intelligence community,” he said.

Blair’s statement recalls the policies of Soviet Russia’s secret police, who often murdered those who fled Stalin’s tyranny. Red Army founder Leon Trotsky, for example, was tracked to Mexico by a Soviet agent who killed him with an ice pick.

Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project, said, ”It is alarming to hear that the Obama administration is asserting that the president can authorize the assassination of Americans abroad, even if they are far from any battlefield and may have never taken up arms against the U.S., but have only been deemed to constitute an unspecified 'threat.'”

Blair's remarks followed a Washington Post article reporting President Barack Obama had embraced President George W. Bush’s policy of authorizing the killing of U.S. citizens involved in terrorist activities overseas.

The Post reported: “After the Sep. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for example, has to pose 'a continuing and imminent threat' to U.S. persons and interests.”

Attorney George Brent Mickum, an American lawyer who has defended a number of Guantanamo Bay detainees, told Inter Press, ”I guess my sense is that it's just more fear mongering. They kill somebody and don't need to offer any justification.”

”We have killed thousands of innocent civilians while attempting to target alleged operatives,” Mickum said. “And let us not forget how frequently our intelligence has been wrong about alleged operatives,” he added.

“My clients Bisher al Rawi, Jamil el-Banna, Martin Mubanga, abu Zubaydah, and Shaker Aamer all are alleged to have been operatives based on intel. In every case that intel was incorrect,” Mickum told Inter Press. “I don't have any expectation that our intel with respect to alleged American operatives is likely to be any better.”

“This extrajudicial execution of human beings constitutes a grave violation of international human rights law and, under certain circumstances, can also constitute a war crime under the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949,” said Francis Boyle, University of Illinois professor of international law at Champaign.

“In addition, the extrajudicial execution of U.S. citizens by the United States government also violates the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution mandating that no person "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Boyle said, “The U.S. Government has now established a ‘death list’ for U.S. citizens abroad akin to those established by Latin American dictatorships during their so-called ‘dirty wars.’”

He claimed President Bush “reduced the United States of America to a Banana Republic waging a ‘dirty war’ around the world in gross violation of international law, human rights law, and the laws of war. It is only a matter of time before the United States government will establish a similar ‘death list’ targeting U.S. citizens living here at home.” He added that, “As someone who used to teach Constitutional law, President Obama knows better.”

Boyle, a leading U.S. authority in international law, drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 for the U.S. He is the author of a number of books in his field, including “Destroying World Order”(Clarity).

Daphne Eviatar, an attorney with Human Rights First, told Inter Press, ”The short answer is that combatants can be targeted and civilians cannot under international law. Their citizenship isn't relevant. But just being a 'suspected terrorist' doesn't necessarily mean they're a combatant.”

She added, ”The key question, and where there may be serious disagreement, is whether the person targeted is 'directly participating in hostilities'. If not, and they're targeted, it's a war crime.”

Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Defence Committee, told Inter Press, ”As with its embrace of the [George W.] Bush approach to indefinite detention, the Obama administration's even greater reliance on targeted extra-judicial killing - including of U.S. citizens - is a tragic legal, moral, and practical mistake.”

”Even for those who accept the legitimacy of the death penalty,” Pitts continued, “this further undermines the rule of law that is our best weapon in the fight against true terrorists, while completely subverting due process and constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.”

In his testimony before the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, Blair said, ”We take direct action against terrorists in the intelligence community,” Inter Press reported. He said U.S. counterterrorism officials may try to kill U.S. citizens involved in extremist groups overseas with ”specific permission” from higher up.

In response to questions from the panel's top Republican, Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, Blair said, if ”we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.”

(Basic reporting for this article came from Inter Press News Service of Rome. Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based columnist who writes on world events. Ross formerly worked for the Chicago Daily News and wire services. Reach him at sherwoodross10@gmail.com)

Court-Martial For Soldier Who Wrote Angry Song About Stop-Loss

By Dahr Jamail

11 February, 2010
Inter Press Service

MARFA, Texas, Feb 10, 2010 (IPS) - Army Specialist and Iraq war veteran Marc Hall was incarcerated by the U.S. Army in Georgia for recording a song that expresses his anger over the Army's stop-loss policy. Now he waits to be shipped to Iraq to face a court martial.

Stop-loss is a policy that allows the Army to keep soldiers active beyond the end of their signed contracts. According to the Pentagon, more than 120,000 soldiers have been affected by stop-loss since 2001, and currently 13,000 soldiers are serving under stop-loss orders, despite public pledges by President Barack Obama to phase out the policy.

Attorney David Gespass, a member of the National Lawyers Guild and founding member of the Military Law Task Force, has been consulting on the case and will possibly represent Hall.

"It's not clear to me if he'll be tried in Kuwait or Iraq," Gaspass told IPS. "It may be a matter for the military judge to decide, once there is one."

Gespass explained he believes the Army is handling the case this way for two reasons.

"One, it will make it much more difficult to defend because it's impossible to get witnesses over to a war zone, and two, it denies Hall's right to a public trial. I think the fundamental reason is to make it more difficult for his supporters and witnesses to be there," he said. Gaspass believes the Army's position "is that that's where all the alleged victims are [Iraq], and they wanted to have the trial where their witnesses are going to be. For me, it's a lot easier for the Army to get witnesses back to the states than it is for Marc to get his witnesses to a war zone."

Hall, who is in the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, was placed in Liberty County Jail for the song, in which he angrily denounces the continuing policy that has barred him from exiting the military.

On Dec. 12, Hall was thrown in jail by his command, on the pretext that the song he had written is considered a threat, and he is facing charges under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which covers communication threats.

"The charges are connected to song lyrics allegedly written by Spc. Hall that allege deadly threats against his chain of command and fellow Soldiers, specifically shooting them," reads a statement released the by the Fort Stewart Public Affairs Office.

"I explained to [my first sergeant] that the hardcore rap song was a free expression of how people feel about the Army and its stop-loss policy," explained Hall, in response to the charges. "I explained that the song was neither a physical threat nor any threat whatsoever. I told him it was just hip-hop."

Military service members do not completely give up their rights to free speech, particularly not when they are doing so artistically while off duty, as was the case with Hall.

The military is claiming that he "communicated a threat" with his song. Hall mailed a copy of the song to the Pentagon after the Army unilaterally extended his contract for a second Iraq deployment.

The Army's latest decision to deploy Hall to Kuwait is an unusual twist in a case that has already attracted widespread criticism from GI rights lawyers. Once in Kuwait, Hall will be driven into Iraq to meet up with his is old unit, and placed in confinement and court martialed there.

Kevin Larson of the Fort Stewart Public Affairs Office says the trial will be held in Iraq because that is where important witnesses are.

"It makes sense from the standpoint of witnesses. Most of the witnesses are deployed," he said.

Jim Klimanski, a civilian military lawyer and member of the National Lawyers Guild and the Military Law Task Force, told IPS that he feels the military is overreacting to the case, and that it is simply a matter of free speech and that the Army's actions violate Hall's First Amendment right to free speech.

"It's a political case, and the military should know that," Klimanski explained. "I think they are overreaching and overreacting because of Maj. Hassan (who went on a shooting spree at Fort Hood on Nov. 5), and I can understand that to some degree, but cooler heads should prevail and they should deal with stop-loss, and maybe we'll get the case thrown out."

IPS obtained a redacted copy of the Army's Charge Sheet against Hall, filed by Marcus Seiser, which includes five charges. On the sheet, Hall is accused of telling someone he would "go on a rampage," that "the song makes threats of acts of violence," and that Hall is accused "of planning on shooting the brigade or battalion commanders."

Jeff Paterson, the director of the soldier advocacy group Courage to Resist, which is assisting Hall, told IPS, "Marc's case is unique in that the military hasn't shown a propensity to go after these political speech cases for several years. We think this is an important case because it could set precedent for free speech rights for those in the military."

Klimanski, along with underscoring the importance of the case for the First Amendment, thinks the case highlights the military's ongoing use of stop-loss, which also contributes to how they have responded to Hall's song.

"It's a song, and he puts it out to the public," Klimanski told IPS. "We're not talking about a Major Hassan who is quietly plotting violence ... this is political hyperbole. This is his rant on stop-loss. It's political speech."

"He's over there saying I have no control over my life," Klimanski added, "I could be in here forever. We're talking about a war that could go on forever. So poor old Marc Hall could possibility be in the military forever. I see this as an issue of political speech. The military may not like what they're hearing, but that's what it is. There are people in the military saying their being in it is/was wrong, and they want out."

"They are sending him to Iraq just to punish him," Klimaski believes. "Not that they need to do that to conduct a court martial. They are trying to find any which way to inflict punishment on Marc."

Hall's supporters also say that it is highly unlikely that his current military lawyer will be available to deploy at a moment's notice.

"He will get a new military lawyer who is probably very busy and won't have time to build a proper defence," said Klimaski, "They are trying to stack the deck. It is illegal to ship him to Iraq or Kuwait, but who is going to contest it? You would have to go to Iraq to contest it. They know that they are not going to have a civilian lawyer out there. They are just trying to punish him without due process."

At the time of this writing, Hall was awaiting his being shipped to the Middle East, which could happen any time.

Guantanamo Detainee Deaths: Responding To The Defense Department's Whitewash

By Stephen Lendman

11 February, 2010

On December 7, 2009, under the direction of Professor Mark Denbeaux, Seton Hall University School of Law's Center for Policy & Research (CP&R) published its 15th GITMO report titled, "Death in Camp Delta," covering three simultaneous deaths on June 9, 2006 in the maximum security Alpha Block. The detainees were found hanged in separate cells shortly after midnight on June 10, unobserved for at least two hours, rags stuffed down their throats, despite constant surveillance by five guards responsible for 28 inmates in a lit cell block monitored by video cameras. One of them was scheduled for release in 19 days, so why would he commit suicide?

The report found "dramatic flaws in the government's investigation (and) raise(s) serious questions about the security of the Camp (and) derelictions of duty by officials of multiple defense and intelligence agencies," who either let them die or killed them, then whitewashed the investigation to suppress it.

DOD responded, adding to the coverup, CP&R saying:

"The Center has found DOD's defense contradictory to, and inconsistent with, DOD's prior statement in its Naval Criminal Investigative Services (NCIS) report."

According to Professor Mark Denbeaux:

"Amazingly, some of DOD's statements purporting to defend the NCIS investigation actually impeach it; others are irrelevant or misdirected. The inflated number of statements supposedly supporting the NCIS Report are not as important as the statements omitted from the NCIS Report."

CP&R's 16th GITMO Report responded to DOD's thinly veiled defense titled, "DOD Contradicts DOD: An Analysis of the Response to Death in Camp Delta."

While confirming some of CP&R's criticisms, DOD also "contradict(ed) factual claims in its own investigation, raising new questions as to whether the DOD can be trusted to investigate its own conduct." The Center found:

-- DOD now says one detainee had a rag in his throat; the NCIS investigation showed all three had them;

-- DOD claims over 100 interviews were conducted during the first three days of investigation; in fact, 24 were conducted on June 10 and none the next three days; at most, investigators interviewed 45 individuals in total; in addition, NCIS investigators concluded that testimonies from all on-duty guards on the night of the incident were false, yet their statements are missing; further, most of them either refute or don't corroborate NCIS findings;

-- NCIS had a videotape record of events; DOD said nothing on it contained substantive evidence, an implausible claim as everything is recorded on it; and

-- DOD now says the lights were dimmed when detainees hanged themselves; Admiral Harry Harris said they were on.

In its December report, CP&R asked key unanswered questions, including:

-- the time and exact means of death;

-- how the dead men braided a noose using torn up sheets and/or clothing unobserved and made mannequins of themselves to look like asleep bodies in bed;

-- hung sheets to obstruct viewing into their cells;

-- stuffed rags down their throats to choke;

-- tied their hands and feet together;

-- hung the noose from the metal mesh of the cell wall or ceiling;

-- climbed on a sink, placed the noose around their necks, released their weight, and were strangled; and

-- did all this unobserved for two or more hours.

Yassar Talal Al Zahrani, Mani Shaman Turki Al Habardi Al Tabi, and Ali Abdullah Ahmed were the victims, called suicides by the military within hours as investigations were beginning. Over two years later they were released under court order. Heavily redacted, they were called a coordinated suicide, acts of "asymmetrical warfare" against America.

CP&R findings disagreed, said the investigation was "severely flawed" and the conclusions not supported by the evidence. Seven weeks after the Center's report, a DOD statement referred to "factual errors" in it. Yet their "assertions are as flawed as the infirm investigation they seek to defend."

Troublesome are contradictory statements, the number of interviews conducted, conflicting timelines, factual contradictions, "and a general sense of disarray," suggesting coverup. Sworn statements are required from everyone involved. Only partial ones were gotten, excluded from the NCIS report. Many are third-person summaries. Some suggest witnesses were manipulated to corroborate others. In sum, their statements leave many questions unanswered and contradict DOD's conclusions.

"The initial investigation into the deaths of three detainees on June 9, 2006, was flawed, the DOD's response is flawed, and a new investigation is necessary to find out what really happened that night."

Contradictory DOD and NCIS Statements

DOD Statement: "NCIS special agents who investigated this case found no evidence to suggest that the three detainees died by means other than suicide."

NCIS considered no other way. Contrary indications were ignored, including not interviewing Tower Guards able to look directly into cells to monitor all movement throughout the facility. Several now contradict the official NCIS account. At least four witnesses have different views of what happened. Why weren't they interviewed? Why were statements given of questionable value? How can they be considered trustworthy? The "suspect statements are nowhere to be found in the investigative file." Leaving them out suggests whitewash.

Colonel Bumgarner's (Camp Delta Joint Detention Group commander) is much like others - a supposed 11-page sworn statement, but he said it's "this page and two other pages." It has corrections, changes, and redactions "after nearly every paragraph."

Physical evidence suggesting murder isn't considered. Ahmed had a broken hyoid bone, "a distinct sign of manual strangulation." In suicidal hangings, neck injuries are rare. "This suggests that Ahmed at the least may have died by means other than suicide." Seven days after the incident, Colonel Bumgarner said in an official statement: "I was still not sure now it had happened."

DOD Statement: "On the contrary, it was clear from interviews and forensic evidence that these detainees wanted to end their lives and methodically took steps to accomplish that goal."

No evidence suggests it, including their state of mind. Colonel Bumgarner's official statement says: "Two of the three had been cleared by Behavioral Health Services just the week prior (to their deaths) and were noted to be in good spirits."

According to NCIS, the supposed evidence of intent was an unnamed detainee saying on the night of the incident - "tonight's the night." Yet nothing confirms it, and if it was known, why wasn't security tightened? The alleged detainee wasn't interviewed, and 21 others had no knowledge of planned suicides. Many, in fact, said they would have alerted camp personnel had they known.

In addition, no evidence corroborates a coordinated event or the ability of detainees to communicate. They're prohibited from conversing, being together in the same place at the same time, passing notes or anything between cells.

Alleged suicide notes on detainee bodies and in their cells had similar, ambiguous wording expressing no explicit intent to commit suicide. None, in fact, indicate a collaborative effort.

DOD Statement: "To hang themselves, they did not need to jump off the sinks as suggested by the author, but only had to apply the necessary pressure to the neck to cut off blood flow."

This contradicts the NCIS's report including sworn eyewitness statements saying, "It appeared to me that (they) climbed onto the sink and tied (themselves) off and then jumped from the sink." Each was found fully suspended close to their sinks, their feet not touching the floor.

CP&R "consistently maintain(s that) the three detainees did not necessarily die in the manner concluded by the DOD's investigators, and that the evidence in the NCIS file does not support the government's conclusions."

DOD Statement: "The knots, which bound their hands (and in one case, the decedent's feet), were not elaborate, but were indeed possible to make by each of the detainees who died."

The knots are irrelevant, the materials another matter. Specifically, the noose was braided from "bed sheets and tee shirts," then tied to the upper wall's mesh and wrapped multiple times around each detainee's neck. In addition, autopsy reports indicated their necks had deep furrows and abrasions, described as "intricate weave-type patterns." Masks also covered their faces, and they were gagged, no doubt to silence them. Further, they have no implements to cut fabrics, and limited amounts, yet Al Zahrani allegedly used a blanket, three sheets, and the braided noose. Inside his cell were a wash cloth, a white color cloth, clothes, a blanket, a rug, and multiple non-fabric items.

It's suspicious "how so many impermissible items were kept in their cells" or how guards could have been so derelict to allow it.

Neither the original NCIS report or DOD response explains how three detainees, under constant surveillance, managed to:

"1. Procure enough material to cover significant areas of their cells

2. Intricately weave fabric bindings

3. Repeatedly knot the bindings

4. Tie the binding material at a point in the cell high enough so that each detainee would be able to suspend fully without their feet touching the ground

5. Wrap the binding around their necks several times

6. Create knots to bind their limbs and torso

7. Gag themselves

8. And somehow hang to death while fully suspended (in plain sight under constant surveillance) without discovery by the guard force" for at least two hours.

Yet camp commander Admiral Harris said guards couldn't have prevented the "suicides." In polite terms, his explanation and DOD's are implausible. More to the point, they're ball-faced lies.

DOD Statement: "In addition, a short written statement declaring their intent to be martyrs was found in the pockets of the detainees. Lengthier written death declarations were also found."

Only two of the longer ones were apparently written by the detainees. In Arabic, they were accompanied by English translations, indicating the translator's interpretation. Key though is most comments suggest no intent to commit suicide. They may have reflected Islamic religious writing, expressions of oppression, or other emotions.

In addition, no collaborative conspiracy is hinted - no meetings, plans or any coordination. "Whether or not the written notes in question are suicide notes, their translations provide no evidence of a conspiracy between the three dead men."

DOD Statement: "The rulings of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), which determined the cause and manner of death, were wholly consistent with the NCIS investigative findings."

Inconsistencies, in fact, abound between DOD and NCIS accounts. "Most importantly, the autopsy reports conclude that each detainee was dead for hours before being found....NCIS does not mention this fact in its investigative findings."

It said all three had rags or cloths in their throats. Only Ahmed's autopsy report mentions them. Also, only Al Tabi's autopsy reveals no internal neck hemorrhaging. NCIS claimed all three men died the same way.

When found, they were in rigor mortis, beyond resuscitation. Yet, the autopsy says they were given invasive treatment, using oral-gastric tubes, orally placed endotracheal tubes, intravenous catheters with attached urinary bladder bags, electrocardiogram pads, and defibrillator pads. They also had puncture marks on their arms and hands, and the pathology rulings and NCIS investigation are in sync with the predetermined conclusion.

In addition, NCIS agents witnessed the autopsies, suggesting a collaborative effort for consistency, "two arms of the same investigation....start(ing) with the predetermined conclusion of suicide."

DOD Statement: "Regarding rags found in the mouth, there was only one rag lodged down the throat of one of the detainees."

The NCIS investigation contradicts this. Sworn statements said the three men had rags in their throats or mouths and throats. The unredacted evidence "demonstrates beyond a doubt that all three of the detainees had some form of cloth in their mouth, throat, or" both. "DOD's contention is in direct contradiction with its own investigation."

DOD Statement: "Rather than being 'proof' of homicide, this was due to the detainee himself positioning the rag in his mouth in order not to make any noise so as to alert the guards. The rag was inhaled as a natural reaction to death by asphyxiation."

CP&R didn't say rags proved homicide. It criticized NCIS because the investigation never addressed why they were there, that immediately should have raised suspicions. No evidence suggested they were to prevent noise, and investigators didn't address whether inhaling them is a natural reaction to death by asphyxiation, especially when it occurs by hanging. It's also unclear how inhaling a rag or cloth is possible with a noose cutting off all air.

DOD Statement: "Blankets and sheets had been used to obstruct the guards' views and to create the appearance that the detainees were asleep in the cells. During its investigation, NCIS discovered that detainees were allowed to hang sheets for privacy;...."

Obstructing cell views with blankets and/or sheets would have required detainees to violate standard procedures (SOPs), stating:

"Blankets or sheets may be temporarily hung up, no higher than half way up the cell walls, to provide privacy while using the toilet (or to dry). Once the detainee has completed using the toilet, the blankets and sheets must be taken down." In other words, they may only stay up for minutes, not hours, and not extend from ceiling to floor. Doing so constitutes "a grievous breach of SOPs...."

DOD Statement: "....(T)hey were allowed to have extra linens and/or blankets;...."

True for good behavior, but two of the deceased ended hunger strikes days before their deaths. It's unlikely they were rewarded, so "raises serious questions." Further, after the May 18 riots, Camp 1 was on lockdown, the guards and officers on high alert and not about to hand out favors.

DOD Statement: "....(S)ome of the lights in the detention facility were dimmed at night to permit better sleep. This explains how the detainees were able to obscure their actions and why the guards did not discover the deceased detainees right away."

Whether or not true, it contradicted Admiral Harris saying:

Based on the pathologist's estimated time of death, (I)f a couple of hours was more than two and a half hours, then the detainees hanged themselves while the tier was fully illuminated."

Procedures up to June 9, 2006 were to shut overhead lights on one side of the tier (half of them) at 10:00PM. Camp 1 has none inside cells. They're on the ceiling and shine into cells. Unredacted materials don't say which side stayed on. No matter, as guards had to maintain a continuous presence on the block, check detainees every 10 minutes, and their skin or movement at least every three hours. Following procedures made it impossible to miss seeing three men hanging for hours.

DOD Statement: "All available video footage was reviewed by NCIS, and nothing of evidentiary value was discovered."

"Available" leaves much unexplained, including whether key evidence was recorded, despite numerous on-site cameras showing guards removing detainees from cells; taking them through prison hallways; carrying them to the clinic; seeking help, coordinating medical support, and having other cells checked; besides taping three successful suicides.

It's implausible that cameras failed to notice. NCIS got videotapes on or about June 13, 2006, but no evidence shows they were reviewed. However, Rear Admiral Mark Buzby stated that Guantanamo hallway and common area video monitoring is standard practice.

The NCIC report includes a guard saying clinic videotaping began but was ordered stopped even though it's generally required - always during self-harm attempts, completions of serious incident reports, and whenever IRF (Immediate Reaction Force) teams are used.

DOD Statement: "NCIS conducted over 100 interviews during the first three days of the investigation, including interviews with all the guards who worked in the cellblock that day and all the detainees who were housed there. None of those interviewed told of any detainees being taken away or alleged homicide."

At most, 45 total interviews (excluding detainees) were conducted, and most had no first-hand knowledge of the events. During the crucial first three days, only 24 people were interviewed, but none gave first-person statements. On June 14, NCIS began collecting them, days after the deaths.

Statements from the six on-duty guards were most relevant, yet NCIS suspected their reliability and excluded them from their investigation. A select group of others were also, including from one Sally port guard, responsible for controlling access to all persons entering and exiting the camp.

Inexplicably, no tower guards were interviewed, even though they could look directly into cells and monitor all movement in the facility. In addition, only one day-shift guard was interviewed, although four were on duty that day and might have seen suspicious behavior.

DOD Statement: "AFIP sent a senior medical examiner to Guantanamo to perform the autopsies. In addition, an independent, state-level, senior medical examiner flew to Guantanamo to observe the autopsies, standard operating procedure for AFIP in high profile cases."

Five people witnessed them, likely the same ones in each case. However, medical examiner names were redacted. The AFIP one "conclude(d) that detainees Al Tabi and Ahmed were deceased for 'at least a couple of hours prior to the discovery.' " NCIS excludes this from its report.

DOD Statement: "All the materials released to date have been highly redacted. While Seton Hall students may have done the best they could with what they had, the fact is they only had available to them a small fraction of the reports."

Redacted material contained many contradictions and unusual events "that cannot be redressed through additional information."

DOD Statement: "The bodies were thoroughly examined for signs of torture. None was found."

Autopsy reports and the NCIS statement of findings said nothing about torture. "None of the statements in the investigation file mentions torture." The investigation only tried to determine if all deaths were suicides and began with that "predetermined conclusion."

DOD Statement: " A thorough, years-long investigation by NCIS concluded unequivocally that the detainees' deaths were the result of suicide. In addition, the Justice Department took this matter very seriously and a number of experienced department attorneys and agents extensively and thoroughly reviewed the allegations and found no evidence of wrongdoing."

The investigation was a whitewash. Admiral Harris signed off on his assessment on September, 6, 2006, less than 90 days after the deaths. NCIS looked no further. "This investigation was far from 'years-long;' indeed, it can barely be described as 'months-long.' " Its brevity weakens DOD's claim of thoroughness, and questions the overall investigatory seriousness.

Disturbingly, suicides were announced before autopsies occurred, and Admiral Harris claimed "(t)hey hung themselves with fabricated nooses made out of clothes and bed sheets," contradicting the same day press releases saying the manner of death was under investigation.

While not a formal DOD response, Colonel Bumgarner told AP:

"This blatant misrepresentation of the truth infuriates me. I don't know who Sgt. Hickman is, but he is only trying to be a spotlight ranger. He knows nothing about what transpired in Camp 1, or our medical facility. I do, I was there."

Apparently, he never got a clearance, as he said nothing further. Yet this statement alone questions NCIS's credibility. CP&R's report said he knew what went on because he was there. Yet his sworn statement to NCIS investigators said he spent the evening with Admiral Harris. At 00:48 June 10, the DOC called him after he returned home, and he immediately drove to the DET Clinic, following the ambulance into the Camp. Before leaving, however, he called Admiral Harris, telling him a suicide attempt occurred. The other deaths were then confirmed. He didn't know how, but noticed indentations on two detainees' necks. At 1:17AM, he reported the deaths, over 30 minutes before it was official at 1:50AM.

Final Comments

For years, Republican and Democrat administrations eroded constitutional freedoms and the rule of law, using the courts for hardline enforcement, especially since the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effect Death Penalty Act. It eased surveillance restrictions, included draconian death penalty and habeas-stripping provisions, and smoothed passage of the 2001 Patriot Act and other repressive measures, including authorizing torture as official US policy.

The Bush administration issued a blizzard of Executive Orders, National and Homeland Security Presidential Directives, memos, memoranda, findings, and other official documents authorizing secret detentions, extraordinary renditions, assassinations, military commissions, and torture, even though these practices are prohibited under US and international laws.

A smoking-gun February 7, 2002 Order titled "Humane Treatment of al-Qaeda and Taliban Detainees" stated "none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al-Qaeda (or Taliban) detainees in Afghanistan 'or elsewhere throughout the world....' " It meant "terrorist" detainees have no rights. They can be imprisoned, held indefinitely, tried in military commissions (with no right of appeal), tortured and executed.

Other documents authorized anything in the "war on terror," including supreme presidential power.

A March 14, 2003 memo titled "Military Interrogation of Alien Unlawful Combatants Held Outside the United States" became known as "the Torture Memo" because it swept away all legal restraints and authorized military interrogators to use extreme measures amounting to torture. It also let the president as commander-in-chief use "the fullest range of power....to protect the nation." (He) "enjoys complete discretion in the exercise of his authority in conducting operations against hostile forces." It gave him life or death power over anyone called an unlawful combatant, including US citizens.

International law expert Francis Boyle denounced the designation, calling it a:

"quasi-category (of) legal nihilism where human beings (including US citizens) can be disappeared, detained incommunicado, denied access to attorneys and regular courts, tried by kangaroo courts, executed, tortured, assassinated and subjected to numerous other manifestations of State Terrorism" on the pretext of protecting national security.

What George Bush began, Obama continues, including at Guantanamo, despite issuing January Executive Orders banning torture, ordering the facility closed, and directing the CIA to shut its secret prison network.

That was then. This is now. Political persecutions, extraordinary renditions, secret detentions, kangaroo court justice, and torture remain official US policy as part of the administration's permanent war agenda and continued "war on terror," renamed the "Overseas Contingency Operation."

Defiled is Abraham Lincoln's Lieber Code on humane and responsible behavior toward combatants and civilians in times of war. Also the Hague and Geneva Conventions, Geneva's Common Article 3, Nuremberg Principles, UN Charter, UN Convention Against Torture, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, US Army Field Manual 27-10, US War Crimes Act and Torture Statute, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and other laws pertaining to crimes of war, against humanity, and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

As a result, anyone, anywhere may be abducted, secretly imprisoned, tortured, and murdered in cold blood, the apparent fate of the three Guantanamo detainees CP&R addressed in its 15th and 16th GITMO reports.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to the Lendman News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.