More Than Half of Guantanamo Detainees Not Accused of Hostile Acts
WASHINGTON – More than half of the terror suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay have not been accused of committing hostile acts against the United States or its allies, two of the detainees' lawyers said in a report released Tuesday.
Compiled from declassified Defense Department evaluations of the more than 500 detainees at the Cuba facility, the report says just 8 percent are listed as fighters for a terrorist group, while 30 percent are considered members of a terrorist group and the remaining 60 percent were just “associated with” terrorists.
The evaluations were completed as part of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals conducted during 2004 to determine if the prisoners were being correctly held as enemy combatants. So far just 10 of the detainees have been formally charged with crimes and are headed for military tribunals.
According to the report, 55 percent of the detainees are informally accused of committing a hostile act. But the descriptions of their actions ranged from a high-ranking Taliban member who tortured and killed Afghan natives to people who possessed rifles, used a guest house or wore olive drab clothing.
The report also found that about one-third of the detainees were linked to al-Qaeda; 22 percent to the Taliban; 28 percent to both; and 7 percent to either one or the other, but not specified.
“The government has detained these individuals for more than four years, without a trial or judicial hearing, and has had unfettered access to each detainee for that time,” said the report, written by lawyers who represent two of the detainees. The lawyers – Mark Denbeaux, a law professor at Seton Hall University in New Jersey, and Joshua Denbeaux – were assisted by Seton Hall law students.
A Pentagon spokesman had no comment on the report.
The documents, which are publicly available, were declassified versions of evaluations that contain additional information about each detainee. Those additional details were not made public.
The Associated Press has filed a lawsuit seeking the release of the classified versions of the documents.
Of the approximately 760 prisoners brought to Guantanamo since 2002, the military has released 180 and transferred 76 to the custody of other countries.
On the Net:
Defense Department documents: www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/index.html
Seton Hall study: law.shu.edu/
10.2.06
Bush Crimes Commission
Bush Commission
"When the possibility of far-reaching war crimes and crimes against humanity exists, people of conscience have a solemn responsibility to inquire into the nature and scope of these acts and to determine if they do in fact rise to the level of war crimes " from the Charter
International Commission of Inquiry On Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration --Preliminary Findings Released
Cover Letter [pdf] - Preliminary Findings [pdf]
Also on February 2, activist Heather Hurwitz interrupts Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at Press Club luncheon to announce he has been convicted as a war criminal.
For coverage, see Democracy Now!
Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, former commander of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq testifies on how the abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody originated at the highest levels.
Opening remarks by Michael Ratner
Opening remarks by Harry Belafonte
text of indictments
Participants included Harry Belefonte, Dr. Alan Berkman, Vanessa Brocato, Marjorie Cohn, Naina Dhingra, King Downing, Lindsey German, Ted Glick, Dahr Jamail, Janis Karpinski, C. Clark Kissinger, Chokwe Lumumba, Ray McGovern, Craig Murray, Barbara Olshansky, Michael Ratner, Scott Ritter, Jeremy Scahill, Ida Susser, David Swanson, Emma Lofton Woods, Beverly Wright, Daphne Wysham, and many others.
Click here to access audio files
Initiated by the Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience and endorsed by:
Center for Constitutional Rights, National Lawyers Guild, After Downing Street.Org and many others (see Charter)
Highlights from the 1st Session Oct, 2005
Watch 14 minutes highlights (QuickTime format)
Watch 14 minutes highlights (RealAudio format)
More about the Session 1
"When the possibility of far-reaching war crimes and crimes against humanity exists, people of conscience have a solemn responsibility to inquire into the nature and scope of these acts and to determine if they do in fact rise to the level of war crimes " from the Charter
International Commission of Inquiry On Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration --Preliminary Findings Released
Cover Letter [pdf] - Preliminary Findings [pdf]
Also on February 2, activist Heather Hurwitz interrupts Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at Press Club luncheon to announce he has been convicted as a war criminal.
For coverage, see Democracy Now!
Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, former commander of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq testifies on how the abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody originated at the highest levels.
Opening remarks by Michael Ratner
Opening remarks by Harry Belafonte
text of indictments
Participants included Harry Belefonte, Dr. Alan Berkman, Vanessa Brocato, Marjorie Cohn, Naina Dhingra, King Downing, Lindsey German, Ted Glick, Dahr Jamail, Janis Karpinski, C. Clark Kissinger, Chokwe Lumumba, Ray McGovern, Craig Murray, Barbara Olshansky, Michael Ratner, Scott Ritter, Jeremy Scahill, Ida Susser, David Swanson, Emma Lofton Woods, Beverly Wright, Daphne Wysham, and many others.
Click here to access audio files
Initiated by the Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience and endorsed by:
Center for Constitutional Rights, National Lawyers Guild, After Downing Street.Org and many others (see Charter)
Highlights from the 1st Session Oct, 2005
Watch 14 minutes highlights (QuickTime format)
Watch 14 minutes highlights (RealAudio format)
More about the Session 1
9.2.06
Videos Amplify Picture of Violence ,Video and Audio from washingtonpost.com
Videos Amplify Picture of Violence ,Video and Audio from washingtonpost.com
Editor's Note: Images in this video may be disturbing because of their violent or graphic nature.The edited video excerpt is from a collection of short digital video files obtained by The Washington Post. The videos appear to show U.S. soldiers abusing detainees last fall in Abu Ghraib prison.
In this video, soldiers are shown apparently attempting to arrange a human pyramid with naked Iraqi prisoners -- a scene similar to those also shown in previously obtained photographs.
The video, which was originally recorded sideways, has been edited to display vertically here and certain body parts have been obscured. The brightness of the video, which appeared to have been recorded in low light, was increased as well. Click here to view video.
• New Abu Ghraib Prison Photos • Previous Abu Ghraib Photos • Related Story
This makes me sick, and very happy I left the Military January 2002.
I would have shot the abusers. (American Military)
Editor's Note: Images in this video may be disturbing because of their violent or graphic nature.The edited video excerpt is from a collection of short digital video files obtained by The Washington Post. The videos appear to show U.S. soldiers abusing detainees last fall in Abu Ghraib prison.
In this video, soldiers are shown apparently attempting to arrange a human pyramid with naked Iraqi prisoners -- a scene similar to those also shown in previously obtained photographs.
The video, which was originally recorded sideways, has been edited to display vertically here and certain body parts have been obscured. The brightness of the video, which appeared to have been recorded in low light, was increased as well. Click here to view video.
• New Abu Ghraib Prison Photos • Previous Abu Ghraib Photos • Related Story
This makes me sick, and very happy I left the Military January 2002.
I would have shot the abusers. (American Military)
Women Say No To War
Anwar Kadhim Jawad, her husband and their four children were driving down the road from their house in Baghdad one day when they were suddenly caught in a hail of bullets from US soldiers. There was no checkpoint, no warning before their car was attacked. Anwar's husband, son and two daughters were shot dead.
Only Anwar, who was pregnant at the time, and her 14-year-old daughter, survived. The military gave Anwar $11,000 for her devastating loss, but Anwar wants more: She wants the foreign troops to leave her country.
On March 8, International Women's Day, Anwar will come to Washington DC with a delegation of Iraqi mothers, where they will be joined by grieving U.S. mothers like Cindy Sheehan. Together they will deliver our "Women Say No to War" signatures to the White House, meet with members of Congress, release a report on the impact of this war on Iraqi women, and call for the U.S. troops to leave Iraq.
Only Anwar, who was pregnant at the time, and her 14-year-old daughter, survived. The military gave Anwar $11,000 for her devastating loss, but Anwar wants more: She wants the foreign troops to leave her country.
On March 8, International Women's Day, Anwar will come to Washington DC with a delegation of Iraqi mothers, where they will be joined by grieving U.S. mothers like Cindy Sheehan. Together they will deliver our "Women Say No to War" signatures to the White House, meet with members of Congress, release a report on the impact of this war on Iraqi women, and call for the U.S. troops to leave Iraq.
8.2.06
ABC News: Soldier Says He Was Charged for Armor
ABC News: Soldier Says He Was Charged for Armor:
"CHARLESTON, W.Va. Feb 8, 2006 (AP)— A former U.S. soldier injured in Iraq says he was forced to pay $700 for a blood-soaked Kevlar vest that was destroyed after medics removed it to treat shrapnel wounds to his right arm.
First Lt. William 'Eddie' Rebrook IV, 25, of Charleston had to leave the Army because of his injuries. But before he could be discharged last week, he had to scrounge up cash from his buddies to pay for the body armor or face not being discharged for months all because a supply officer failed to document that the vest had been destroyed more than a year ago as a biohazard.
'I last saw the (body armor) when it was pulled off my bleeding body while I was being evacuated in a helicopter,' Rebrook told The Charleston Gazette for Tuesday's edition. 'They took it off me and burned it.'
Rebrook's story spurred action Tuesday from U.S. Sens. Robert C. Byrd and Jay Rockefeller, both D-W.Va. 'I've been in touch with his family, and I've already written (Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld) to request that they immediately refund his money and review this horrendous policy,' said Rockefeller, who is a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. 'I'm shocked that he has been treated this way by our military.'
Byrd questioned Gen. Peter Schoomaker, chief of staff of the Army, on Tuesday during a Senate Armed Services Committee budget hearing in Washington.
'How can it be that the Defense Department, which is requesting $439 billion in this budget, has to resort to dunning a wounded soldier for $700 to replace a piece of body armor?' Byrd asked.
Schoomaker called Rebrook's story unusual and promised Byrd to "correct it if there's any truth to it."
Rockefeller said he first met Rebrook when he was an ROTC cadet at George Washington High School in Charleston and later nominated him to the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., where he graduated with honors. Rebrook then spent four years on active duty, including six months in Iraq.
Rebrook's mother, Beckie Drumheler, said she was angry when she learned about the $700 bill.
Soldiers who serve their country, those who put their lives on the line, deserve better, she said. BU*SH*IT
Continued1. 2. 3. NEXT»
"CHARLESTON, W.Va. Feb 8, 2006 (AP)— A former U.S. soldier injured in Iraq says he was forced to pay $700 for a blood-soaked Kevlar vest that was destroyed after medics removed it to treat shrapnel wounds to his right arm.
First Lt. William 'Eddie' Rebrook IV, 25, of Charleston had to leave the Army because of his injuries. But before he could be discharged last week, he had to scrounge up cash from his buddies to pay for the body armor or face not being discharged for months all because a supply officer failed to document that the vest had been destroyed more than a year ago as a biohazard.
'I last saw the (body armor) when it was pulled off my bleeding body while I was being evacuated in a helicopter,' Rebrook told The Charleston Gazette for Tuesday's edition. 'They took it off me and burned it.'
Rebrook's story spurred action Tuesday from U.S. Sens. Robert C. Byrd and Jay Rockefeller, both D-W.Va. 'I've been in touch with his family, and I've already written (Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld) to request that they immediately refund his money and review this horrendous policy,' said Rockefeller, who is a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. 'I'm shocked that he has been treated this way by our military.'
Byrd questioned Gen. Peter Schoomaker, chief of staff of the Army, on Tuesday during a Senate Armed Services Committee budget hearing in Washington.
'How can it be that the Defense Department, which is requesting $439 billion in this budget, has to resort to dunning a wounded soldier for $700 to replace a piece of body armor?' Byrd asked.
Schoomaker called Rebrook's story unusual and promised Byrd to "correct it if there's any truth to it."
Rockefeller said he first met Rebrook when he was an ROTC cadet at George Washington High School in Charleston and later nominated him to the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., where he graduated with honors. Rebrook then spent four years on active duty, including six months in Iraq.
Rebrook's mother, Beckie Drumheler, said she was angry when she learned about the $700 bill.
Soldiers who serve their country, those who put their lives on the line, deserve better, she said. BU*SH*IT
Continued1. 2. 3. NEXT»
IBC Fallujah Archive - Index Page
IBC Fallujah Archive - Index Page
The IBC Falluja* Archive is derived from nearly three hundred selected news stories on the April 2004 siege of Falluja, with an emphasis on the humanitarian impact. It organises extracts reporting specific deaths or injuries of civilians and combatants, cumulative death tallies as collated by various authorities within and outside Falluja, as well as additional on-the-ground and background reportage on the siege, and how the US military and goverment explained or presented their actions.
To enter the archive and access the news reported on a particular day, click on any dated link below. For more detailed instructions and a key to the colour-coding used throughout the archive, see the user guide to the archive's tables, further below.
*Common alternative spellings are Fallujah, Fallouja, Falloujah.
(Iraq Body Count Press Release on Falluja Archive and IBC database entry)
The essential quotes from the news stories - of specific reported deaths, and reported cumulative totals - have been extracted and presented in table format. The tables also contain data extractions from these news quotes. These tables are sorted by date of publication, so that all the news stories published on a particular day share the same table, and a single web page.
A colour-coding system is used to differentiate between the types of quotes extracted from the news stories, the most essential being in yellow and blue:
Text extracted from the news story and highlighted in yellow - refers to specific and identifiable deaths
Text extracted from the news story and highlighted in blue - refers to cumulative death totals
Text extracted from the news story and highlighted in green - provides additional related info, comment and analysis
Text extracted from the news story and highlighted in fuchsia - describes or directly quotes US gov./military views or BU*SH*IT
The IBC Falluja* Archive is derived from nearly three hundred selected news stories on the April 2004 siege of Falluja, with an emphasis on the humanitarian impact. It organises extracts reporting specific deaths or injuries of civilians and combatants, cumulative death tallies as collated by various authorities within and outside Falluja, as well as additional on-the-ground and background reportage on the siege, and how the US military and goverment explained or presented their actions.
To enter the archive and access the news reported on a particular day, click on any dated link below. For more detailed instructions and a key to the colour-coding used throughout the archive, see the user guide to the archive's tables, further below.
*Common alternative spellings are Fallujah, Fallouja, Falloujah.
(Iraq Body Count Press Release on Falluja Archive and IBC database entry)
The essential quotes from the news stories - of specific reported deaths, and reported cumulative totals - have been extracted and presented in table format. The tables also contain data extractions from these news quotes. These tables are sorted by date of publication, so that all the news stories published on a particular day share the same table, and a single web page.
A colour-coding system is used to differentiate between the types of quotes extracted from the news stories, the most essential being in yellow and blue:
Text extracted from the news story and highlighted in yellow - refers to specific and identifiable deaths
Text extracted from the news story and highlighted in blue - refers to cumulative death totals
Text extracted from the news story and highlighted in green - provides additional related info, comment and analysis
Text extracted from the news story and highlighted in fuchsia - describes or directly quotes US gov./military views or BU*SH*IT
An American tragedy-the plight of the US war wounded
An American tragedy-the plight of the US war wounded
One of the terrible legacies of the criminal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is the number of maimed, sick or traumatised former US soldiers—many of them just in their twenties—who will require medical assistance for the rest of their lives. For political reasons, the scope of the tragedy is barely being reported despite the impact it is having on a significant layer of young men and women, their families and communities.
Due to improvements in surgical techniques, medicine, body armour and transportation, only nine percent of American casualties in Iraq die from their wounds, compared with 17 percent in Vietnam and 23 percent during World War II. The official US death toll since November 2001 stood at 2,513 as of February 7—261 deaths in Afghanistan and 2,252 deaths in Iraq. The official wounded number stood at 17,096—676 in Afghanistan and 16,420 in Iraq.
The lower death rate compared with previous wars means that soldiers are surviving after suffering horrifying injuries. As many as six percent of all wounded in Iraq who could not return to duty have required amputations, compared with three percent in earlier conflicts. In Army hospitals alone, more than 330 troops have had an arm or leg amputated—53 suffered multiple amputations. The total figure of amputations is likely to be higher. The Marine Corp, which does not release casualty data, has engaged in some of the bloodiest fighting in Iraq and suffered a considerable proportion of US casualties.
In features published on October 25, 2005 and January 31 this year, the New York Times has documented the plight of some of the worst cases of wounded soldiers—those who have been classified as “polytrauma” patients. Citing the director of the Veterans hospital in Tampa, Doctor Steven G. Scott, the Times reported that the typical polytrauma case had “head injuries, vision and hearing loss, nerve damage, multiple bone fractures, unhealed body wounds, infections and emotional and or behavioural problems. Some have severed limbs or spinal cords”.
At least 215 soldiers have been treated in four specialist centres dedicated to keeping the most severely wounded alive and rehabilitating them. Several new patients are admitted each week—mainly casualties of roadside bombings in Iraq. Many have major brain damage and have needed to be taught how to speak and walk again, even how to swallow. In a grim indication that the Pentagon has well-advanced plans for future wars, the Department of Veteran Affairs plans to construct 21 more such specialist centres.
One case cited by the Times concerned a 29-year-old marine with profound brain injuries, third-degree burns and a damaged nervous system. He and his young wife will require hundreds of thousands of dollars of assistance each year to ensure adequate care and ongoing treatment and rehab.
Paul Pasquina, a military doctor at Walter Reed Hospital, told the Times in October 2005: “Someone who loses one limb is a challenge to get back to a meaningful, functional lifestyle. But someone who loses three limbs, on top of other types of soft tissue wounds, fractures, head injuries, spinal cord injury, paralysis...?”
Complicating the physical rehabilitation are the emotional and psychological problems provoked by memories of how they were wounded and the extent of their injuries. Doctor Scott told the Times last month: “We expect to follow these patients for the rest of their lives. But I have a great deal of concern about our country’s long-term commitment to these individuals. Will the resources be there over time?”
Concern over the long-term fate of the wounded is compounded when the true dimensions of the casualties that have been suffered by the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq are considered. On top of the official figure of close to 20,000 killed or wounded-in-action since November 2001, there are now tens of thousands of soldiers who have been evacuated from Central Asia or the Middle East for “non-battle injuries” or disease, and tens of thousands more who have developed psychological problems since their return to the United States.
US Transportation Command statistics, cited by journalist Mark Benjamin in a Salon article on December 13, showed that at least another 25,289 troops had been evacuated from Afghanistan and Iraq for injuries that were not sustained in combat.
The most recent figures from the US Army Medical Department, for example, show that from March 19, 2003 to November 30, 2005, there had been 21,610 evacuations of Army personnel from Iraq—i.e., the figure does include marine, navy or air force personnel. A total of 6,087 had been evacuated for “non-battle injuries”, such as back injuries, broken bones, soft tissue wounds and sight and hearing defects. Another 12,417 had been evacuated under the category “disease”. The diseases include cases of general surgery, neurological disorders, heart and lung problems and psychiatric illnesses such as depression, suicidal tendencies and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The extent of war casualties soars once soldiers return. The number of Afghanistan and Iraq veterans who have sought health care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has already passed 100,000—or close to one out of every four of the troops who has served in the occupied countries and subsequently left the US military.
An unknown number may be related to what was called Gulf War Syndrome by veterans of the 1991 war—various ailments that some specialists believe have been caused by exposure to depleted uranium or side-effects from anthrax vaccines. By 1999, over 100,000 First Gulf War veterans had sought VA medical treatment for conditions such as leukemia, lung cancer, chronic kidney and liver disorders, respiratory ailments, chronic fatigue, skin spotting and joint pain.
According to VA statistics cited in December by the Dallas Morning News, some 9,600 Afghanistan and Iraq veterans were being treated for PTSD. The number who should be receiving treatment for the disorder is believed to be far higher. An Army study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that, due to the stigma that surrounds psychiatric care, only 25 to 50 percent of soldiers who develop PTSD seek assistance. The Defense Department estimates that 18 percent of Iraq veterans and 11 percent of Afghanistan veterans will develop PTSD symptoms at some point. This suggests that tens of thousands of ex-service personnel may already be attempting to cope by themselves with a highly debilitating disease which can lead to self-harm, emotional crisis, and, in severe cases, suicide or acts of violence.
In the Minnesota town of Hibbing, the local Daily Tribune reported this month on an address by a National Guardsman, Keith Huff, who served a year in Iraq and returned in January 2005. Huff told a February Rotary meeting: “We had a hard time adjusting to your world and we felt alienated. I couldn’t tell my wife she was married to a killer and that I was good at it. I had a hard time reengaging in the community. I can’t explain what it was like to be over there and come back.”
An internal army survey, cited in Stars and Stripes in December 2005, showed alcohol abuse among returned veterans was 21 percent one year after returning from the war zone; 22 percent suffered from anger and aggression issues; and 15 percent intended to break up with their partner.
The wave of new victims of American militarism arriving home and needing treatment at VA hospitals and clinics comes at a time of growing need of the VA system by veterans of earlier wars. An increased number of veterans of the Vietnam War and the 1991 Gulf War are registering for VA health care, possibly because falling living standards are making more eligible for the means-tested assistance. As well, the surviving veterans of WWII are at an advanced age.
The Bush administration’s proposed budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs in fiscal year 2007 is $US 80.6 billion, with some $US 34.3 billion being requested for health care—an 11 percent increase. The soaring cost of benefits and medical treatment for the war wounded will more than likely be met by cutbacks to other programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
See Also:
Students, parents rebuff US military recruiters
[17 November 2005]
US death toll hits 2,000—grim milestone in a criminal war
[26 October 2005]
Current Death Count of US 2253 in Iraq. 261 in Afghanistan.
The death toll of the innocent civilians is between 28293 and 31900.
Blood for Oil, I despise this deplorable war.
One of the terrible legacies of the criminal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is the number of maimed, sick or traumatised former US soldiers—many of them just in their twenties—who will require medical assistance for the rest of their lives. For political reasons, the scope of the tragedy is barely being reported despite the impact it is having on a significant layer of young men and women, their families and communities.
Due to improvements in surgical techniques, medicine, body armour and transportation, only nine percent of American casualties in Iraq die from their wounds, compared with 17 percent in Vietnam and 23 percent during World War II. The official US death toll since November 2001 stood at 2,513 as of February 7—261 deaths in Afghanistan and 2,252 deaths in Iraq. The official wounded number stood at 17,096—676 in Afghanistan and 16,420 in Iraq.
The lower death rate compared with previous wars means that soldiers are surviving after suffering horrifying injuries. As many as six percent of all wounded in Iraq who could not return to duty have required amputations, compared with three percent in earlier conflicts. In Army hospitals alone, more than 330 troops have had an arm or leg amputated—53 suffered multiple amputations. The total figure of amputations is likely to be higher. The Marine Corp, which does not release casualty data, has engaged in some of the bloodiest fighting in Iraq and suffered a considerable proportion of US casualties.
In features published on October 25, 2005 and January 31 this year, the New York Times has documented the plight of some of the worst cases of wounded soldiers—those who have been classified as “polytrauma” patients. Citing the director of the Veterans hospital in Tampa, Doctor Steven G. Scott, the Times reported that the typical polytrauma case had “head injuries, vision and hearing loss, nerve damage, multiple bone fractures, unhealed body wounds, infections and emotional and or behavioural problems. Some have severed limbs or spinal cords”.
At least 215 soldiers have been treated in four specialist centres dedicated to keeping the most severely wounded alive and rehabilitating them. Several new patients are admitted each week—mainly casualties of roadside bombings in Iraq. Many have major brain damage and have needed to be taught how to speak and walk again, even how to swallow. In a grim indication that the Pentagon has well-advanced plans for future wars, the Department of Veteran Affairs plans to construct 21 more such specialist centres.
One case cited by the Times concerned a 29-year-old marine with profound brain injuries, third-degree burns and a damaged nervous system. He and his young wife will require hundreds of thousands of dollars of assistance each year to ensure adequate care and ongoing treatment and rehab.
Paul Pasquina, a military doctor at Walter Reed Hospital, told the Times in October 2005: “Someone who loses one limb is a challenge to get back to a meaningful, functional lifestyle. But someone who loses three limbs, on top of other types of soft tissue wounds, fractures, head injuries, spinal cord injury, paralysis...?”
Complicating the physical rehabilitation are the emotional and psychological problems provoked by memories of how they were wounded and the extent of their injuries. Doctor Scott told the Times last month: “We expect to follow these patients for the rest of their lives. But I have a great deal of concern about our country’s long-term commitment to these individuals. Will the resources be there over time?”
Concern over the long-term fate of the wounded is compounded when the true dimensions of the casualties that have been suffered by the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq are considered. On top of the official figure of close to 20,000 killed or wounded-in-action since November 2001, there are now tens of thousands of soldiers who have been evacuated from Central Asia or the Middle East for “non-battle injuries” or disease, and tens of thousands more who have developed psychological problems since their return to the United States.
US Transportation Command statistics, cited by journalist Mark Benjamin in a Salon article on December 13, showed that at least another 25,289 troops had been evacuated from Afghanistan and Iraq for injuries that were not sustained in combat.
The most recent figures from the US Army Medical Department, for example, show that from March 19, 2003 to November 30, 2005, there had been 21,610 evacuations of Army personnel from Iraq—i.e., the figure does include marine, navy or air force personnel. A total of 6,087 had been evacuated for “non-battle injuries”, such as back injuries, broken bones, soft tissue wounds and sight and hearing defects. Another 12,417 had been evacuated under the category “disease”. The diseases include cases of general surgery, neurological disorders, heart and lung problems and psychiatric illnesses such as depression, suicidal tendencies and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The extent of war casualties soars once soldiers return. The number of Afghanistan and Iraq veterans who have sought health care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has already passed 100,000—or close to one out of every four of the troops who has served in the occupied countries and subsequently left the US military.
An unknown number may be related to what was called Gulf War Syndrome by veterans of the 1991 war—various ailments that some specialists believe have been caused by exposure to depleted uranium or side-effects from anthrax vaccines. By 1999, over 100,000 First Gulf War veterans had sought VA medical treatment for conditions such as leukemia, lung cancer, chronic kidney and liver disorders, respiratory ailments, chronic fatigue, skin spotting and joint pain.
According to VA statistics cited in December by the Dallas Morning News, some 9,600 Afghanistan and Iraq veterans were being treated for PTSD. The number who should be receiving treatment for the disorder is believed to be far higher. An Army study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that, due to the stigma that surrounds psychiatric care, only 25 to 50 percent of soldiers who develop PTSD seek assistance. The Defense Department estimates that 18 percent of Iraq veterans and 11 percent of Afghanistan veterans will develop PTSD symptoms at some point. This suggests that tens of thousands of ex-service personnel may already be attempting to cope by themselves with a highly debilitating disease which can lead to self-harm, emotional crisis, and, in severe cases, suicide or acts of violence.
In the Minnesota town of Hibbing, the local Daily Tribune reported this month on an address by a National Guardsman, Keith Huff, who served a year in Iraq and returned in January 2005. Huff told a February Rotary meeting: “We had a hard time adjusting to your world and we felt alienated. I couldn’t tell my wife she was married to a killer and that I was good at it. I had a hard time reengaging in the community. I can’t explain what it was like to be over there and come back.”
An internal army survey, cited in Stars and Stripes in December 2005, showed alcohol abuse among returned veterans was 21 percent one year after returning from the war zone; 22 percent suffered from anger and aggression issues; and 15 percent intended to break up with their partner.
The wave of new victims of American militarism arriving home and needing treatment at VA hospitals and clinics comes at a time of growing need of the VA system by veterans of earlier wars. An increased number of veterans of the Vietnam War and the 1991 Gulf War are registering for VA health care, possibly because falling living standards are making more eligible for the means-tested assistance. As well, the surviving veterans of WWII are at an advanced age.
The Bush administration’s proposed budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs in fiscal year 2007 is $US 80.6 billion, with some $US 34.3 billion being requested for health care—an 11 percent increase. The soaring cost of benefits and medical treatment for the war wounded will more than likely be met by cutbacks to other programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
See Also:
Students, parents rebuff US military recruiters
[17 November 2005]
US death toll hits 2,000—grim milestone in a criminal war
[26 October 2005]
Current Death Count of US 2253 in Iraq. 261 in Afghanistan.
The death toll of the innocent civilians is between 28293 and 31900.
Blood for Oil, I despise this deplorable war.
6.2.06
Democracy Now! | Massacre in Fallujah: Over 600 Dead, 1,000 Injured, 60,000 Refugees
Democracy Now! Massacre in Fallujah: Over 600 Dead, 1,000 Injured, 60,000 Refugees
Listen to Segment Download Show mp3 Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD
The U.S. siege of Fallujah continues and reports are emerging of a massacre of Iraqi civilians at the hands of U.S. troops. We go to Iraq to get a report from Free Speech Radio News' Aaron Glantz who interviews Iraqis fleeing Fallujah as well as a producer with Al-Jazeera television who says he and fellow journalists were targeted by U.S. snipers in the town. [Includes rush transcript]
The town of Fallujah is under siege and there are reports of a massacre of Iraqis at the hands U.S. troops. The death toll in the town has now topped 600 with over 1,000 injured.
Local hospitals reported the majority of the dead were women, children and the elderly. The U.S. maintains 95 percent of those killed were members of the resistance. This according to the Guardian of London. (The US lies)
More than 60,000 women and children fled the city during a brief ceasefire on Friday but the US blocked any men of military age from leaving. Dozens of bodies have been buried in the city's soccer stadium after US forces blocked roads heading toward the cemetery.
The attack on Fallujah has galvanized major portions of the Iraqi population against the U.S. Middle East analyst and University of Michigan professor Juan Cole writes "There is a danger that the vindictive attitude of the Americans ... will push the whole country to hate them. A hated occupier is powerless even with all the firepower in the world."
Listen to Segment Download Show mp3 Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD
The U.S. siege of Fallujah continues and reports are emerging of a massacre of Iraqi civilians at the hands of U.S. troops. We go to Iraq to get a report from Free Speech Radio News' Aaron Glantz who interviews Iraqis fleeing Fallujah as well as a producer with Al-Jazeera television who says he and fellow journalists were targeted by U.S. snipers in the town. [Includes rush transcript]
The town of Fallujah is under siege and there are reports of a massacre of Iraqis at the hands U.S. troops. The death toll in the town has now topped 600 with over 1,000 injured.
Local hospitals reported the majority of the dead were women, children and the elderly. The U.S. maintains 95 percent of those killed were members of the resistance. This according to the Guardian of London. (The US lies)
More than 60,000 women and children fled the city during a brief ceasefire on Friday but the US blocked any men of military age from leaving. Dozens of bodies have been buried in the city's soccer stadium after US forces blocked roads heading toward the cemetery.
The attack on Fallujah has galvanized major portions of the Iraqi population against the U.S. Middle East analyst and University of Michigan professor Juan Cole writes "There is a danger that the vindictive attitude of the Americans ... will push the whole country to hate them. A hated occupier is powerless even with all the firepower in the world."
Interview with Samir Khader, Program Editor for Al-Jazeera
February 06, 2006
Interview with Samir Khader, Program Editor for Al-Jazeera*
http://dahrjamailiraq.com
On 1 February 2006 in Doha, Qatar, I interviewed Mr. Samir Khader,Program Editor for Al-Jazeera Channel. Mr. Khader was a key personalityin the highly acclaimed documentary "Control Room" about Al-Jazeera. Iasked him questions about his channel, Bush's plans to bomb Al-Jazeera,present and future goals of Al-Jazeera, Iraq and the state ofjournalism. -
DJ*Dahr Jamail: How does Jazeera continue to operate amidst the leaked memoto bomb Jazeera, banned from countries in the Middle East, and in thisincreasingly hostile environment?
Samir Khader: Do you think that because of such a memo we have to stopworking? Of course we can't. We have to do our job. If the memo was trueand George Bush wanted to bomb Jazeera, what can we do? They can do that, and the whole world will know. It's not because a journalist is threatened that he will not do his job. So, no problem for us.
DJ How do you operate in countries where you've been prohibited from working, like Iran and Iraq?
SK As you know, Al-Jazeera has a history of being kicked out from many countries. It's not new for us. But at the end, these governments reverse their decision and allow us to work. Because at the end, they can't hide behind masks. They have to tell the truth one day. And one day they discover that we are telling the truth, whether it's with them or against them.
When they kick us out of a given country, they deprive themselves from a mean to answer all the accusations made.
For example, if we make accusations at a given country of doing this and this and that and we're kicked out, they have no means of answering these accusations. So they realize it is better to have Jazeera with them, under their eyes, so they can use it and use it as a podium also because we are opento everybody. Whether it is opponents or governments, we give thepossibility to anyone to express himself or herself. So denying access to al-Jazeera in their own country will in the end be at their own expense.
DJ Which countries right now have prohibited Jazeera from operating in them?
SK Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Algeria. These countries completely prohibit al-Jazeera, 100%. There are other countries who don't allow us to have a correspondent or to work on a regular basis, but allow us sometimes, for major events, to send a reporter for a couple of days only, then he shall have to leave the country. For example, India andTunisia. These are important countries where we can only operate on the spot, but not on a regular basis. Kuwait was one of these countries, but at the end they realized it was better to have al-Jazeera with them, so they allowed us to work there.
DJ Did Jazeera receive an apology or explanation for the leaked Bush/Blair memo?
SK No. Our manager explained that yesterday in his press conference. He explained the whole story. The official spokesman of the British government said there was nothing in that memo that referred to al-Jazeera and Tony Blair also said that at the House of Commons.
But in answering other enquiries from British nationals, the samespokesman recognized that this document, this memo exists and there is areference to al-Jazeera. So there is a contradiction in their ownstatements. All we want as a channel is to know the truth. Was it true or not?So, we're trying. We didn't receive an answer yet, but we're trying.
DJ What are al-Jazeera's greatest challenges today?
SK Today? Personal opinion of course. The problems of the Middle East,problems of the people. Like democracy and human rights. In all the countries of the Middle East everybody talks about democracy. And when you have elections in one given country, the government starts saying,"Look at our democracy!" But elections are not democracy. Democracy is something else. I think that we have to focus more on the needs of our people in thesetimes in terms of democracy and human rights. To tell them, "Don't believe that elections mean democracy. No, it is something else." And human rights, I don't think that there is one single Arab country that really respects human rights. Freedom of the press? Where is it? I don't see it-freedom of the press. We might enjoy it at al-Jazeera, but we areonly a tiny part of the press in the Arab world. So all these things, I think we should focus on them more and more.
DJ What are Jazeera's future plans?
SK We have plans to continue to cover Pakistan, Afghanistan, India or South America. Also we should cover them because we are an international channel. But we have a priority. We are an Arab Channel and we have to address our Arab populations. And I think the management has plans to focus more on these things.
SK I spent two weeks in Fallujah in April '04. I then went to the "GreenZone" and went two times to press conferences of General Kimmitt where he asked Iraqis and Arabs to change the channel. I did an interview with him and I asked, "General. you're not supposed to be afraid of us. We're here everyday with you. Why did you ask people to change the channel?"He said, "Look, you do your job and I'll do mine." (he laughs)
It amazes me that the Americans complain about al-Jazeera. When I was, at that time in 2004, in the field in Iraq, I didn't feel that the Americans used to look at al-Jazeera as the enemy.
I used to hear Donald Rumsfeld attacking al-Jazeera, depicted as the enemy. But on the field, no. I used to look at and try to socialize with the simple American soldiers. These are poor guys!
Most of them, theydon't know what they are doing in Iraq. They were told to go there for many reasons. Some want a scholarship, others want citizenship, anyother reason.
Some, because they are patriots. They are patriots, of course, all of the American soldiers. But they told them they had a job to do-to topple Saddam Hussein, to occupy Iraq, they did the job. And then what? To become the police? It's not the role of an army to do the policing in a country, in a vast country like Iraq.
So, this is a big problem for the Americans. If I was in the shoes of George W. Bush I don't know what I would do. As an Arab I will tell him to get out of Iraq. But if I were an American and a high ranking official in that administration, I don't know. He's really in a very bad position.
DJ Would you like to comment on the current state of journalism?
SK Journalism has changed much in the last years. Can you imagine, ifBob Woodward and Bernstein, were to uncover Watergate today? Would theybe able to do it? Because today, now, they tell you, "What's yoursource?" You have to uncover your source, otherwise you go to jail. Andthis happened with Judith Miller. Which means that journalists no longerhave the ability to do their job. I tried to meet with Bob Woodward last May when I was in Washington DC. I went to Washington and NY and tried to meet with him just to ask him this question:
If you had similar information, inside information likethat which led to Watergate, would you be able to publish it? I'm sure of the answer, but I couldn't find him.
Interview with Samir Khader, Program Editor for Al-Jazeera*
http://dahrjamailiraq.com
On 1 February 2006 in Doha, Qatar, I interviewed Mr. Samir Khader,Program Editor for Al-Jazeera Channel. Mr. Khader was a key personalityin the highly acclaimed documentary "Control Room" about Al-Jazeera. Iasked him questions about his channel, Bush's plans to bomb Al-Jazeera,present and future goals of Al-Jazeera, Iraq and the state ofjournalism. -
DJ*Dahr Jamail: How does Jazeera continue to operate amidst the leaked memoto bomb Jazeera, banned from countries in the Middle East, and in thisincreasingly hostile environment?
Samir Khader: Do you think that because of such a memo we have to stopworking? Of course we can't. We have to do our job. If the memo was trueand George Bush wanted to bomb Jazeera, what can we do? They can do that, and the whole world will know. It's not because a journalist is threatened that he will not do his job. So, no problem for us.
DJ How do you operate in countries where you've been prohibited from working, like Iran and Iraq?
SK As you know, Al-Jazeera has a history of being kicked out from many countries. It's not new for us. But at the end, these governments reverse their decision and allow us to work. Because at the end, they can't hide behind masks. They have to tell the truth one day. And one day they discover that we are telling the truth, whether it's with them or against them.
When they kick us out of a given country, they deprive themselves from a mean to answer all the accusations made.
For example, if we make accusations at a given country of doing this and this and that and we're kicked out, they have no means of answering these accusations. So they realize it is better to have Jazeera with them, under their eyes, so they can use it and use it as a podium also because we are opento everybody. Whether it is opponents or governments, we give thepossibility to anyone to express himself or herself. So denying access to al-Jazeera in their own country will in the end be at their own expense.
DJ Which countries right now have prohibited Jazeera from operating in them?
SK Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Algeria. These countries completely prohibit al-Jazeera, 100%. There are other countries who don't allow us to have a correspondent or to work on a regular basis, but allow us sometimes, for major events, to send a reporter for a couple of days only, then he shall have to leave the country. For example, India andTunisia. These are important countries where we can only operate on the spot, but not on a regular basis. Kuwait was one of these countries, but at the end they realized it was better to have al-Jazeera with them, so they allowed us to work there.
DJ Did Jazeera receive an apology or explanation for the leaked Bush/Blair memo?
SK No. Our manager explained that yesterday in his press conference. He explained the whole story. The official spokesman of the British government said there was nothing in that memo that referred to al-Jazeera and Tony Blair also said that at the House of Commons.
But in answering other enquiries from British nationals, the samespokesman recognized that this document, this memo exists and there is areference to al-Jazeera. So there is a contradiction in their ownstatements. All we want as a channel is to know the truth. Was it true or not?So, we're trying. We didn't receive an answer yet, but we're trying.
DJ What are al-Jazeera's greatest challenges today?
SK Today? Personal opinion of course. The problems of the Middle East,problems of the people. Like democracy and human rights. In all the countries of the Middle East everybody talks about democracy. And when you have elections in one given country, the government starts saying,"Look at our democracy!" But elections are not democracy. Democracy is something else. I think that we have to focus more on the needs of our people in thesetimes in terms of democracy and human rights. To tell them, "Don't believe that elections mean democracy. No, it is something else." And human rights, I don't think that there is one single Arab country that really respects human rights. Freedom of the press? Where is it? I don't see it-freedom of the press. We might enjoy it at al-Jazeera, but we areonly a tiny part of the press in the Arab world. So all these things, I think we should focus on them more and more.
DJ What are Jazeera's future plans?
SK We have plans to continue to cover Pakistan, Afghanistan, India or South America. Also we should cover them because we are an international channel. But we have a priority. We are an Arab Channel and we have to address our Arab populations. And I think the management has plans to focus more on these things.
SK I spent two weeks in Fallujah in April '04. I then went to the "GreenZone" and went two times to press conferences of General Kimmitt where he asked Iraqis and Arabs to change the channel. I did an interview with him and I asked, "General. you're not supposed to be afraid of us. We're here everyday with you. Why did you ask people to change the channel?"He said, "Look, you do your job and I'll do mine." (he laughs)
It amazes me that the Americans complain about al-Jazeera. When I was, at that time in 2004, in the field in Iraq, I didn't feel that the Americans used to look at al-Jazeera as the enemy.
I used to hear Donald Rumsfeld attacking al-Jazeera, depicted as the enemy. But on the field, no. I used to look at and try to socialize with the simple American soldiers. These are poor guys!
Most of them, theydon't know what they are doing in Iraq. They were told to go there for many reasons. Some want a scholarship, others want citizenship, anyother reason.
Some, because they are patriots. They are patriots, of course, all of the American soldiers. But they told them they had a job to do-to topple Saddam Hussein, to occupy Iraq, they did the job. And then what? To become the police? It's not the role of an army to do the policing in a country, in a vast country like Iraq.
So, this is a big problem for the Americans. If I was in the shoes of George W. Bush I don't know what I would do. As an Arab I will tell him to get out of Iraq. But if I were an American and a high ranking official in that administration, I don't know. He's really in a very bad position.
DJ Would you like to comment on the current state of journalism?
SK Journalism has changed much in the last years. Can you imagine, ifBob Woodward and Bernstein, were to uncover Watergate today? Would theybe able to do it? Because today, now, they tell you, "What's yoursource?" You have to uncover your source, otherwise you go to jail. Andthis happened with Judith Miller. Which means that journalists no longerhave the ability to do their job. I tried to meet with Bob Woodward last May when I was in Washington DC. I went to Washington and NY and tried to meet with him just to ask him this question:
If you had similar information, inside information likethat which led to Watergate, would you be able to publish it? I'm sure of the answer, but I couldn't find him.
ABC News: Iraqi Detainee Dies in Abu Ghraib Prison
ABC News: Iraqi Detainee Dies in Abu Ghraib Prison
BAGHDAD, Iraq Feb 6, 2006 (AP)— An Iraqi detainee held at the U.S.-controlled Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad has died in custody and an investigation is under way, the military said Monday.
Talib Enezy Ghadban died Jan. 7 of complications from an apparent stroke, U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Guy Rudisill said.
Ghadban, from the western city of Ramadi, was detained in September by U.S. forces and his body was claimed by his family on Monday, his brother, Shaqir, told The Associated Press. The brother claimed Ghadban never suffered from any illnesses.
An autopsy has been performed but no results are available. A criminal investigation has been launched, as is the case with all detainee deaths, Rudisill said.
More than 12,000 detainees are being held at Abu Ghraib prison on the outskirts of Baghdad, Camp Bucca south of Basra city, and two other U.S. military camps in Iraq. Many are awaiting trial, others formal charges.
Many of the detainees are believed to be Sunni Arabs who were rounded up by U.S. and Iraqi forces on suspicion of supporting Sunni-led insurgent groups. Other detainees are being held at Iraqi prisons around the country.
BAGHDAD, Iraq Feb 6, 2006 (AP)— An Iraqi detainee held at the U.S.-controlled Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad has died in custody and an investigation is under way, the military said Monday.
Talib Enezy Ghadban died Jan. 7 of complications from an apparent stroke, U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Guy Rudisill said.
Ghadban, from the western city of Ramadi, was detained in September by U.S. forces and his body was claimed by his family on Monday, his brother, Shaqir, told The Associated Press. The brother claimed Ghadban never suffered from any illnesses.
An autopsy has been performed but no results are available. A criminal investigation has been launched, as is the case with all detainee deaths, Rudisill said.
More than 12,000 detainees are being held at Abu Ghraib prison on the outskirts of Baghdad, Camp Bucca south of Basra city, and two other U.S. military camps in Iraq. Many are awaiting trial, others formal charges.
Many of the detainees are believed to be Sunni Arabs who were rounded up by U.S. and Iraqi forces on suspicion of supporting Sunni-led insurgent groups. Other detainees are being held at Iraqi prisons around the country.
3.2.06
Lawless World - Philippe Sands - Penguin UK
Lawless World - Philippe Sands - Penguin UK
Explosive analysis of how Britain and America have broken the legal global order by promoting America's economic interests at the expense of human rights and environment.
A coruscating account of how the Bush and Blair administrations are breaking the law and trying to rewrite the rules …
After the Second World War America and Britain led the creation of a new law-based international order, outlawing war and its excesses, protecting human rights and promoting free trade. Why is the US now undermining so many of those very laws?
Leading international lawyer Philippe Sands has been involved in high-profile cases including Guantanamo and Pinochet.
In Lawless World he draws on disturbing material to show how America has reneged on agreements governing war, torture and the environment – with Britain often turning a blind eye or colluding in some of the worst violations. In recent years America has abandoned the Kyoto Protocol and the Statute of the International Criminal Court, ignored human rights standards at Abu Ghraib and disregarded the UN’s prohibition of pre-emptive force.
Are we on the verge of a new world order where the most powerful nations can put aside the rules that no longer suit them?
Lawless World explains why we need global rules, examines why recent American and British actions endanger international justice, and asks, what does the future hold?
Explosive analysis of how Britain and America have broken the legal global order by promoting America's economic interests at the expense of human rights and environment.
A coruscating account of how the Bush and Blair administrations are breaking the law and trying to rewrite the rules …
After the Second World War America and Britain led the creation of a new law-based international order, outlawing war and its excesses, protecting human rights and promoting free trade. Why is the US now undermining so many of those very laws?
Leading international lawyer Philippe Sands has been involved in high-profile cases including Guantanamo and Pinochet.
In Lawless World he draws on disturbing material to show how America has reneged on agreements governing war, torture and the environment – with Britain often turning a blind eye or colluding in some of the worst violations. In recent years America has abandoned the Kyoto Protocol and the Statute of the International Criminal Court, ignored human rights standards at Abu Ghraib and disregarded the UN’s prohibition of pre-emptive force.
Are we on the verge of a new world order where the most powerful nations can put aside the rules that no longer suit them?
Lawless World explains why we need global rules, examines why recent American and British actions endanger international justice, and asks, what does the future hold?
2.2.06
US Soldiers Shoot at Canadian Ambassador's Car in Baghdad
US Soldiers Shoot at Canadian Ambassador's Car in Baghdad
The US military shot at the Canadian ambassador's car in Baghdad but no-one was hurt in the "unfortunate incident," a US State department official said.
"There was an incident involving the (US) military and the Canadian ambassador's car today," a State Department official told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity. "They shot on it."
A U.S. soldier rides in an armoured vehicle while patrolling a neighbourhood in central Baghdad, December 16, 2005. The U.S. military in Baghdad fired shots at the Canadian ambassador's car on Tuesday but there were no injuries, a State Department official said. REUTERS/Thaier al-Sudani"No-one was injured," the official said, calling it an "unfortunate incident" and adding: "We are in close contact with Canadian officials."
The official could provide no further details of the incident.
Four passengers were riding in the vehicle, including Stewart Henderson, Canada's charge d'affaires in Iraq, when US soldiers fired on it "after it reportedly wouldn't stop," Canada's CTV News reported.
The vehicle was apparently travelling alone in the heavily fortified Green Zone when it came across an American military convoy and tried to pass it, the report said.
Members of the US Army's 4th Infantry Divisions gave the driver hand signals to stop. When the car did not, they shot over it, then at it.
"Finally they plugged the car with three rounds. Two went through the hood into the engine block. One shot went through the lower part of the windshield," CTV said.
Canada's ambassador to Iraq, John Holmes, was not in the car, and neither the four passengers nor the driver were injured, the report said.
The US military shot at the Canadian ambassador's car in Baghdad but no-one was hurt in the "unfortunate incident," a US State department official said.
"There was an incident involving the (US) military and the Canadian ambassador's car today," a State Department official told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity. "They shot on it."
A U.S. soldier rides in an armoured vehicle while patrolling a neighbourhood in central Baghdad, December 16, 2005. The U.S. military in Baghdad fired shots at the Canadian ambassador's car on Tuesday but there were no injuries, a State Department official said. REUTERS/Thaier al-Sudani"No-one was injured," the official said, calling it an "unfortunate incident" and adding: "We are in close contact with Canadian officials."
The official could provide no further details of the incident.
Four passengers were riding in the vehicle, including Stewart Henderson, Canada's charge d'affaires in Iraq, when US soldiers fired on it "after it reportedly wouldn't stop," Canada's CTV News reported.
The vehicle was apparently travelling alone in the heavily fortified Green Zone when it came across an American military convoy and tried to pass it, the report said.
Members of the US Army's 4th Infantry Divisions gave the driver hand signals to stop. When the car did not, they shot over it, then at it.
"Finally they plugged the car with three rounds. Two went through the hood into the engine block. One shot went through the lower part of the windshield," CTV said.
Canada's ambassador to Iraq, John Holmes, was not in the car, and neither the four passengers nor the driver were injured, the report said.
More Bad News for the Brits
Doha, Qatar - Iraq Dispatches http://dahrjamailiraq.com
Interesting to be writing this while attending the 2ndAl-Jazeera Forum, which is focusing on "Defending Freedom, DefiningResponsibility" in the media.
Al-Jazeera, which has been banned 100% from working in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Algeria due to their holding said governments accountable to the people they supposedly represent.
While conducting a short interview with Samir Khader, the program editor for Al-Jazeera channel made famous in the excellent documentary "Control Room," I learn that he too was in Fallujah during the April, 2004 siege on that city.
After his witnessing of his colleagues being killed, maimed and/or detained by the U.S. military in Iraq both during the Anglo-American invasion and subsequent failed occupation, he takes seriously the rights and protections of all journalists.
This is why it is not so coincidental to be writing about this from the city where Al-Jazeera is headquartered. And yes, the city in which Bush attempted to persuade Blair to bomb Al-Jazeera due to their fantastic reporting of the U.S. siege of Fallujah in April, 2004. (Unfortunately I knew that was coming, thereby reinforcing the fact that US is covering up a lot in the media)
So it is with a heavy heart to learn that yesterday in Iraq, according to Al-Sharqiyah:".police sources in western Baghdad said that the sister of anchorman Anwar al-Hamdani, who works at the Al-Nahrayn Television, was also martyred today, Tuesday, when multinational forces opened fire in the Abu-Ghurayb area."
"Multinational forces" is the term preferred by the Pentagon now-sounds better than the more truthful "occupation forces" or "members of the invading army."
Yet their use of the term "multinational" is quite liberal when Japan has recently announced it will pull all of its troops from Iraq by this May, Italy announced it will withdraw 1,000 of its 2,600 troops by June and the Australian government is under increasing pressure to withdraw it's massive contingent of 1,320 troops as well.
In sum, when the Pentagon says "multinational forces" in Iraq, it usually tends to be a safe assumption that they mean U.S. soldiers, as the U.S. still maintains by far and away the largest number of troops with at least 160,000.
On that note-the second largest member of the"coalition of the willing" are the mercenaries-who tally anywhere between 20,000-70,000 in their private militias.
Meanwhile, pressure on the embattled Prime Minister Tony Blair has skyrocketed in Britain as the 100th British soldier being killed in Iraq sparked a wave of protests across England and fresh demands for a British withdrawal.
And the way things are shaping up in southern Iraq, that 100 number could be outdated if the heavy-handed tactics of the British soldiers don't change.
The following is quoted from Al Manarah newspaper:
*Basra council issue statement directed against British forces*
According to the newspaper Al Manarah on January 29: "Basra Governorate Council members have held an emergency session during which a sharply worded statement has been issued. This statement has been directed to the British forces in Basra. It described acts by these forces as provocative. These acts are carried out and the local government is not informed. The statement said that the council has frequently called on Britons to stop random arrests and inhuman acts by their forces. It has also called for the release of prisoners and it has given 'occupation'forces a 24-hour period to release them without any conditions. It has also called on the central government to intervene immediately insolving this issue..."
"The statement added that British forces launched a raid during thenight of 23 January 2006 on the house of the deputy director of theCriminal Intelligence Agency, Maj Jasim Qasim Hasan, and arrested him, one of his sons, his nephew, and four of his bodyguards, according tothe media director of Criminal Intelligence in Basra. The arrest took place after the doors of the house were broken, the furniture wasscattered, items belonging to the mentioned officer were seized, including his laptop and its belongings, and his personal bag, which contains personal documents, money, cameras and personal guns.
The raid was launched without an arrest warrant, the newspaper noted."But as Mr. Bush said in his State of the Union address yesterday, "We are in this fight to win, and we are winning." FU
Despite his confidence of certain victory in Iraq, Bush opted not to offer a timetable for withdrawal.
Interesting to be writing this while attending the 2ndAl-Jazeera Forum, which is focusing on "Defending Freedom, DefiningResponsibility" in the media.
Al-Jazeera, which has been banned 100% from working in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Algeria due to their holding said governments accountable to the people they supposedly represent.
While conducting a short interview with Samir Khader, the program editor for Al-Jazeera channel made famous in the excellent documentary "Control Room," I learn that he too was in Fallujah during the April, 2004 siege on that city.
After his witnessing of his colleagues being killed, maimed and/or detained by the U.S. military in Iraq both during the Anglo-American invasion and subsequent failed occupation, he takes seriously the rights and protections of all journalists.
This is why it is not so coincidental to be writing about this from the city where Al-Jazeera is headquartered. And yes, the city in which Bush attempted to persuade Blair to bomb Al-Jazeera due to their fantastic reporting of the U.S. siege of Fallujah in April, 2004. (Unfortunately I knew that was coming, thereby reinforcing the fact that US is covering up a lot in the media)
So it is with a heavy heart to learn that yesterday in Iraq, according to Al-Sharqiyah:".police sources in western Baghdad said that the sister of anchorman Anwar al-Hamdani, who works at the Al-Nahrayn Television, was also martyred today, Tuesday, when multinational forces opened fire in the Abu-Ghurayb area."
"Multinational forces" is the term preferred by the Pentagon now-sounds better than the more truthful "occupation forces" or "members of the invading army."
Yet their use of the term "multinational" is quite liberal when Japan has recently announced it will pull all of its troops from Iraq by this May, Italy announced it will withdraw 1,000 of its 2,600 troops by June and the Australian government is under increasing pressure to withdraw it's massive contingent of 1,320 troops as well.
In sum, when the Pentagon says "multinational forces" in Iraq, it usually tends to be a safe assumption that they mean U.S. soldiers, as the U.S. still maintains by far and away the largest number of troops with at least 160,000.
On that note-the second largest member of the"coalition of the willing" are the mercenaries-who tally anywhere between 20,000-70,000 in their private militias.
Meanwhile, pressure on the embattled Prime Minister Tony Blair has skyrocketed in Britain as the 100th British soldier being killed in Iraq sparked a wave of protests across England and fresh demands for a British withdrawal.
And the way things are shaping up in southern Iraq, that 100 number could be outdated if the heavy-handed tactics of the British soldiers don't change.
The following is quoted from Al Manarah newspaper:
*Basra council issue statement directed against British forces*
According to the newspaper Al Manarah on January 29: "Basra Governorate Council members have held an emergency session during which a sharply worded statement has been issued. This statement has been directed to the British forces in Basra. It described acts by these forces as provocative. These acts are carried out and the local government is not informed. The statement said that the council has frequently called on Britons to stop random arrests and inhuman acts by their forces. It has also called for the release of prisoners and it has given 'occupation'forces a 24-hour period to release them without any conditions. It has also called on the central government to intervene immediately insolving this issue..."
"The statement added that British forces launched a raid during thenight of 23 January 2006 on the house of the deputy director of theCriminal Intelligence Agency, Maj Jasim Qasim Hasan, and arrested him, one of his sons, his nephew, and four of his bodyguards, according tothe media director of Criminal Intelligence in Basra. The arrest took place after the doors of the house were broken, the furniture wasscattered, items belonging to the mentioned officer were seized, including his laptop and its belongings, and his personal bag, which contains personal documents, money, cameras and personal guns.
The raid was launched without an arrest warrant, the newspaper noted."But as Mr. Bush said in his State of the Union address yesterday, "We are in this fight to win, and we are winning." FU
Despite his confidence of certain victory in Iraq, Bush opted not to offer a timetable for withdrawal.
1.2.06
Head for Uncertain Govt
Shias Head for Uncertain Govt
*Inter Press Service*Analysis by Dahr Jamail
DOHA, Qatar, Feb 1 (IPS) - http://dahrjamailiraq.com
Six weeks after parliamentary elections,occupied Iraq is still struggling for a viable government, as violenceand instability worsen.The results of the Dec. 15 elections have still to be finalised, but itis clear that the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), a Shia fundamentalist coalition, won at least 128 seats in the 275-seat national assembly.
Where 138 seats are required for a simple majority, the powerful groupwill still have to cut deals with Kurdish or Sunni alliances to form agovernment.The Kurdish Alliance obtained 53 seats. The Turkmen who claim to represent at least 11 percent of the population of the oil-rich but volatile northern city Kirkuk are angry that they failed to obtain evenone seat in the new parliament.
The Turkmen, like the Sunnis aroundBaghdad, allege widespread election fraud.After boycotting the Jan. 30 election of last year, the Sunni coalition,despite continuing to contest the election results, obtained 58 seats. Former interim prime minister and CIA asset Iyad Allawi managed only 25 seats through his al-Iraqiyah list, a huge setback to the occupyingpowers' plans for a secular Iraq.
This means that the dominating Shia alliance is pro-Tehran, and thatIranian influence will continue to grow in Iraq. On a recent visit toIran, Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr declared that his Mehdi Army andmillions of followers would fight for Iran if it was attacked by aforeign power.The largest Shia party, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), has strong Iranian links.
In a strange twist of fate, this means that U.S. policy-makers are leaning now towards the more secular Sunni groups, some of which claim that Saddam Hussein was a secular Sunni.U.S. officials like Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad have been accused by Shia groups of "reaching out" to Sunni Arabs in an effort to counter thegrowing resistance in Iraq, and in efforts to promote a unified government.
Shia leaders see this as an attempt to undermine their power. "The Americans are so focused on Sunni interests that their motivation goes beyond just promoting national unity," a UIA spokesman said.Federalism, which in effect would mean decentralisation, with morepowers to a Shia south and a Kurd north, has emerged as a major stickingpoint in any consensus. Sunni and Shia leaders have clearly conflictingviews on this.Sunni political groups fear that federalism will lead the Kurds and Shias to split Iraq into three parts.
The Kurdish north and thepredominantly Shia south are the main oil producing regions of the country.Sunni Arab leaders oppose either regional confederacies or federalism.They are attempting to form political blocs with secular Shia andKurdish groups in order to counter plans for such federalism. But the UIA is not a homogeneously pro-Iran group; it is wrought with internal strife.
Nadim al-Jabiri who leads the Virtue Party within the group is angry, for example, at getting only one seat in parliament whenhe says he was promised five. Now the possibility that Sadr followers and the Da'wa Party within theUIA could join forces would make them an effective counterweight to SCIRI, furthering fragmenting the bloc. Disputes continue also over control of ministries. Sunnis continue to oppose Shia control of the Ministry of Interior. Sunni leaders say Shiamilitias, like the pro-Irani Badr Organisation, are regularly being used as death squads in Sunni areas of Baghdad and Fallujah."This will be one of the hottest issues," Sunni leader Husseinal-Falluji said.
"We will press this in the negotiations, and if the Shias are not flexible on this, it will be a problem."Shia leaders have said they will not surrender any ministry which controls Iraq's security forces. Shias control also the defence ministry. Adnan al-Duleimi, head of the Iraqi Accordance Front, which is the main Sunni bloc, has said the two ministries must not necessarily be headedby a Shia. "We believe that the posts of the interior and defence ministers should be kept away from any sectarian and political considerations."
Blogger keeps pushing my words together, sorry. I edit it as I see it in the post.
*Inter Press Service*Analysis by Dahr Jamail
DOHA, Qatar, Feb 1 (IPS) - http://dahrjamailiraq.com
Six weeks after parliamentary elections,occupied Iraq is still struggling for a viable government, as violenceand instability worsen.The results of the Dec. 15 elections have still to be finalised, but itis clear that the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), a Shia fundamentalist coalition, won at least 128 seats in the 275-seat national assembly.
Where 138 seats are required for a simple majority, the powerful groupwill still have to cut deals with Kurdish or Sunni alliances to form agovernment.The Kurdish Alliance obtained 53 seats. The Turkmen who claim to represent at least 11 percent of the population of the oil-rich but volatile northern city Kirkuk are angry that they failed to obtain evenone seat in the new parliament.
The Turkmen, like the Sunnis aroundBaghdad, allege widespread election fraud.After boycotting the Jan. 30 election of last year, the Sunni coalition,despite continuing to contest the election results, obtained 58 seats. Former interim prime minister and CIA asset Iyad Allawi managed only 25 seats through his al-Iraqiyah list, a huge setback to the occupyingpowers' plans for a secular Iraq.
This means that the dominating Shia alliance is pro-Tehran, and thatIranian influence will continue to grow in Iraq. On a recent visit toIran, Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr declared that his Mehdi Army andmillions of followers would fight for Iran if it was attacked by aforeign power.The largest Shia party, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), has strong Iranian links.
In a strange twist of fate, this means that U.S. policy-makers are leaning now towards the more secular Sunni groups, some of which claim that Saddam Hussein was a secular Sunni.U.S. officials like Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad have been accused by Shia groups of "reaching out" to Sunni Arabs in an effort to counter thegrowing resistance in Iraq, and in efforts to promote a unified government.
Shia leaders see this as an attempt to undermine their power. "The Americans are so focused on Sunni interests that their motivation goes beyond just promoting national unity," a UIA spokesman said.Federalism, which in effect would mean decentralisation, with morepowers to a Shia south and a Kurd north, has emerged as a major stickingpoint in any consensus. Sunni and Shia leaders have clearly conflictingviews on this.Sunni political groups fear that federalism will lead the Kurds and Shias to split Iraq into three parts.
The Kurdish north and thepredominantly Shia south are the main oil producing regions of the country.Sunni Arab leaders oppose either regional confederacies or federalism.They are attempting to form political blocs with secular Shia andKurdish groups in order to counter plans for such federalism. But the UIA is not a homogeneously pro-Iran group; it is wrought with internal strife.
Nadim al-Jabiri who leads the Virtue Party within the group is angry, for example, at getting only one seat in parliament whenhe says he was promised five. Now the possibility that Sadr followers and the Da'wa Party within theUIA could join forces would make them an effective counterweight to SCIRI, furthering fragmenting the bloc. Disputes continue also over control of ministries. Sunnis continue to oppose Shia control of the Ministry of Interior. Sunni leaders say Shiamilitias, like the pro-Irani Badr Organisation, are regularly being used as death squads in Sunni areas of Baghdad and Fallujah."This will be one of the hottest issues," Sunni leader Husseinal-Falluji said.
"We will press this in the negotiations, and if the Shias are not flexible on this, it will be a problem."Shia leaders have said they will not surrender any ministry which controls Iraq's security forces. Shias control also the defence ministry. Adnan al-Duleimi, head of the Iraqi Accordance Front, which is the main Sunni bloc, has said the two ministries must not necessarily be headedby a Shia. "We believe that the posts of the interior and defence ministers should be kept away from any sectarian and political considerations."
Blogger keeps pushing my words together, sorry. I edit it as I see it in the post.
31.1.06
BuzzFlash Review: A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror
BuzzFlash Review: A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror
Most Americans probably don't relish reading a book about the history of how our nation abandoned its noble ideals and joined the ranks of the torturers, but remember this is OUR country -- and we ARE torturing people.
"A Question of Torture" makes the logical argument that this didn't all happen overnight. The infrastructure, training, and experimentation in torture have been developed by the CIA for over 50 years. After all, under Reagan -- and the ongoing School of the Americas (whose name has now been changed for PR purposes) -- we trained a generation of torturers in Latin America.
The Bush Administration, one could argue, just went public with torture and authorized it as a national policy -- and then alternately lobbied to continue torturing and claiming that it didn't engage in torture. Well, Orwell would be proud, but the body bags and photos are just the tip of the iceberg in revealing the Bush-Cheney gulag of betraying our nation's civilized standards.
Alfred W. McCoy, Author of "A Question of Torture" and a history professor at the University of Wisconsin, not only establishes the historic development of government sanctioned torture, but he is most concerned about how it diminishes the standards of our nation.
Moreover, McCoy makes a strong case that torture rarely is effective. It is like looking for a needle in haystack. Selective torture inevitably leads to mass torture, as we saw in Chile and Argentina during the "dirty wars." Furthermore, McCoy points out that then mass torture leads to extra-judicial killings.
As we have seen, the Bush crew is worried about the cost of long-term imprisonment of terrorist suspects who are no longer of any potential intelligence value. It was just such a situation that led the French to practice summary execution during their anti-terror campaign at the time of the Algerian war for independence. According to McCoy, the CIA Phoenix program in Vietnam produced over 20,000 extra-judicial killings." McCoy notes, "the logical corollary to state-sanctioned torture is state-sanctioned murder."
Indeed, we know that this gruesome continuum has already occurred at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and likely at other sites in the Bush gulag of torture.
If we adopt the barbaric practices of terrorists, they have already beaten us.
Because when we adopt torture as a national policy, we have become what we have beheld. We have lost all pretense of moral superiority -- and the line between good and evil becomes blurred beyond all recognition.
Recently, Bush reluctantly signed an anti-torture bill passed overwhelmingly by Congress. But he used one of his "unitary executive" interpretation statements to indicate that he would bypass the law if he felt like it. (The tactic of using presidential signing statements to circumvent laws passed by Congress was a strategy formulated by Sam Alito during his service in the Reagan Administration.)
"A Question of Torture" is one of a laudable number of books that Henry Holt and Company publishers are issuing in a series that is called "The American Empire Project." Holt is to be commended for its contribution to public discourse about out nation's direction from impassioned, thoughtful authors who reflect upon our imperial ambitions.
Most Americans probably don't relish reading a book about the history of how our nation abandoned its noble ideals and joined the ranks of the torturers, but remember this is OUR country -- and we ARE torturing people.
"A Question of Torture" makes the logical argument that this didn't all happen overnight. The infrastructure, training, and experimentation in torture have been developed by the CIA for over 50 years. After all, under Reagan -- and the ongoing School of the Americas (whose name has now been changed for PR purposes) -- we trained a generation of torturers in Latin America.
The Bush Administration, one could argue, just went public with torture and authorized it as a national policy -- and then alternately lobbied to continue torturing and claiming that it didn't engage in torture. Well, Orwell would be proud, but the body bags and photos are just the tip of the iceberg in revealing the Bush-Cheney gulag of betraying our nation's civilized standards.
Alfred W. McCoy, Author of "A Question of Torture" and a history professor at the University of Wisconsin, not only establishes the historic development of government sanctioned torture, but he is most concerned about how it diminishes the standards of our nation.
Moreover, McCoy makes a strong case that torture rarely is effective. It is like looking for a needle in haystack. Selective torture inevitably leads to mass torture, as we saw in Chile and Argentina during the "dirty wars." Furthermore, McCoy points out that then mass torture leads to extra-judicial killings.
As we have seen, the Bush crew is worried about the cost of long-term imprisonment of terrorist suspects who are no longer of any potential intelligence value. It was just such a situation that led the French to practice summary execution during their anti-terror campaign at the time of the Algerian war for independence. According to McCoy, the CIA Phoenix program in Vietnam produced over 20,000 extra-judicial killings." McCoy notes, "the logical corollary to state-sanctioned torture is state-sanctioned murder."
Indeed, we know that this gruesome continuum has already occurred at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and likely at other sites in the Bush gulag of torture.
If we adopt the barbaric practices of terrorists, they have already beaten us.
Because when we adopt torture as a national policy, we have become what we have beheld. We have lost all pretense of moral superiority -- and the line between good and evil becomes blurred beyond all recognition.
Recently, Bush reluctantly signed an anti-torture bill passed overwhelmingly by Congress. But he used one of his "unitary executive" interpretation statements to indicate that he would bypass the law if he felt like it. (The tactic of using presidential signing statements to circumvent laws passed by Congress was a strategy formulated by Sam Alito during his service in the Reagan Administration.)
"A Question of Torture" is one of a laudable number of books that Henry Holt and Company publishers are issuing in a series that is called "The American Empire Project." Holt is to be commended for its contribution to public discourse about out nation's direction from impassioned, thoughtful authors who reflect upon our imperial ambitions.
30.1.06
Blair in Secret Plot with Bush to Dupe U.N.
Blair in Secret Plot with Bush to Dupe U.N.
No sh** sherlock.
A White House leak revealing astonishing details of how Tony Blair and George Bush lied about the Iraq war is set to cause a worldwide political storm.
A new book exposes how the two men connived to dupe the United Nations and blows the lid off Mr Blair's claim that he was a restraining influence on Mr Bush.
He offered his total support for the war at a secret White House summit as Mr Bush displayed his contempt for the UN, made a series of wild threats against Saddam Hussein and showed a devastating ignorance about the catastrophic aftermath of the war.
Based on access to information at the highest level, the book by leading British human rights lawyer Philippe Sands QC, Professor of Law at London University, demonstrates how the two men decided to go to war regardless of whether they obtained UN backing.
The revelations make a nonsense of Mr Blair's claim that the final decision was not made until MPs voted in the Commons 24 hours before the war - and could revive the risk of him being charged with war crimes or impeached by Parliament itself.
The book also makes serious allegations concerning the conduct of Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer and Attorney General Lord Goldsmith over Goldsmith's legal advice on the war.
And it alleges the British Government boasted that disgraced newspaper tycoon Conrad Black was being used by Mr Bush's allies in America as a channel for pro-war propaganda in the UK via his Daily Telegraph newspaper.
The leaks are contained in a new version of Sands' book Lawless World, first published last year, when it emerged that Lord Goldsmith had told Mr Blair the war could be unlawful - before a lastminute U-turn.
The new edition, to be published by Penguin on Thursday, is likely to cause a fierce new controversy on both sides of the Atlantic.
It follows recent charges against two British men under the Official Secrets Act after a transcript of another conversation between Mr Bush and Blair, in which the President raised the possibility of bombing the Al Jazeera Arab TV station, was leaked by a Whitehall official.
Both governments will be horrified that the stream of leaks revealing the grim truth about the war is turning into a flood. The most damaging new revelation concerns the meeting between Mr Blair and Mr Bush at the White House on January 31, 2003, during which Mr Blair urged the President to seek a second UN resolution giving specific backing for the war.
The Mail on Sunday has established that the meeting was attended only by Mr Blair, his Downing Street foreign policy adviser Sir David Manning, Mr Bush and the President's then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, plus an official note-taker.
The top-secret record of the meeting was circulated to a tiny handful of senior figures in the two administrations.
Immediately afterwards, the two leaders gave a Press conference in which a nervous-looking Mr Blair claimed the meeting had been a success. Mr Bush gave qualified support for going down the UN route.
But observers noted the awkward body language between the two men. Sands' book explains why. Far from giving a genuine endorsement to Mr Blair's attempt to gain full UN approval, Mr Bush was only going through the motions. And Mr Blair not only knew it, but went along with it.
The description of the January 31 meeting echoes the recent memoirs of Britain's former ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer.
Meyer, who was excluded from the private session between Blair and Bush, claimed the summit marked the culmination of the Prime Minister's failure to use his influence to hold back Mr Bush.
Equally significantly, Meyer was puzzled by Blair's behaviour when the two leaders emerged to join other aides. Meyer writes: "We were all milling around in the State dining room as Bush and Blair put the final touches to what they were going to say to the media.
"Bush had a notepad on which he had written a form of words on the second resolution...He read it out...There was silence. I waited for Blair to say he needed something as supportive as possible. He said nothing. I waited for somebody on the No 10 team to say something. Nothing was said. I cursed myself afterwards for not piping up.
"At the Press conference, Bush gave only a perfunctory and lukewarm support for a second resolution. It was neither his nor Blair's finest performance."
In view of Sands' disclosures, Blair had every reason to look awkward: he knew that despite his public talk of getting UN support, privately he had just committed himself to going to war no matter what the UN did.
When, in due course, the UN refused to back the war, Mr Blair seized on the fact that French President Jacques Chirac said he would not support any pro-war resolution, claiming that the French veto was so 'unreasonable' that a UN vote was pointless. In reality, Bush and Blair had decided to go to war before Chirac uttered a word.
The disclosures will be seized on by anti-war critics in Britain, including Left-wing MPs who say Mr Blair should be impeached for his handling of the war.
However, Ministers will argue that after three major British inquiries into the war, and with thousands of British troops due to be sent home from Iraq this year, it is time to move on.
A Downing Street spokeswoman said last night: "These matters have been thoroughly investigated and we stand by our position."
No sh** sherlock.
A White House leak revealing astonishing details of how Tony Blair and George Bush lied about the Iraq war is set to cause a worldwide political storm.
A new book exposes how the two men connived to dupe the United Nations and blows the lid off Mr Blair's claim that he was a restraining influence on Mr Bush.
He offered his total support for the war at a secret White House summit as Mr Bush displayed his contempt for the UN, made a series of wild threats against Saddam Hussein and showed a devastating ignorance about the catastrophic aftermath of the war.
Based on access to information at the highest level, the book by leading British human rights lawyer Philippe Sands QC, Professor of Law at London University, demonstrates how the two men decided to go to war regardless of whether they obtained UN backing.
The revelations make a nonsense of Mr Blair's claim that the final decision was not made until MPs voted in the Commons 24 hours before the war - and could revive the risk of him being charged with war crimes or impeached by Parliament itself.
The book also makes serious allegations concerning the conduct of Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer and Attorney General Lord Goldsmith over Goldsmith's legal advice on the war.
And it alleges the British Government boasted that disgraced newspaper tycoon Conrad Black was being used by Mr Bush's allies in America as a channel for pro-war propaganda in the UK via his Daily Telegraph newspaper.
The leaks are contained in a new version of Sands' book Lawless World, first published last year, when it emerged that Lord Goldsmith had told Mr Blair the war could be unlawful - before a lastminute U-turn.
The new edition, to be published by Penguin on Thursday, is likely to cause a fierce new controversy on both sides of the Atlantic.
It follows recent charges against two British men under the Official Secrets Act after a transcript of another conversation between Mr Bush and Blair, in which the President raised the possibility of bombing the Al Jazeera Arab TV station, was leaked by a Whitehall official.
Both governments will be horrified that the stream of leaks revealing the grim truth about the war is turning into a flood. The most damaging new revelation concerns the meeting between Mr Blair and Mr Bush at the White House on January 31, 2003, during which Mr Blair urged the President to seek a second UN resolution giving specific backing for the war.
The Mail on Sunday has established that the meeting was attended only by Mr Blair, his Downing Street foreign policy adviser Sir David Manning, Mr Bush and the President's then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, plus an official note-taker.
The top-secret record of the meeting was circulated to a tiny handful of senior figures in the two administrations.
Immediately afterwards, the two leaders gave a Press conference in which a nervous-looking Mr Blair claimed the meeting had been a success. Mr Bush gave qualified support for going down the UN route.
But observers noted the awkward body language between the two men. Sands' book explains why. Far from giving a genuine endorsement to Mr Blair's attempt to gain full UN approval, Mr Bush was only going through the motions. And Mr Blair not only knew it, but went along with it.
The description of the January 31 meeting echoes the recent memoirs of Britain's former ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer.
Meyer, who was excluded from the private session between Blair and Bush, claimed the summit marked the culmination of the Prime Minister's failure to use his influence to hold back Mr Bush.
Equally significantly, Meyer was puzzled by Blair's behaviour when the two leaders emerged to join other aides. Meyer writes: "We were all milling around in the State dining room as Bush and Blair put the final touches to what they were going to say to the media.
"Bush had a notepad on which he had written a form of words on the second resolution...He read it out...There was silence. I waited for Blair to say he needed something as supportive as possible. He said nothing. I waited for somebody on the No 10 team to say something. Nothing was said. I cursed myself afterwards for not piping up.
"At the Press conference, Bush gave only a perfunctory and lukewarm support for a second resolution. It was neither his nor Blair's finest performance."
In view of Sands' disclosures, Blair had every reason to look awkward: he knew that despite his public talk of getting UN support, privately he had just committed himself to going to war no matter what the UN did.
When, in due course, the UN refused to back the war, Mr Blair seized on the fact that French President Jacques Chirac said he would not support any pro-war resolution, claiming that the French veto was so 'unreasonable' that a UN vote was pointless. In reality, Bush and Blair had decided to go to war before Chirac uttered a word.
The disclosures will be seized on by anti-war critics in Britain, including Left-wing MPs who say Mr Blair should be impeached for his handling of the war.
However, Ministers will argue that after three major British inquiries into the war, and with thousands of British troops due to be sent home from Iraq this year, it is time to move on.
A Downing Street spokeswoman said last night: "These matters have been thoroughly investigated and we stand by our position."
28.1.06
How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib
The New Yorker: Fact
THE GRAY ZONE
How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib.
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2004-05-24Posted 2004-05-15
The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq.
Rumsfeld’s decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America’s prospects in the war on terror.
According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon’s operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq.
A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld’s long-standing desire to wrest control of America’s clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A.
Rumsfeld, during appearances last week before Congress to testify about Abu Ghraib, was precluded by law from explicitly mentioning highly secret matters in an unclassified session. But he conveyed the message that he was telling the public all that he knew about the story.
He said, “Any suggestion that there is not a full, deep awareness of what has happened, and the damage it has done, I think, would be a misunderstanding.” The senior C.I.A. official, asked about Rumsfeld’s testimony and that of Stephen Cambone, his Under-Secretary for Intelligence, said, “Some people think you can bullshit anyone.”
The Abu Ghraib story began, in a sense, just weeks after the September 11, 2001, attacks, with the American bombing of Afghanistan. Almost from the start, the Administration’s search for Al Qaeda members in the war zone, and its worldwide search for terrorists, came up against major command-and-control problems. For example, combat forces that had Al Qaeda targets in sight had to obtain legal clearance ...read on via the link.
THE GRAY ZONE
How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib.
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2004-05-24Posted 2004-05-15
The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq.
Rumsfeld’s decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America’s prospects in the war on terror.
According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon’s operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq.
A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld’s long-standing desire to wrest control of America’s clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A.
Rumsfeld, during appearances last week before Congress to testify about Abu Ghraib, was precluded by law from explicitly mentioning highly secret matters in an unclassified session. But he conveyed the message that he was telling the public all that he knew about the story.
He said, “Any suggestion that there is not a full, deep awareness of what has happened, and the damage it has done, I think, would be a misunderstanding.” The senior C.I.A. official, asked about Rumsfeld’s testimony and that of Stephen Cambone, his Under-Secretary for Intelligence, said, “Some people think you can bullshit anyone.”
The Abu Ghraib story began, in a sense, just weeks after the September 11, 2001, attacks, with the American bombing of Afghanistan. Almost from the start, the Administration’s search for Al Qaeda members in the war zone, and its worldwide search for terrorists, came up against major command-and-control problems. For example, combat forces that had Al Qaeda targets in sight had to obtain legal clearance ...read on via the link.
What I Saw in Iraq
Aidan Delgado What I Saw in Iraq -- 06.03.05
Part 1QuickTime DSL 56K Windows Media DSL 56K
Part 2QuickTime DSL 56K Windows Media DSL 56K
A young man, who grew up...in the right way. While on his tour, he started to become a conscience objector; The military took away his armor, denied him leave, and some members of his unit harrassed and abused him.
While Aidan softened, others did not, and he reveals the harshness overcoming our once young and innocent citizens.
Iraqi's initially offered goodwill; initially the soldiers were gracious. Over time they hardened and bewildered the Iraqi citizens with harsh abusive behavior.
He speaks openly about the conditions at Abu Garib; disentary and 80 prisoners to a tent, with only trenchs for the bathroom. They were served rotten food, often subjected to food poisoning, rats, etc.
I applaud Aidan Delgado for coming out of Iraq unjaded, but more sensitive to what he was exposed to, and compassion for those The US sought to destroy.
Part 1QuickTime DSL 56K Windows Media DSL 56K
Part 2QuickTime DSL 56K Windows Media DSL 56K
A young man, who grew up...in the right way. While on his tour, he started to become a conscience objector; The military took away his armor, denied him leave, and some members of his unit harrassed and abused him.
While Aidan softened, others did not, and he reveals the harshness overcoming our once young and innocent citizens.
Iraqi's initially offered goodwill; initially the soldiers were gracious. Over time they hardened and bewildered the Iraqi citizens with harsh abusive behavior.
He speaks openly about the conditions at Abu Garib; disentary and 80 prisoners to a tent, with only trenchs for the bathroom. They were served rotten food, often subjected to food poisoning, rats, etc.
I applaud Aidan Delgado for coming out of Iraq unjaded, but more sensitive to what he was exposed to, and compassion for those The US sought to destroy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)