Vice President for Torture
VICE PRESIDENT Cheney is aggressively pursuing an initiative that may be unprecedented for an elected official of the executive branch:
He is proposing that Congress legally authorize human rights abuses by Americans. "Cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of prisoners is banned by an international treaty negotiated by the Reagan administration and ratified by the United States.
The State Department annually issues a report criticizing other governments for violating it. Now Mr. Cheney is asking Congress to approve legal language that would allow the CIA to commit such abuses against foreign prisoners it is holding abroad.
In other words, this vice president has become an open advocate of torture.
His position is not just some abstract defense of presidential power. The CIA is holding an unknown number of prisoners in secret detention centers abroad. In violation of the Geneva Conventions, it has refused to register those detainees with the International Red Cross or to allow visits by its inspectors. Its prisoners have "disappeared," like the victims of some dictatorships.
The Justice Department and the White House are known to have approved harsh interrogation techniques for some of these people, including "waterboarding," or simulated drowning; mock execution; and the deliberate withholding of pain medication.
CIA personnel have been implicated in the deaths during interrogation of at least four Afghan and Iraqi detainees. Official investigations have indicated that some aberrant practices by Army personnel in Iraq originated with the CIA.
Yet no CIA personnel have been held accountable for this record, and there has never been a public report on the agency's performance.
It's not surprising that Mr. Cheney would be at the forefront of an attempt to ratify and legalize this shameful record.
The vice president has been a prime mover behind the Bush administration's decision to violate the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against Torture and to break with decades of past practice by the U.S. military.
These decisions at the top have led to hundreds of documented cases of abuse, torture and homicide in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Cheney's counsel, David S. Addington, was reportedly one of the principal authors of a legal memo justifying the torture of suspects.
This summer Mr. Cheney told several Republican senators that President Bush would veto the annual defense spending bill if it contained language prohibiting the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by any U.S. personnel.
The senators ignored Mr. Cheney's threats, and the amendment, sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), passed this month by a vote of 90 to 9.
So now Mr. Cheney is trying to persuade members of a House-Senate conference committee to adopt language that would not just nullify the McCain amendment but would formally adopt cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as a legal instrument of U.S. policy. The Senate's earlier vote suggests that it will not allow such a betrayal of American values.
As for Mr. Cheney: He will be remembered as the vice president who campaigned for torture.
23.1.06
Abu Ghraib (Additional SourceWatch Resources) - SourceWatch
Abu Ghraib (Additional SourceWatch Resources) - SourceWatch
Abu Ghraib (External Links)
Abu Ghraib: Accountability
Abu Ghraib: Bush Administration Reaction (including damage control and cover-up)
Abu Ghraib: Charges Against Military Personnel
Abu Ghraib: Congressional Investigation
Abu Ghraib: Fraternity 'Hazing', a.k.a. 'Not as Bad as Saddam'
Abu Ghraib: 'Ghost Detainees'
Abu Ghraib: Interrogation Methods and Legal Issues
Abu Ghraib: Media Coverage
Abu Ghraib: Photographic Evidence of Brutality
Abu Ghraib: private military contractors
Abu Ghraib: Sexual abuse
Abu Ghraib: The Rumsfeld Factor
Abu Ghraib: What Did 'They' Know and 'When' Did They Know It?
Legal Arguments for Avoiding the Jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions
Office of Military Commissions
President's Military Order of November 13, 2001, Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism
Who leaked the 'Taguba Report'?
Afghanistan
Afghanistan detainee abuse scandal
al Qaeda
Amnesty International
Bush administration
Bush administration financial misconduct and lack of accountability
Bush administration scandals
Bush regime
Camp Bucca
Central Intelligence Agency
Coalition Provisional Authority
Combined Joint Task Force 7
Defense Policy Board
Delta Force
Department of Defense
enemy combatant
Enemy Prisoner of War (EPW)
Enemy Prisoner of War Camps in Iraq
Geneva Conventions
global detention system
Guantanamo Camp Xray
Human Rights Watch
Intelligence Community
International Committee of the Red Cross
invasion of Iraq
Is the Iraq mission a failure?
Iraqi detainee abuse scandal
Iraqi sovereignty: June 30, 2004
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Media control: Sinclair Broadcast Group
Multi-National Corps-Iraq
Multi-National Force-Iraq
New Iraq
Nicholas Berg
Office of Security Transition-Iraq
Operation Iraqi Freedom: Year Two
Post-war Iraq
prison-industrial complex
Private Military Corporations
Senate Armed Services Committee
Soldiers for the Truth
Taliban
U.S. Central Command
Vulcans
war crime
weapons of mass destruction
Table of contents
1 People
1.1 Bush Administration (Current and Former)
1.2 Members of Congress
1.3 Military: Officer Corps
1.4 Military: Enlisted Personnel
1.5 Abu Ghraib: private military contractors
1.6 Media
1.7 Other
Abu Ghraib (External Links)
Abu Ghraib: Accountability
Abu Ghraib: Bush Administration Reaction (including damage control and cover-up)
Abu Ghraib: Charges Against Military Personnel
Abu Ghraib: Congressional Investigation
Abu Ghraib: Fraternity 'Hazing', a.k.a. 'Not as Bad as Saddam'
Abu Ghraib: 'Ghost Detainees'
Abu Ghraib: Interrogation Methods and Legal Issues
Abu Ghraib: Media Coverage
Abu Ghraib: Photographic Evidence of Brutality
Abu Ghraib: private military contractors
Abu Ghraib: Sexual abuse
Abu Ghraib: The Rumsfeld Factor
Abu Ghraib: What Did 'They' Know and 'When' Did They Know It?
Legal Arguments for Avoiding the Jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions
Office of Military Commissions
President's Military Order of November 13, 2001, Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism
Who leaked the 'Taguba Report'?
Afghanistan
Afghanistan detainee abuse scandal
al Qaeda
Amnesty International
Bush administration
Bush administration financial misconduct and lack of accountability
Bush administration scandals
Bush regime
Camp Bucca
Central Intelligence Agency
Coalition Provisional Authority
Combined Joint Task Force 7
Defense Policy Board
Delta Force
Department of Defense
enemy combatant
Enemy Prisoner of War (EPW)
Enemy Prisoner of War Camps in Iraq
Geneva Conventions
global detention system
Guantanamo Camp Xray
Human Rights Watch
Intelligence Community
International Committee of the Red Cross
invasion of Iraq
Is the Iraq mission a failure?
Iraqi detainee abuse scandal
Iraqi sovereignty: June 30, 2004
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Media control: Sinclair Broadcast Group
Multi-National Corps-Iraq
Multi-National Force-Iraq
New Iraq
Nicholas Berg
Office of Security Transition-Iraq
Operation Iraqi Freedom: Year Two
Post-war Iraq
prison-industrial complex
Private Military Corporations
Senate Armed Services Committee
Soldiers for the Truth
Taliban
U.S. Central Command
Vulcans
war crime
weapons of mass destruction
Table of contents
1 People
1.1 Bush Administration (Current and Former)
1.2 Members of Congress
1.3 Military: Officer Corps
1.4 Military: Enlisted Personnel
1.5 Abu Ghraib: private military contractors
1.6 Media
1.7 Other
Legal Arguments for Avoiding the Jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions - SourceWatch
Legal Arguments for Avoiding the Jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions - SourceWatch
Legal arguments for avoiding the jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions commenced prior to November 13, 2001, when President George W. Bush issued the President's Military Order of November 13, 2001, Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism in response to the events of September 11, 2001.
Also see Jennifer Elsea, "Terrorism and the Law of War: Trying Terrorists as War Criminals before Military Commissions," (http://www.fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/7951.pdf) Congressional Record Service, updated December 11, 2001;
"This report supercedes 'Trying Terrorists as War Criminals', RS21056 (Oct. 29, 2001), a summary treatment of the military tribunal issue prepared prior to the issuance of President Bush's Order of November 13, 2001
"Iraq's a nation. The United States is a nation. The Geneva Conventions applied. They have applied every single day from the outset." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. May 20, 2004,
citation (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5024068/
The Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. May 13, 2004,
Iraq (http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2004&m=May&x=20040514164950sjhtrop0.3854029&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html
The President's Order is subsequently referenced by John C. Yoo and James C. Ho in their August 1, 2003, "International Law and the War on Terrorism." (http://www.law.berkeley.edu/cenpro/ils/papers/yoonyucombatants.pdf
Yoo and Ho state that their paper will "identify and discuss two legal questions raised by the war on terrorism that have generated significant controversy among academics and public commentators.
"First, did the September 11, 2001 attacks initiate a war, or 'international armed conflict' to use the vocabulary of modern public international law?
"Second, what legal rules govern the status and treatment of members of the al Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban militia that harbored and supported them in Afghanistan?"
Yoo and Ho inform:
"In short, the United States government has concluded that the attacks of September 11 have placed the United States in a state of armed conflict, to which the laws of war apply. It has also determined that members of the al Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban militia are illegal combatants under the laws of war, and so cannot claim the legal protections and benefits that accrue to legal belligerents, such as prisoner of war status under the Third Geneva Convention of 1949." BU*SH*IT
In no section of the President's Military Order is reference made either directly or indirectly to the Geneva Conventions.
Legal arguments for avoiding the jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions commenced prior to November 13, 2001, when President George W. Bush issued the President's Military Order of November 13, 2001, Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism in response to the events of September 11, 2001.
Also see Jennifer Elsea, "Terrorism and the Law of War: Trying Terrorists as War Criminals before Military Commissions," (http://www.fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/7951.pdf) Congressional Record Service, updated December 11, 2001;
"This report supercedes 'Trying Terrorists as War Criminals', RS21056 (Oct. 29, 2001), a summary treatment of the military tribunal issue prepared prior to the issuance of President Bush's Order of November 13, 2001
"Iraq's a nation. The United States is a nation. The Geneva Conventions applied. They have applied every single day from the outset." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. May 20, 2004,
citation (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5024068/
The Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. May 13, 2004,
Iraq (http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2004&m=May&x=20040514164950sjhtrop0.3854029&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html
The President's Order is subsequently referenced by John C. Yoo and James C. Ho in their August 1, 2003, "International Law and the War on Terrorism." (http://www.law.berkeley.edu/cenpro/ils/papers/yoonyucombatants.pdf
Yoo and Ho state that their paper will "identify and discuss two legal questions raised by the war on terrorism that have generated significant controversy among academics and public commentators.
"First, did the September 11, 2001 attacks initiate a war, or 'international armed conflict' to use the vocabulary of modern public international law?
"Second, what legal rules govern the status and treatment of members of the al Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban militia that harbored and supported them in Afghanistan?"
Yoo and Ho inform:
"In short, the United States government has concluded that the attacks of September 11 have placed the United States in a state of armed conflict, to which the laws of war apply. It has also determined that members of the al Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban militia are illegal combatants under the laws of war, and so cannot claim the legal protections and benefits that accrue to legal belligerents, such as prisoner of war status under the Third Geneva Convention of 1949." BU*SH*IT
In no section of the President's Military Order is reference made either directly or indirectly to the Geneva Conventions.
Enemy Prisoner of War Camps in Iraq - SourceWatch
Enemy Prisoner of War Camps in Iraq - SourceWatch
According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), there are 10 Enemy Prisoner of War Camps in Iraq detaining approximately 9,000 prisoners.
("The total number of detainees whose names appeared on the database on January 24 this year was 8,968, but the figures may fluctuate substantially from week to week.")
[1] (http://www.counterpunch.org/hrw05072004.html)
"According to information that Human Rights Watch obtained from the U.S. military's database in January 2004, the U.S. is holding detainees at 10 major facilities around Iraq. The largest is Abu Ghraib Prison, also known as the Baghdad Central Correctional Facility or BCCF. Two other major facilities are Camp Bucca in Umm Qasr and Talil Airforce Base south of Baghdad (also known as Whitford Camp)."
[2] (http://www.counterpunch.org/hrw05072004.html)
"Abu Ghraib is itself divided into a number of 'camps.' These include Camp Ganci (with five divisions according to the seriousness of the crime); Camp Vigilant for high security detainees who are subdivided into 'black, gray, and white lists;' a Medical Wing, and another camp for those 'serving time'."
[3] (http://www.counterpunch.org/hrw05072004.html)
Plus:
[4] (http://www.counterpunch.org/hrw05072004.html)
Al-Rusafa (formerly the Deportations' Prison or Tasfirat) in Baghdad
Al-Kadhimiyya in Baghdad (women only)
Al-Karkh in Baghdad (juveniles only)
Al-Diwaniyya Security Detainee Holding Area
Tikrit Detention Facility
Mosul Detention Facility
MEK (Ashraf Camp), near al-Ramadi ("MEK is the old Ashraf camp used by the Iranian opposition group Mojahedin-e-Khalq (hence MEK) which, according to the U.S. military, does not hold any Iranian detainees but Iraqis accused of serious crimes such as murder and rape."
[5] (http://www.counterpunch.org/hrw05072004.html))
"In January 2004," HRW says, "the United States was holding detainees from 21 different nations, including Algeria, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israeli-occupied Gaza and West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and Yemen."
[6] (http://www.counterpunch.org/hrw05072004.html)
HRW reports that the "names and details (including identification number, date and place of arrest, military unit which carried out the arrest, place of detention, charges) of inmates held at these facilities are entered into a central database following initial interrogation and processing."
[7] (http://www.counterpunch.org/hrw05072004.html)
"Additionally," HRW says, "there are a number of other detention facilities located in U.S. military compounds, used as temporary facilities for initial or secondary interrogation. These include facilities at Camp Falcon on the outskirts of Baghdad, and Camp Cropper located near Baghdad Airport. Security detainees have been held for up to a week during initial interrogation, and up to a month for secondary interrogation, during which time they have no access to relatives or counsel. Their names and details are entered into the central database only in the event that they are transferred to one of the ten major detention facilities listed above."
[8] (http://www.counterpunch.org/hrw05072004.html)
Also see:
Abu Ghraib (Additional SourceWatch Resources)
Abu Ghraib (External Links)
I find it impossible that all of these prisoners are terrorists. May those who placed the innocent people in these camps burn in hell.
According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), there are 10 Enemy Prisoner of War Camps in Iraq detaining approximately 9,000 prisoners.
("The total number of detainees whose names appeared on the database on January 24 this year was 8,968, but the figures may fluctuate substantially from week to week.")
[1] (http://www.counterpunch.org/hrw05072004.html)
"According to information that Human Rights Watch obtained from the U.S. military's database in January 2004, the U.S. is holding detainees at 10 major facilities around Iraq. The largest is Abu Ghraib Prison, also known as the Baghdad Central Correctional Facility or BCCF. Two other major facilities are Camp Bucca in Umm Qasr and Talil Airforce Base south of Baghdad (also known as Whitford Camp)."
[2] (http://www.counterpunch.org/hrw05072004.html)
"Abu Ghraib is itself divided into a number of 'camps.' These include Camp Ganci (with five divisions according to the seriousness of the crime); Camp Vigilant for high security detainees who are subdivided into 'black, gray, and white lists;' a Medical Wing, and another camp for those 'serving time'."
[3] (http://www.counterpunch.org/hrw05072004.html)
Plus:
[4] (http://www.counterpunch.org/hrw05072004.html)
Al-Rusafa (formerly the Deportations' Prison or Tasfirat) in Baghdad
Al-Kadhimiyya in Baghdad (women only)
Al-Karkh in Baghdad (juveniles only)
Al-Diwaniyya Security Detainee Holding Area
Tikrit Detention Facility
Mosul Detention Facility
MEK (Ashraf Camp), near al-Ramadi ("MEK is the old Ashraf camp used by the Iranian opposition group Mojahedin-e-Khalq (hence MEK) which, according to the U.S. military, does not hold any Iranian detainees but Iraqis accused of serious crimes such as murder and rape."
[5] (http://www.counterpunch.org/hrw05072004.html))
"In January 2004," HRW says, "the United States was holding detainees from 21 different nations, including Algeria, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israeli-occupied Gaza and West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and Yemen."
[6] (http://www.counterpunch.org/hrw05072004.html)
HRW reports that the "names and details (including identification number, date and place of arrest, military unit which carried out the arrest, place of detention, charges) of inmates held at these facilities are entered into a central database following initial interrogation and processing."
[7] (http://www.counterpunch.org/hrw05072004.html)
"Additionally," HRW says, "there are a number of other detention facilities located in U.S. military compounds, used as temporary facilities for initial or secondary interrogation. These include facilities at Camp Falcon on the outskirts of Baghdad, and Camp Cropper located near Baghdad Airport. Security detainees have been held for up to a week during initial interrogation, and up to a month for secondary interrogation, during which time they have no access to relatives or counsel. Their names and details are entered into the central database only in the event that they are transferred to one of the ten major detention facilities listed above."
[8] (http://www.counterpunch.org/hrw05072004.html)
Also see:
Abu Ghraib (Additional SourceWatch Resources)
Abu Ghraib (External Links)
I find it impossible that all of these prisoners are terrorists. May those who placed the innocent people in these camps burn in hell.
Letters From Detainees
Letters from Detainees
First 20 of 100
A Letter From Detainee P03-01-2006
This message is from a disabled detainee recently released from high security prison into the isolation of house arrest. He now lives alone in a flat and is only allowed two hours outside each day (12.00 – 2.00pm) within his immediate area. Only visitors vetted by the Home Office are allowed.
Why Am I Being Punished? (On The Petty Brutality of the American Army)19-12-2005
This question has continued to grind in my head like a millstone and stab at my heart. I still search every corner of my mind hoping that perhaps I will find a light or a memory that will make me forget the situation I am in.
Randall “Ismail” Royer's Letters From Prison
19-12-2005
Randall “Ismail” Royer grew up in Manchester and is a graduate of Parkway South High School. A Muslim convert, he pleaded guilty last year to federal charges of helping a pro-Pakistani Muslim group fight Indian forces in the disputed territory of Kashmir. He is currently serving a 20-year sentence at the medium-security federal prison in Allenwood, Pa. Royer, 32, wrote the following letter, dated Nov. 2, to Washington Bureau Chief Jon Sawyer.
Randall “Ismail” Royer's Letters From Prison
19-12-2005Randall “Ismail” Royer grew up in Manchester and is a graduate of Parkway South High School. A Muslim convert, he pleaded guilty last year to federal charges of helping a pro-Pakistani Muslim group fight Indian forces in the disputed territory of Kashmir. He is currently serving a 20-year sentence at the medium-security federal prison in Allenwood, Pa. Royer, 32, wrote the following letter, dated Nov. 2, to Washington Bureau Chief Jon Sawyer.
For the Pleasure of My Lord, The Prisons Come Perfumed14-12-2005And if they forbid you from their visits And likewise their letters never appear, So if this is for a Lord and Religion Then where is the patience, where is the certainty!?
A Letter from Andijan Prison
13-12-2005We have received this letter through email. From the text, context and jargon, it appears that the letter has actually been smuggled out of the Andijan prison where the recently sentenced prisoners of Andijan uprising of Uzbekistan are being held although we have no way of verifying the authenticity of the letter. The following is the complete, unedited version of the letter.
An Open Letter From The Brothers in HMP Belmarsh
06-12-2005 We, your brothers at Belmarsh prison and on behalf of brothers captive across the UK, especially those who are deprived of any form of communication with the outside world, collectively and with one voice would like to say thanks to Allah that we have you out there and thanks to you for being what you are
What It Means To Be British
04-12-2005 What does it mean for a Muslim to be British? For some it means presenting your pink passport when you travel for Hajj or Umrah. For some it means wearing a Union Jack patterned hijab. For some it means attending the annual Eid party at the House of Commons and drinking tea with ministers. And for others it means shaking Mr Policeman’s hand when he visits the local mosque as part of ‘community’ relations.
Babar Ahmad: The Carrot and The Stick
02-12-2005 Maybe it is now time to notify the Government: If you do not stop extraditing our sons to your brutal ‘allies’ then expect no help, cooperation or support from us. You want us to hand our sons over to you just so that you can fast-track them to America or Guantanamo Bay? Sorry, this is not going to take place without a price. And that price is that you can expect our communities to stop cooperating with you in your ‘War of Terror.’ This time you have gone one step too far. You opened this can of worms and you can close it.
Letter from Detainee I: Iraqi Detainees in Full Sutton
29-11-2005 They are with us in this cruel environment in Special Secure Unit which is designated to punish the convicted inmates. The impact on them is obvious and serious. They cannot sleep at night and they are even prevented to make regular phone calls to their families.
Poem by the Daughter of Guantanamo Detainee, Shaker Aamer
27-11-2005
A poem full of my feelings to someone who can do something about my father whom we have not seen for four years:
Mrs El Banna's Statement To The Reprieve/Amnesty Conference
25-11-2005I am Mrs. Al-Banna. My husband, Jamil Al-Banna, went to Gambia in November 2003. When he arrived at the airport, he was kidnapped. After a month, he was sent to Afghanistan and after another month, he was sent to Guantanamo.
Muhammad Al Banna's Statement to the Amnesty/Reprieve Conference
25-11-2005 My dear dad, You are the light in the darkness
Anas Al Banna's Statement to Amnesty/Reprieve Conference25-11-2005I am Anas Al-Banna. In December, I will be 9 years old. I haven’t seen my dad since I was 6. I have two brothers, two sisters and my mum. I always dream of my family being complete like my friends’ families and whenever I see a plane, I remember my dad and say, maybe this plane is bringing my dad back…
Unclassified Statement from Shaker Abdurraheem Aamer, British Resident in Guantanamo
20-11-2005 The following statement is from Guantanamo detainee, Shaker Abdurraheem Aamer. Shaker is a Saudi national resident in the UK, who has a British wife and four British children. Shaker has been participating in the hunger strike for over three months and is being held in atrocious conditions in Camp V. This is his heartbreaking plea to chart his own destiny and to die in peace.
Eid Letter from Detainee I
19-11-2005What is happening is beyond imagination. They argue that freedom is a fundamental right, yet they deny it to so many. We hope this hardship will come to an end soon Inchallah. Our trust is in Allah
A Letter From Detainee I
22-10-2005Since we came here we didn't see the sky. We are treated harshly. Worse than Cat A prisoners
Words of Wisdom From Behind Bars: Seize the Moment
20-09-2005 Never belittle or ignore any good deed, however small or insignificant. Never belittle or ignore any good deed whether it is bringing water to your brother or saying the remembrance supplications after each Salah or helping someone to carry their luggage or smiling in the face of your brother. Or if it is helping to ransom a captive prisoner. Never belittle or ignore any good deed because that could be the deed that brings you salvation and admits you into Paradise.
A Letter from the Prisoners in Belmarsh
18-09-2005 No one has ever opposed a religion as the Belmarsh has and is by taking such harsh times of punishment such as stripped off canteen for weeks because you spoke of Islam, transferred to segregation unit for a month for acquiring books or calling out for prayers or pray in congregation.
A Letter From Monear Eldrissy To His Wife
13-09-2005A Letter From Monear Eldrissy To His Wife Maysoon
First 1 2 3 4 5 Last
First 20 of 100
A Letter From Detainee P03-01-2006
This message is from a disabled detainee recently released from high security prison into the isolation of house arrest. He now lives alone in a flat and is only allowed two hours outside each day (12.00 – 2.00pm) within his immediate area. Only visitors vetted by the Home Office are allowed.
Why Am I Being Punished? (On The Petty Brutality of the American Army)19-12-2005
This question has continued to grind in my head like a millstone and stab at my heart. I still search every corner of my mind hoping that perhaps I will find a light or a memory that will make me forget the situation I am in.
Randall “Ismail” Royer's Letters From Prison
19-12-2005
Randall “Ismail” Royer grew up in Manchester and is a graduate of Parkway South High School. A Muslim convert, he pleaded guilty last year to federal charges of helping a pro-Pakistani Muslim group fight Indian forces in the disputed territory of Kashmir. He is currently serving a 20-year sentence at the medium-security federal prison in Allenwood, Pa. Royer, 32, wrote the following letter, dated Nov. 2, to Washington Bureau Chief Jon Sawyer.
Randall “Ismail” Royer's Letters From Prison
19-12-2005Randall “Ismail” Royer grew up in Manchester and is a graduate of Parkway South High School. A Muslim convert, he pleaded guilty last year to federal charges of helping a pro-Pakistani Muslim group fight Indian forces in the disputed territory of Kashmir. He is currently serving a 20-year sentence at the medium-security federal prison in Allenwood, Pa. Royer, 32, wrote the following letter, dated Nov. 2, to Washington Bureau Chief Jon Sawyer.
For the Pleasure of My Lord, The Prisons Come Perfumed14-12-2005And if they forbid you from their visits And likewise their letters never appear, So if this is for a Lord and Religion Then where is the patience, where is the certainty!?
A Letter from Andijan Prison
13-12-2005We have received this letter through email. From the text, context and jargon, it appears that the letter has actually been smuggled out of the Andijan prison where the recently sentenced prisoners of Andijan uprising of Uzbekistan are being held although we have no way of verifying the authenticity of the letter. The following is the complete, unedited version of the letter.
An Open Letter From The Brothers in HMP Belmarsh
06-12-2005 We, your brothers at Belmarsh prison and on behalf of brothers captive across the UK, especially those who are deprived of any form of communication with the outside world, collectively and with one voice would like to say thanks to Allah that we have you out there and thanks to you for being what you are
What It Means To Be British
04-12-2005 What does it mean for a Muslim to be British? For some it means presenting your pink passport when you travel for Hajj or Umrah. For some it means wearing a Union Jack patterned hijab. For some it means attending the annual Eid party at the House of Commons and drinking tea with ministers. And for others it means shaking Mr Policeman’s hand when he visits the local mosque as part of ‘community’ relations.
Babar Ahmad: The Carrot and The Stick
02-12-2005 Maybe it is now time to notify the Government: If you do not stop extraditing our sons to your brutal ‘allies’ then expect no help, cooperation or support from us. You want us to hand our sons over to you just so that you can fast-track them to America or Guantanamo Bay? Sorry, this is not going to take place without a price. And that price is that you can expect our communities to stop cooperating with you in your ‘War of Terror.’ This time you have gone one step too far. You opened this can of worms and you can close it.
Letter from Detainee I: Iraqi Detainees in Full Sutton
29-11-2005 They are with us in this cruel environment in Special Secure Unit which is designated to punish the convicted inmates. The impact on them is obvious and serious. They cannot sleep at night and they are even prevented to make regular phone calls to their families.
Poem by the Daughter of Guantanamo Detainee, Shaker Aamer
27-11-2005
A poem full of my feelings to someone who can do something about my father whom we have not seen for four years:
Mrs El Banna's Statement To The Reprieve/Amnesty Conference
25-11-2005I am Mrs. Al-Banna. My husband, Jamil Al-Banna, went to Gambia in November 2003. When he arrived at the airport, he was kidnapped. After a month, he was sent to Afghanistan and after another month, he was sent to Guantanamo.
Muhammad Al Banna's Statement to the Amnesty/Reprieve Conference
25-11-2005 My dear dad, You are the light in the darkness
Anas Al Banna's Statement to Amnesty/Reprieve Conference25-11-2005I am Anas Al-Banna. In December, I will be 9 years old. I haven’t seen my dad since I was 6. I have two brothers, two sisters and my mum. I always dream of my family being complete like my friends’ families and whenever I see a plane, I remember my dad and say, maybe this plane is bringing my dad back…
Unclassified Statement from Shaker Abdurraheem Aamer, British Resident in Guantanamo
20-11-2005 The following statement is from Guantanamo detainee, Shaker Abdurraheem Aamer. Shaker is a Saudi national resident in the UK, who has a British wife and four British children. Shaker has been participating in the hunger strike for over three months and is being held in atrocious conditions in Camp V. This is his heartbreaking plea to chart his own destiny and to die in peace.
Eid Letter from Detainee I
19-11-2005What is happening is beyond imagination. They argue that freedom is a fundamental right, yet they deny it to so many. We hope this hardship will come to an end soon Inchallah. Our trust is in Allah
A Letter From Detainee I
22-10-2005Since we came here we didn't see the sky. We are treated harshly. Worse than Cat A prisoners
Words of Wisdom From Behind Bars: Seize the Moment
20-09-2005 Never belittle or ignore any good deed, however small or insignificant. Never belittle or ignore any good deed whether it is bringing water to your brother or saying the remembrance supplications after each Salah or helping someone to carry their luggage or smiling in the face of your brother. Or if it is helping to ransom a captive prisoner. Never belittle or ignore any good deed because that could be the deed that brings you salvation and admits you into Paradise.
A Letter from the Prisoners in Belmarsh
18-09-2005 No one has ever opposed a religion as the Belmarsh has and is by taking such harsh times of punishment such as stripped off canteen for weeks because you spoke of Islam, transferred to segregation unit for a month for acquiring books or calling out for prayers or pray in congregation.
A Letter From Monear Eldrissy To His Wife
13-09-2005A Letter From Monear Eldrissy To His Wife Maysoon
First 1 2 3 4 5 Last
Cageprisoners.com - serving the caged prisoners in Guantanamo Bay
Cageprisoners.com - serving the caged prisoners in Guantanamo Bay
1474 daysof illegal imprisonment
30 Gitmo Prisoners Near Death
23/01/2006
Ann Wright
This weekend I am a juror on the Commission evaluating whether the Bush administration has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Today, Barbara Olshansky, the lead attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights and one of the persons most knowledgeable about conditions in Guantanamo Prison, told us that over 250 people are on a hunger strike.
30 have been on the hunger strike since August and have been force fed through nose tubes since then.
These 30 are about to die according to Olshansky. CCR has been trying to get the US military to allow phone calls from relatives in the last days of the prisoners.
CCR is also trying to arrange for appropriate burial -- most are Muslims and the US military is of course in a quandry on where to bury them and how quickly.
SOURCE: Uruknet.info
1474 daysof illegal imprisonment
30 Gitmo Prisoners Near Death
23/01/2006
Ann Wright
This weekend I am a juror on the Commission evaluating whether the Bush administration has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Today, Barbara Olshansky, the lead attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights and one of the persons most knowledgeable about conditions in Guantanamo Prison, told us that over 250 people are on a hunger strike.
30 have been on the hunger strike since August and have been force fed through nose tubes since then.
These 30 are about to die according to Olshansky. CCR has been trying to get the US military to allow phone calls from relatives in the last days of the prisoners.
CCR is also trying to arrange for appropriate burial -- most are Muslims and the US military is of course in a quandry on where to bury them and how quickly.
SOURCE: Uruknet.info
Names of the Detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
Names of the Detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
Updated Dec. 13, 2005
The Pentagon has declined to identify the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, most of whom were captured in Afghanistan during and after the 2001 war there. Below is the largest list of names made public thus far, encompassing: 444 men whose identities have appeared in media reports, on Arabic Web sites and in legal documents.
Some names came from family members of detainees who have sent letters home through the International Committee of the Red Cross. One hundred and seventeen people on the list have been sent back to their home countries for further detention or for release. They are marked with an "R." Several of those have been interviewed by reporters.
Many names came from two Web sites that monitor the status of Guantanamo detainees: the Arabic-language Alasra (www.alasra.org) and the Britain-based CagePrisoners (www.cageprisoners.com). Alasra lists 202 names and CagePrisoners about 330. The two sites, which advocate the release of the detainees, have published lists of names, photographs and documents provided by families. Alasra is registered to an unknown individual in Saudi Arabia, and CagePrisoners is registered to a group of Muslim computer programmers based in Britain. Sixty-two names came from an official publication of the Yemeni Defense Ministry in January, and the names of 58 Pakistanis were published by a Pakistani newspaper in October 2002. In that same month, al Qaeda supporters in Afghanistan distributed a list naming "57 al Qaeda members" who were prisoners at Guatanamo.
How the Names Made the List
For four years, Washington Post researchers have been compiling the names and countries of origin of detainees from unofficial, public sources: news accounts, legal documents, interviews with attorneys and relatives, and information from detainee support sites on the Web. The Post is printing only names that it has verified from a single reputable source or multiple sources. Some names have been transliterated from Arabic or have alternative spellings.
Related story: Holding Cell In War on Terror (Post, May 2, 2004)
Guantanamo Bay Detainees by Nationality
Afghanistan Algeria Australia Bahrain Belgium Canada China Denmark Egypt Ethiopia France Iraq Iran Jordan Kuwait Libya Maldives Mauritania Morocco Pakistan Russia Saudi Arabia Spain Sudan Syria Sweden Tajikistan Tunisia Turkey Uganda United Kingdom Yemen Unknown
Updated Dec. 13, 2005
The Pentagon has declined to identify the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, most of whom were captured in Afghanistan during and after the 2001 war there. Below is the largest list of names made public thus far, encompassing: 444 men whose identities have appeared in media reports, on Arabic Web sites and in legal documents.
Some names came from family members of detainees who have sent letters home through the International Committee of the Red Cross. One hundred and seventeen people on the list have been sent back to their home countries for further detention or for release. They are marked with an "R." Several of those have been interviewed by reporters.
Many names came from two Web sites that monitor the status of Guantanamo detainees: the Arabic-language Alasra (www.alasra.org) and the Britain-based CagePrisoners (www.cageprisoners.com). Alasra lists 202 names and CagePrisoners about 330. The two sites, which advocate the release of the detainees, have published lists of names, photographs and documents provided by families. Alasra is registered to an unknown individual in Saudi Arabia, and CagePrisoners is registered to a group of Muslim computer programmers based in Britain. Sixty-two names came from an official publication of the Yemeni Defense Ministry in January, and the names of 58 Pakistanis were published by a Pakistani newspaper in October 2002. In that same month, al Qaeda supporters in Afghanistan distributed a list naming "57 al Qaeda members" who were prisoners at Guatanamo.
How the Names Made the List
For four years, Washington Post researchers have been compiling the names and countries of origin of detainees from unofficial, public sources: news accounts, legal documents, interviews with attorneys and relatives, and information from detainee support sites on the Web. The Post is printing only names that it has verified from a single reputable source or multiple sources. Some names have been transliterated from Arabic or have alternative spellings.
Related story: Holding Cell In War on Terror (Post, May 2, 2004)
Guantanamo Bay Detainees by Nationality
Afghanistan Algeria Australia Bahrain Belgium Canada China Denmark Egypt Ethiopia France Iraq Iran Jordan Kuwait Libya Maldives Mauritania Morocco Pakistan Russia Saudi Arabia Spain Sudan Syria Sweden Tajikistan Tunisia Turkey Uganda United Kingdom Yemen Unknown
CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons
CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons:
The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement.
The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents.
The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism. It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions.
The existence and locations of the facilities -- referred to as "black sites" in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents -- are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country.
The CIA and the White House, citing national security concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony about the conditions under which captives are held. Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long.
While the Defense Department has produced volumes of public reports and testimony about its detention practices and rules after the abuse scandals at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantanamo Bay, the CIA has not even acknowledged the existence of its black sites. To do so, say officials familiar with the program, could open the U.S. government to legal challenges, particularly in foreign courts, and increase the risk of political condemnation at home and abroad.
But the revelations of widespread prisoner abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military -- which operates under published rules and transparent oversight of Congress -- have increased concern among lawmakers, foreign governments and human rights groups about the opaque CIA system.
Those concerns escalated last month, when Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Porter J. Goss asked Congress to exempt CIA employees from legislation already endorsed by 90 senators that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody.
Although the CIA will not acknowledge details of its system, intelligence officials defend the agency's approach, arguing that the successful defense of the country requires that the agency be empowered to hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.
The Washington Post is not publishing the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program, at the request of senior U.S. officials. They argued that the disclosure might disrupt counterterrorism efforts in those countries and elsewhere and could make them targets of possible terrorist retaliation.
The secret detention system was conceived in the chaotic and anxious first months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when the working assumption was that a second strike was imminent.Since then, the arrangement has been increasingly debated within the CIA, where considerable concern lingers about the legality, morality and practicality of holding even unrepentant terrorists in such isolation and secrecy, perhaps for the duration of their lives.
Mid-level and senior CIA officers began arguing two years ago that the system was unsustainable and diverted the agency from its unique espionage mission."We never sat down, as far as I know, and came up with a grand strategy," said one former senior intelligence officer who is familiar with the program but not the location of the prisons. "Everything was very reactive. That's how you get to a situation where you pick people up, send them into a netherworld and don't say, 'What are we going to do with them afterwards?' "
The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement.
The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents.
The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism. It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions.
The existence and locations of the facilities -- referred to as "black sites" in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents -- are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country.
The CIA and the White House, citing national security concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony about the conditions under which captives are held. Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long.
While the Defense Department has produced volumes of public reports and testimony about its detention practices and rules after the abuse scandals at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantanamo Bay, the CIA has not even acknowledged the existence of its black sites. To do so, say officials familiar with the program, could open the U.S. government to legal challenges, particularly in foreign courts, and increase the risk of political condemnation at home and abroad.
But the revelations of widespread prisoner abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military -- which operates under published rules and transparent oversight of Congress -- have increased concern among lawmakers, foreign governments and human rights groups about the opaque CIA system.
Those concerns escalated last month, when Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Porter J. Goss asked Congress to exempt CIA employees from legislation already endorsed by 90 senators that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody.
Although the CIA will not acknowledge details of its system, intelligence officials defend the agency's approach, arguing that the successful defense of the country requires that the agency be empowered to hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.
The Washington Post is not publishing the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program, at the request of senior U.S. officials. They argued that the disclosure might disrupt counterterrorism efforts in those countries and elsewhere and could make them targets of possible terrorist retaliation.
The secret detention system was conceived in the chaotic and anxious first months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when the working assumption was that a second strike was imminent.Since then, the arrangement has been increasingly debated within the CIA, where considerable concern lingers about the legality, morality and practicality of holding even unrepentant terrorists in such isolation and secrecy, perhaps for the duration of their lives.
Mid-level and senior CIA officers began arguing two years ago that the system was unsustainable and diverted the agency from its unique espionage mission."We never sat down, as far as I know, and came up with a grand strategy," said one former senior intelligence officer who is familiar with the program but not the location of the prisons. "Everything was very reactive. That's how you get to a situation where you pick people up, send them into a netherworld and don't say, 'What are we going to do with them afterwards?' "
Hunger Strikers Close to Death
Hunger Strikers Close to Death
Despite force feeding by the American military, several hunger strikers at Guantanamo Bay may be close to death, according to lawyers acting for the detainees.
The condition of two emaciated Yemeni hunger strikers who have been refusing solid food since August is causing particular concern. There are also fears for the life of a hospitalised Saudi prisoner.
The wife of a British resident and hunger striker, Shaker Aamer, visited the Commons last week to appeal to MPs for help. Aamer’s wife, 31, who lives in London with her four children and has asked for her name to be withheld, said:
“This is the time to do something. My husband is not going to last.”
Aamer has been on hunger strike since November 2. Although he has lost weight, he is stronger than some other prisoners taking part in the protest at their detention without trial.
According to a report to be released tomorrow by the prisoners’ rights group Reprieve, the Yemenis, identified as Abu Bakah al-Shamrani and Abu Anas, are said by detainees to be gravely weak. Shamrani weighs only 70lb (5 stone).
Reprieve claims Camp Echo, which is comprised of isolation cells, has been turned into a “force feeding institution” away from other prisoners and its gravel path paved with concrete so the hunger strikers can be moved around in wheelchairs.
The military said last week the number of hunger strikers had declined to 22 after a peak at Christmas and that 17 were being fed by “tube”.
Lieutenant-Colonel Jeremy Martin, spokesman for Joint Task Force Guantanamo, declined to give the number of detainees in hospital and said the hunger strikers were “malnourished” but “clinically stable”. He denied their lives were at imminent risk.
The US law firm Paul Weiss, which represents three Saudi detainees, has received increasingly alarming weekly medical reports about the condition of one of them, who is in the camp hospital.
On a trip to Guantanamo last month, Paul Weiss’s lawyers were prevented from visiting the hospital and told their clients did not wish to see them. “We are concerned they may be in a life-threatening condition,” said one of the lawyers, Jana Ramsay. “They are normally glad to see us.”
The prisoners being force fed have a permanent tube in the nose, which descends to the stomach and is attached to another tube for feeding. If they do not rip it out, the US military say they are consenting to be fed even if the tube was inserted under duress.
Aamer was visited this month by his lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, legal director of Reprieve. In “obvious pain”, he pulled his tube out of his nose so it could be examined. According to Stafford Smith, it was 43in long and was stained red from having been in Aamer’s stomach.
Aamer has vowed to continue his hunger strike until he is given a fair trial or released. He said in a statement: “The British government refuses to help me. What is the use of my wife being British?” He said he held the British government as well as the Americans “responsible for my death”.
Stafford Smith said the “inevitable spectre of a Muslim prisoner dying on Guantanamo soil will cause greater outrage than even the desecration of the Koran”.
Despite force feeding by the American military, several hunger strikers at Guantanamo Bay may be close to death, according to lawyers acting for the detainees.
The condition of two emaciated Yemeni hunger strikers who have been refusing solid food since August is causing particular concern. There are also fears for the life of a hospitalised Saudi prisoner.
The wife of a British resident and hunger striker, Shaker Aamer, visited the Commons last week to appeal to MPs for help. Aamer’s wife, 31, who lives in London with her four children and has asked for her name to be withheld, said:
“This is the time to do something. My husband is not going to last.”
Aamer has been on hunger strike since November 2. Although he has lost weight, he is stronger than some other prisoners taking part in the protest at their detention without trial.
According to a report to be released tomorrow by the prisoners’ rights group Reprieve, the Yemenis, identified as Abu Bakah al-Shamrani and Abu Anas, are said by detainees to be gravely weak. Shamrani weighs only 70lb (5 stone).
Reprieve claims Camp Echo, which is comprised of isolation cells, has been turned into a “force feeding institution” away from other prisoners and its gravel path paved with concrete so the hunger strikers can be moved around in wheelchairs.
The military said last week the number of hunger strikers had declined to 22 after a peak at Christmas and that 17 were being fed by “tube”.
Lieutenant-Colonel Jeremy Martin, spokesman for Joint Task Force Guantanamo, declined to give the number of detainees in hospital and said the hunger strikers were “malnourished” but “clinically stable”. He denied their lives were at imminent risk.
The US law firm Paul Weiss, which represents three Saudi detainees, has received increasingly alarming weekly medical reports about the condition of one of them, who is in the camp hospital.
On a trip to Guantanamo last month, Paul Weiss’s lawyers were prevented from visiting the hospital and told their clients did not wish to see them. “We are concerned they may be in a life-threatening condition,” said one of the lawyers, Jana Ramsay. “They are normally glad to see us.”
The prisoners being force fed have a permanent tube in the nose, which descends to the stomach and is attached to another tube for feeding. If they do not rip it out, the US military say they are consenting to be fed even if the tube was inserted under duress.
Aamer was visited this month by his lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, legal director of Reprieve. In “obvious pain”, he pulled his tube out of his nose so it could be examined. According to Stafford Smith, it was 43in long and was stained red from having been in Aamer’s stomach.
Aamer has vowed to continue his hunger strike until he is given a fair trial or released. He said in a statement: “The British government refuses to help me. What is the use of my wife being British?” He said he held the British government as well as the Americans “responsible for my death”.
Stafford Smith said the “inevitable spectre of a Muslim prisoner dying on Guantanamo soil will cause greater outrage than even the desecration of the Koran”.
CIA Role a Mystery at Army Court-Martial
CIA Role a Mystery at Army Court-Martial
Published on Sunday, January 22, 2006 by the Associated Press
CIA Role a Mystery at Army Court-Martial
by Jon Sarche and Dan Elliott
FORT CARSON, Colorado - The initials were spoken aloud only once all week, and then apparently by mistake.
After this past week's testimony, any role the CIA had -- or didn't have -- in the interrogation of an Iraqi general who died in U.S. custody remains a tantalizing and mysterious backdrop to the court-martial of Army Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer Jr. The CIA is "the ghost at the banquet," said Eugene R. Fidell, an expert in military law who has been following the court-martial but doesn't know if the CIA was involved in the case.
"We're playing 'Hamlet' without Hamlet here," said Fidell, an attorney in private practice who teaches military law at American University in Washington.
He also represented news organizations in their attempts to open pretrial hearings in Welshofer's prosecution. Welshofer was convicted late Saturday of negligent homicide in the 2003 death of Republican Guard Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush at a detention camp in western Iraq.
He could be dishonorably discharged and sentenced to up to three years and three months in jail at a hearing Monday. If convicted of the original murder charge, he could have been sentenced to life in prison.
Prosecutors said Mowhoush was stuffed headfirst in a sleeping bag and bound with electrical cord, then suffocated with Welshofer sitting atop his chest.
The defense had argued a heart condition caused Mowhoush's death, and that Welshofer's commanders had approved the interrogation technique. In 2004, the CIA said one of its officers may have been involved in Mowhoush's death, but the agency refused to elaborate.
Last August, The Washington Post reported that documents it examined said Mowhoush was severely beaten by a CIA-sponsored Iraqi paramilitary group two days before he died.
Testimony at Welshofer's court-martial this past week confirmed that Mowhoush was indeed beaten by Iraqis two days before he died.
But the witness, Chief Warrant Officer Todd Sonnek, did not identify the Iraqis. Then defense lawyer Frank Spinner at one point questioned a witness whose identity is so secret that he was shielded from reporters and others by a green tarp suspended from the ceiling. The witness had said he was alarmed when Welshofer told him he thought the Army's interrogation guidelines were being broken every day.
"And you didn't report it to the CIA?" Spinner asked. The attorney then stopped himself and quickly apologized to the judge. Spinner's apparent slip and the mystery surrounding that witness -- and others who have testified behind closed doors over the objections of the media -- were not the only indications of how sensitive the case is and how much remains secret.
Welshofer testified that when he left the room where he was questioning Mowhoush, he "noticed other people in the hallway" and that they took control of the session. Welshofer said the Iraqis slapped and pushed Mowhoush, and the session escalated into a beating with rubber hoses after Mowhoush and one of the Iraqis recognized each other.
During his testimony, Welshofer said commanders offered little guidance on how to question detainees. He said he received an e-mail from his unit's commanders saying there were no rules for interrogations because officials still had not determined how to classify detainees.
The e-mail, sent as the insurgency was growing more lethal, claimed officers were "tired of taking casualties and that the gloves were coming off," he said. Each morning during the trial, two soldiers had wheeled in a locked box -- about 3 feet long, 2 feet wide and 1 foot high -- on a dolly.
A security officer in a civilian suit and tie unlocks it and the attorneys pull out file folders and binders stamped "Secret" in large red letters. The security officer made sure the jurors, who were allowed to submit written questions for witnesses, didn't inadvertently reveal any secrets. At the end of each day, the materials were returned to the box, which was locked and wheeled out of court.
In closing arguments, Spinner said soldiers were under pressure to come up with new interrogation techniques, and Welshofer believed he was doing the right thing to help save the lives of troops.
Prosecutor Maj. Tiernan Dolan described a rogue interrogator who became frustrated with Mowhoush's refusal to answer questions and escalated his techniques to include beatings and simulated drownings until the general died. "He treated that general worse than you would treat a dog, and he did so knowing he was required to treat the general humanely," Dolan said.
Published on Sunday, January 22, 2006 by the Associated Press
CIA Role a Mystery at Army Court-Martial
by Jon Sarche and Dan Elliott
FORT CARSON, Colorado - The initials were spoken aloud only once all week, and then apparently by mistake.
After this past week's testimony, any role the CIA had -- or didn't have -- in the interrogation of an Iraqi general who died in U.S. custody remains a tantalizing and mysterious backdrop to the court-martial of Army Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer Jr. The CIA is "the ghost at the banquet," said Eugene R. Fidell, an expert in military law who has been following the court-martial but doesn't know if the CIA was involved in the case.
"We're playing 'Hamlet' without Hamlet here," said Fidell, an attorney in private practice who teaches military law at American University in Washington.
He also represented news organizations in their attempts to open pretrial hearings in Welshofer's prosecution. Welshofer was convicted late Saturday of negligent homicide in the 2003 death of Republican Guard Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush at a detention camp in western Iraq.
He could be dishonorably discharged and sentenced to up to three years and three months in jail at a hearing Monday. If convicted of the original murder charge, he could have been sentenced to life in prison.
Prosecutors said Mowhoush was stuffed headfirst in a sleeping bag and bound with electrical cord, then suffocated with Welshofer sitting atop his chest.
The defense had argued a heart condition caused Mowhoush's death, and that Welshofer's commanders had approved the interrogation technique. In 2004, the CIA said one of its officers may have been involved in Mowhoush's death, but the agency refused to elaborate.
Last August, The Washington Post reported that documents it examined said Mowhoush was severely beaten by a CIA-sponsored Iraqi paramilitary group two days before he died.
Testimony at Welshofer's court-martial this past week confirmed that Mowhoush was indeed beaten by Iraqis two days before he died.
But the witness, Chief Warrant Officer Todd Sonnek, did not identify the Iraqis. Then defense lawyer Frank Spinner at one point questioned a witness whose identity is so secret that he was shielded from reporters and others by a green tarp suspended from the ceiling. The witness had said he was alarmed when Welshofer told him he thought the Army's interrogation guidelines were being broken every day.
"And you didn't report it to the CIA?" Spinner asked. The attorney then stopped himself and quickly apologized to the judge. Spinner's apparent slip and the mystery surrounding that witness -- and others who have testified behind closed doors over the objections of the media -- were not the only indications of how sensitive the case is and how much remains secret.
Welshofer testified that when he left the room where he was questioning Mowhoush, he "noticed other people in the hallway" and that they took control of the session. Welshofer said the Iraqis slapped and pushed Mowhoush, and the session escalated into a beating with rubber hoses after Mowhoush and one of the Iraqis recognized each other.
During his testimony, Welshofer said commanders offered little guidance on how to question detainees. He said he received an e-mail from his unit's commanders saying there were no rules for interrogations because officials still had not determined how to classify detainees.
The e-mail, sent as the insurgency was growing more lethal, claimed officers were "tired of taking casualties and that the gloves were coming off," he said. Each morning during the trial, two soldiers had wheeled in a locked box -- about 3 feet long, 2 feet wide and 1 foot high -- on a dolly.
A security officer in a civilian suit and tie unlocks it and the attorneys pull out file folders and binders stamped "Secret" in large red letters. The security officer made sure the jurors, who were allowed to submit written questions for witnesses, didn't inadvertently reveal any secrets. At the end of each day, the materials were returned to the box, which was locked and wheeled out of court.
In closing arguments, Spinner said soldiers were under pressure to come up with new interrogation techniques, and Welshofer believed he was doing the right thing to help save the lives of troops.
Prosecutor Maj. Tiernan Dolan described a rogue interrogator who became frustrated with Mowhoush's refusal to answer questions and escalated his techniques to include beatings and simulated drownings until the general died. "He treated that general worse than you would treat a dog, and he did so knowing he was required to treat the general humanely," Dolan said.
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Merkel criticises Guantanamo Bay
BBC NEWS World Europe Merkel criticises Guantanamo Bay
Thank you Chancellor Merkell
German Chancellor Angela Merkel says the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay "should not exist", in an interview days before she meets George W Bush.
In the interview to be published on Monday, Mrs Merkel criticises the US camp in Cuba, saying "different ways" should be found to deal with prisoners.
Her visit to Washington is her first since she took office in November.
Mrs Merkel hopes to improve relations with the US, which were strained when Gerhard Schroeder opposed the Iraq war.
Mrs Merkel told the German magazine Der Spiegel: "An institution like Guantanamo can and should not exist in the longer term.
"Different ways and means must be found for dealing with these prisoners."
At a news conference on Saturday, Mrs Merkel defended her comments, but said she would not demand the immediate closure of the camp when she meets with President Bush next week.
"That's my opinion and my view and I'll say it elsewhere just as I have expressed it here," she said.
Human rights campaigners have protested over Guantanamo Bay"My talks with leaders of other countries don't consist of my expressing demands but of exchanging views."
The chancellor told Der Spiegel she expected to speak to Mr Bush about the fight against terrorism.
"But I want to accentuate that our relationship with the US will not be reduced to talking about fighting terrorism and the Iraq war," she said.
In the fight against terrorism there should be no areas of non law
Guido WesterwellePresident of the liberal Free Democratic Party, Mrs Merkel's Social Democrat partners in the coalition government welcomed her condemnation of Guantanamo.
"The Guantanamo camp must be closed. The Guantanamo system was and still is bad," said the party's parliamentary leader Walter Kolbow.
"It was and remains in contradiction with the agreements and standards of international law."
Human rights campaigners have expressed growing concern about the treatment of inmates at Guantanamo.
The Bush administration has denied allegations of abuse at Guantanamo, insisting it does not torture prisoners.
Thank you Chancellor Merkell
German Chancellor Angela Merkel says the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay "should not exist", in an interview days before she meets George W Bush.
In the interview to be published on Monday, Mrs Merkel criticises the US camp in Cuba, saying "different ways" should be found to deal with prisoners.
Her visit to Washington is her first since she took office in November.
Mrs Merkel hopes to improve relations with the US, which were strained when Gerhard Schroeder opposed the Iraq war.
Mrs Merkel told the German magazine Der Spiegel: "An institution like Guantanamo can and should not exist in the longer term.
"Different ways and means must be found for dealing with these prisoners."
At a news conference on Saturday, Mrs Merkel defended her comments, but said she would not demand the immediate closure of the camp when she meets with President Bush next week.
"That's my opinion and my view and I'll say it elsewhere just as I have expressed it here," she said.
Human rights campaigners have protested over Guantanamo Bay"My talks with leaders of other countries don't consist of my expressing demands but of exchanging views."
The chancellor told Der Spiegel she expected to speak to Mr Bush about the fight against terrorism.
"But I want to accentuate that our relationship with the US will not be reduced to talking about fighting terrorism and the Iraq war," she said.
In the fight against terrorism there should be no areas of non law
Guido WesterwellePresident of the liberal Free Democratic Party, Mrs Merkel's Social Democrat partners in the coalition government welcomed her condemnation of Guantanamo.
"The Guantanamo camp must be closed. The Guantanamo system was and still is bad," said the party's parliamentary leader Walter Kolbow.
"It was and remains in contradiction with the agreements and standards of international law."
Human rights campaigners have expressed growing concern about the treatment of inmates at Guantanamo.
The Bush administration has denied allegations of abuse at Guantanamo, insisting it does not torture prisoners.
22.1.06
The Morning of 9/11 the LIES were Already in Motion
Questions, Questions, Questions…
Commissioner Jamie Gorelick did ask Secretary Rumsfeld, while under oath, a very specific question of exactly when an order was given authorizing fighter pilots to shoot down aircraft on the morning of 9-11. Rumsfeld complicated and confused his answer by giving an account of how they had modified the rules of engagement.
General Myers clarified by stating to the best of his recollection the shoot-down order was communicated directly to the pilots shortly after the president issued it.
GORELICK: May I ask one more question, Mr. Chairman?We can't go into the content of the PDDs and the SEIBs here. And I can't even characterize them in order to ask you the next question that I would ask. So let me ask you this: Was it your understanding that the NORAD pilots who were circling over Washington D.C. that morning had indeed received a shoot-down order?
RUMSFELD: When I arrived in the command centre, one of the first things I heard, and I was with you, was that the order had been given and that the pilots -- correction, not the pilots necessarily, but the command had been given the instructions that their pilots could, in fact, use their weapons to shoot down a commercial airliners filled with our people in the event that the aircraft appeared to be behaving in a threatening way and an unresponsive way.
GORELICK: Now, you make a distinction there between the command and the pilots. Was it your understanding that the pilots had received that order?
RUMSFELD: I'm trying to get in time because...
MYERS: Well, I think -- my understanding, I've talked to General Eberhart, commander now of NORAD, and I think he's briefed the staff. And I think what he told the staff, what he told me, as I recall, was that the pilots did -- at the appropriate point when the authority to engage civilian airliners was given, that the pilots knew that fairly quickly. I mean, it went down through the chain of command.
RUMSFELD: It was on a threat conference call that it was given, and everybody heard it simultaneously. The question then would be -- the reason I am hesitant is because we went through two or three iterations of the rules of engagement. And in the end, we ended up delegating that authority to, at the lowest level, I believe, to two stars.
MYERS: Right.
RUMSFELD: And the pilot would then describe the situation to that level. To the extent that level had time, they would come up to General Eberhart. To the extent Eberhart had time, he would come up to me. And to the extent I had time, I might talk to the president, which in fact, I did do on several occasions during the remainder of the day with respect to international flights heading to this country that were squawking "hijack."
GORELICK: I'm just trying to understand whether it is your understanding that the NORAD pilots themselves, who were circling over Washington, as you referred to in your statement, whether they knew that they had authority to shoot down a plane. And if you don't know, it's fine to say that. You mentioned them in your statement, and I would like to know if you know the answer.
RUMSFELD: I do not know what they thought. In fact, I haven't talked to any of the pilots that were up there. I certainly was immediately concerned that we did know what they thought they could do.
RUMSFELD: And we began the process quite quickly of making changes to the standing rules of engagement, Dick Myers and I did, and then issuing that. And we then went back and revisited that question several times in the remaining week or two while we were still at various stages of alert. And we have since done that in connection with several other events such as the Prague summit.
GORELICK: As you know, we were not intending to address the issues of the day of in this hearing. And it is the subject of a full additional hearing, and we may be back to you with these questions with a more precise time line for you to look at.Thank you very much.KEAN: Thank you.
(For complete transcript of Rumsfeld's testimony: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/COM403B.html (oh yes, I think I need to have a look at this, maybe all of us...)
At first glance this seems like semantics, but in the context of what was really happening that morning it may be quite significant. Whether or not a pilot has a shoot-down order directly communicated to him is of the highest significance when considering the fact that the pilot may not know if they are still involved in a war game exercise.
Officials at NORAD have stated when the hijackings first occurred they initially thought it was part of the Vigilant Guardian drills running that morning. Despite some confusion, once Flight 11 struck the World Trade Center at 8:45 am, everyone should have known it was not a test.
However, this is still an assumption because we do not know what the fighter jocks in the air at the time did and did not know, we do not know the full extent of the orders they received and it has yet to be explained why scrambled fighter jets were unable to intercept even one of the 4 hijacked airliners.
Scrambling Fighter JetsStandard operating procedure of both FAA & NORAD dictates that once an aircraft is off course and/or its transponder is not responding, within 10 minutes Air Force jets are scrambled to re-establish physical contact with the wayward plane.
Scrambling Air Force interceptors does not mean shooting down any aircraft. It simply means that an Air Force jet is dispatched to fly next to the off course aircraft, attempt to communicate with the its pilots, look inside the cockpit, see who is in control of the plane and report back to flight control what is actually happening. In the year prior to 9/11 this automatic procedure was triggered a total of 67 times (AP, 8/13/02).
On the morning of 9/11, it was not successfully applied even once in the well over an hour-long period in which the four separate hijackings occurred.
Why?
The most egregious case is that of Flight 77, reported to have struck the Pentagon. At 8:50 am there was a loss of contact with this plane that was now well off course and hurtling toward the nation’s capital, but it was not until 9:24 am that fighter jets were scrambled. That’s 34 minutes after flight control lost contact with the plane and well after 2 hijacked aircraft had already crashed into both World Trade Center towers.Fighter Planes were dispatched extremely late to the World Trade Center as well, and only made it there after Flight 175 had crashed into WTC 2, too late to be effective. Those planes were then sent back to base, instead of being sent in pursuit of an aircraft, which by that time was widely known to have been well off course.
Why?
Did war games conducted by the Air Force, NORAD, NRO and others on 9/11 unintentionally cause this unprecedented ‘confusion’, or does all of this point to more disturbing conclusions about what happened that tragic morning?Hopefully, Commissioner Jamie Gorelick’s statement that Secretary Rumsfeld may be called back to testify to the Commission regarding the day of 9/11 itself will happen – and in public.
Commissioner Jamie Gorelick did ask Secretary Rumsfeld, while under oath, a very specific question of exactly when an order was given authorizing fighter pilots to shoot down aircraft on the morning of 9-11. Rumsfeld complicated and confused his answer by giving an account of how they had modified the rules of engagement.
General Myers clarified by stating to the best of his recollection the shoot-down order was communicated directly to the pilots shortly after the president issued it.
GORELICK: May I ask one more question, Mr. Chairman?We can't go into the content of the PDDs and the SEIBs here. And I can't even characterize them in order to ask you the next question that I would ask. So let me ask you this: Was it your understanding that the NORAD pilots who were circling over Washington D.C. that morning had indeed received a shoot-down order?
RUMSFELD: When I arrived in the command centre, one of the first things I heard, and I was with you, was that the order had been given and that the pilots -- correction, not the pilots necessarily, but the command had been given the instructions that their pilots could, in fact, use their weapons to shoot down a commercial airliners filled with our people in the event that the aircraft appeared to be behaving in a threatening way and an unresponsive way.
GORELICK: Now, you make a distinction there between the command and the pilots. Was it your understanding that the pilots had received that order?
RUMSFELD: I'm trying to get in time because...
MYERS: Well, I think -- my understanding, I've talked to General Eberhart, commander now of NORAD, and I think he's briefed the staff. And I think what he told the staff, what he told me, as I recall, was that the pilots did -- at the appropriate point when the authority to engage civilian airliners was given, that the pilots knew that fairly quickly. I mean, it went down through the chain of command.
RUMSFELD: It was on a threat conference call that it was given, and everybody heard it simultaneously. The question then would be -- the reason I am hesitant is because we went through two or three iterations of the rules of engagement. And in the end, we ended up delegating that authority to, at the lowest level, I believe, to two stars.
MYERS: Right.
RUMSFELD: And the pilot would then describe the situation to that level. To the extent that level had time, they would come up to General Eberhart. To the extent Eberhart had time, he would come up to me. And to the extent I had time, I might talk to the president, which in fact, I did do on several occasions during the remainder of the day with respect to international flights heading to this country that were squawking "hijack."
GORELICK: I'm just trying to understand whether it is your understanding that the NORAD pilots themselves, who were circling over Washington, as you referred to in your statement, whether they knew that they had authority to shoot down a plane. And if you don't know, it's fine to say that. You mentioned them in your statement, and I would like to know if you know the answer.
RUMSFELD: I do not know what they thought. In fact, I haven't talked to any of the pilots that were up there. I certainly was immediately concerned that we did know what they thought they could do.
RUMSFELD: And we began the process quite quickly of making changes to the standing rules of engagement, Dick Myers and I did, and then issuing that. And we then went back and revisited that question several times in the remaining week or two while we were still at various stages of alert. And we have since done that in connection with several other events such as the Prague summit.
GORELICK: As you know, we were not intending to address the issues of the day of in this hearing. And it is the subject of a full additional hearing, and we may be back to you with these questions with a more precise time line for you to look at.Thank you very much.KEAN: Thank you.
(For complete transcript of Rumsfeld's testimony: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/COM403B.html (oh yes, I think I need to have a look at this, maybe all of us...)
At first glance this seems like semantics, but in the context of what was really happening that morning it may be quite significant. Whether or not a pilot has a shoot-down order directly communicated to him is of the highest significance when considering the fact that the pilot may not know if they are still involved in a war game exercise.
Officials at NORAD have stated when the hijackings first occurred they initially thought it was part of the Vigilant Guardian drills running that morning. Despite some confusion, once Flight 11 struck the World Trade Center at 8:45 am, everyone should have known it was not a test.
However, this is still an assumption because we do not know what the fighter jocks in the air at the time did and did not know, we do not know the full extent of the orders they received and it has yet to be explained why scrambled fighter jets were unable to intercept even one of the 4 hijacked airliners.
Scrambling Fighter JetsStandard operating procedure of both FAA & NORAD dictates that once an aircraft is off course and/or its transponder is not responding, within 10 minutes Air Force jets are scrambled to re-establish physical contact with the wayward plane.
Scrambling Air Force interceptors does not mean shooting down any aircraft. It simply means that an Air Force jet is dispatched to fly next to the off course aircraft, attempt to communicate with the its pilots, look inside the cockpit, see who is in control of the plane and report back to flight control what is actually happening. In the year prior to 9/11 this automatic procedure was triggered a total of 67 times (AP, 8/13/02).
On the morning of 9/11, it was not successfully applied even once in the well over an hour-long period in which the four separate hijackings occurred.
Why?
The most egregious case is that of Flight 77, reported to have struck the Pentagon. At 8:50 am there was a loss of contact with this plane that was now well off course and hurtling toward the nation’s capital, but it was not until 9:24 am that fighter jets were scrambled. That’s 34 minutes after flight control lost contact with the plane and well after 2 hijacked aircraft had already crashed into both World Trade Center towers.Fighter Planes were dispatched extremely late to the World Trade Center as well, and only made it there after Flight 175 had crashed into WTC 2, too late to be effective. Those planes were then sent back to base, instead of being sent in pursuit of an aircraft, which by that time was widely known to have been well off course.
Why?
Did war games conducted by the Air Force, NORAD, NRO and others on 9/11 unintentionally cause this unprecedented ‘confusion’, or does all of this point to more disturbing conclusions about what happened that tragic morning?Hopefully, Commissioner Jamie Gorelick’s statement that Secretary Rumsfeld may be called back to testify to the Commission regarding the day of 9/11 itself will happen – and in public.
9/11 war games before and during the attacks
9/11 war games before and during the attacks
"War Games" by the US military on 9/11 paralysis of air defenses that ensured the success of the attacks?
Who coordinated these efforts?
9/11 War Games – No Coincidenceby Michael Kane
-June 08, 2004
“I have an on-the-record statement from someone in NORAD that on the day of 9/11 The Joint Chiefs of Staff (Richard B. Myers) and NORAD were conducting a joint, live-fly, hijack Field Training Exercise (FTX) which involved at least one (and almost certainly many more) aircraft under US control that was posing as a hijacked airliner”.
Mike Ruppert – June 5, 2004, editor of FTW www.fromthewilderness.com
"War Games" by the US military on 9/11 paralysis of air defenses that ensured the success of the attacks?
Who coordinated these efforts?
9/11 War Games – No Coincidenceby Michael Kane
-June 08, 2004
“I have an on-the-record statement from someone in NORAD that on the day of 9/11 The Joint Chiefs of Staff (Richard B. Myers) and NORAD were conducting a joint, live-fly, hijack Field Training Exercise (FTX) which involved at least one (and almost certainly many more) aircraft under US control that was posing as a hijacked airliner”.
Mike Ruppert – June 5, 2004, editor of FTW www.fromthewilderness.com
The War No One Wanted Comes to Life
In the period since the September 11 terrorist attacks (allowed to occur) on New York and Washington, the United States has undergone a radical transformation in the structure of the government, in the relationship between the people and the police and armed forces, and in the legal and constitutional framework.
The White House has assumed vast new powers for internal repression, establishing by executive order an Office of Homeland Security that is not subject to either congressional oversight or any vote on the personnel appointed to run it. An all-encompassing political police agency is coming into being, through the passage of an “anti-terror” law that effectively amalgamates the FBI and CIA and abolishes the longstanding separation between overseas spying and domestic policing.
Side by side with the bombing of Afghanistan, the Bush administration has declared that there is a second front in the war, the war at home. The federal government issues vague and unsubstantiated “terror alerts,” which fuel anxiety while providing no protection to the public. Government spokesmen urge the population to get used to measures like random police searches and roadblocks as a permanent feature of life. National Guard troops patrol the airports, harbors, bridges, tunnels and even the US Capitol.
Fundamental constitutional safeguards—the right of habeas corpus, the right of the accused to know the charges against them, the right of arrested persons to see a lawyer, even the presumption of innocence—have been set aside for millions of immigrants from the Middle East and Central Asia. The right to privacy has been all but abolished for the entire population, with government intelligence agencies given the green light to plant bugs and wiretaps, monitor financial transactions, and conduct other forms of spying, virtually at will.
If the average American had been shown on September 10 a picture of the United States as it is today, the response would likely have been: “This is not the America I know. This looks more like a police state.”
The bitter irony is that such a sweeping attack on democratic rights has been perpetrated in the name of a war to defend “freedom” and “democracy” against terrorism. But neither the Bush administration, nor its Democratic Party collaborators, nor a compliant and complicit media bother to explain the following contradiction: the United States government never secured powers such as these at any point in the twentieth century. Not in World War I, World War II or the Cold War, when the antagonists were powerful and heavily armed states, was such a radical restructuring of the governmental and legal framework carried out. Why is this happening today, when the alleged enemy is a small band of terrorists operating out of caves in one of the poorest countries in the world?
The anti-terrorism law
One of the key elements of the assault on civil liberties is the new “anti-terrorism” act, which was rushed through Congress and signed into law only five weeks after the terror attacks. The law defines terrorism in such a way as to include political activity and speech previously protected by the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. It provides wide-ranging authority for police agencies to carry out secret searches, conduct expanded electronic surveillance, and indefinitely detain terrorism suspects. Non-citizens, including legal permanent residents, can be denied reentry to the US for expressing political views, and can be deported for having even the most incidental association with organizations designated as “terrorist” by the government. Attorney General John Ashcroft last week expanded the number of groups so designated from 46 to 74.
Among the most ominous provisions of the law is the abolition of the “firewall” between foreign and domestic intelligence agencies. The Central Intelligence Agency now has the authority to share information with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and thereby collaborate with the FBI in conducting domestic surveillance and preparing criminal prosecutions. The FBI is likewise authorized to share with the CIA information collected during grand jury proceedings, without a court order, giving the US spy agency access to domestic intelligence it had been barred from receiving in the past.
An article in the November 4 Washington Post carried the ominous headline, “An Intelligence Giant in the Making: Anti-Terrorism Law Likely to Bring Domestic Apparatus of Unprecedented Scope.” It noted that the media focus on the electronic surveillance and wiretapping provisions of the new legislation deflected attention from other provisions of the bill that will fundamentally alter the operation of US intelligence-gathering agencies. According to the Post, one of the most significant aspects of the law is that it “empowers the government to shift the primary mission of the FBI from solving crimes to gathering domestic intelligence.”
The law reverses legal reforms enacted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which segregated the FBI’s criminal investigation function from its intelligence-gathering operations against foreign spies and international terrorists.
The Post comments, “the bill effectively tears down legal fire walls erected 25 years ago during the Watergate era, when the nation was stunned by disclosures about presidential abuses of domestic intelligence-gathering against political activists.”
These changes go beyond a mere quantitative expansion of certain investigative powers. They constitute a basic restructuring of the police and intelligence apparatus to vastly expand its scope and reach.
In recent days, federal officials have urged the lifting of legal restraints on state and local police powers. Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson lamented that Justice Department agents “don’t have enough eyes and ears” to monitor terrorist suspects, and said restrictions on local police departments “need to be looked at.”
Many local police departments are already scrapping rules on intelligence-gathering that were established to protect First Amendment rights. The Los Angeles Police Commission voted last month to relax intelligence restrictions adopted in the early 1980s, following disclosures that police were monitoring anti-war protesters, liberal politicians and other political dissidents. Other big city police departments are moving to revive the surveillance methods utilized by “Red Squad” operations of the past.
Terrorizing the public
On October 29, the government issued its second general terrorism alert in less than three weeks. Declaring that major terrorist attacks against the US or US interests around the world were in the offing, Attorney General Ashcroft was utterly vague as to the likely targets, methods or perpetrators. He provided no information to support the claim of imminent danger. He gave no instructions as to how the public was to respond to the alleged danger. However, he issued an advisory to 18,000 state and local police agencies to “continue on highest alert and to notify immediately the FBI of any unusual or suspicious activity.”
Instructing the public to accept extraordinary measures, such as random stops or searches by police or National Guard troops, or questioning by FBI agents, Ashcroft said, “We ask for the patience and cooperation of the American people, if and when they encounter additional measures undertaken by local law enforcement or federal law enforcement authorities and others who are charged with securing the safety of the public.”
As an immediate consequence of the alert, National Guard troops were deployed in a number of states at transportation centers, water supplies and nuclear power plants. These are in addition to the troops who have patrolled major airports since the September 11 events.
At week’s end, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt announced that Congress, with bipartisan support, was authorizing the posting of armed soldiers at the Capitol building. The Supreme Court subsequently announced it would bar the public from its hearings.
The government claims that the “terror alerts” have been issued in order to warn and protect the public. But with no specific information provided about the imminent threat—when and where the terrorists might strike—what is public expected to do?
Their vacuous character demonstrates that these alerts are essentially fraudulent.
Their real purpose is to accustom the population to invasions of privacy, the dismantling of constitutional safeguards, and a general militarization of society. The authorities want people to accept as a normal state of affairs the deployment of armed troops at airports, public buildings, bridges, border checkpoints and in the streets.
The Bush administration has seized on the anthrax attacks as an additional means of bludgeoning the public into accepting such far-reaching restrictions on civil liberties. Although the evidence so far made available suggests that extreme right-wing elements of the Timothy McVeigh stripe are the most likely suspects, the White House and the media constantly suggest that Osama bin Laden is responsible for the anthrax attacks, depicting his Al Qaeda network as a pervasive and all-powerful threat.
Periodic alerts such as those issued October 11 and October 29 are intended to facilitate the consolidation of the new apparatus of internal repression. On October 29, the same day as the most recent alert, President Bush presided over the first meeting of the Council of Homeland Security. This new and unprecedented body includes—in addition to former Governor Tom Ridge, who has been named the director of the Office of Homeland Security—the vice president, the attorney general, the secretaries of defense, treasury, transportation and health and human services and the heads of the CIA and FBI.
The powers of this council as well as those of the Office of Homeland Security are vague and undefined, and therefore virtually unlimited.
Following that meeting, Bush announced the establishment of yet another agency with unspecified police powers—the “foreign terrorist tracking taskforce,” headed by Ashcroft. The establishment of this task force is part of a new border policy that will enable the government to more easily bar entry to immigrants alleged to have terrorist connections, and to carry out a general crackdown on those applying for or holding student visas.
Mass arrests among immigrants
These far-reaching changes come under conditions where the national security dragnet initiated after September 11 is expanding, with the number of people rounded up now standing at more than 1,100. While federal officials will not say how many of these detainees have been released, a Justice Department spokesperson said “a majority” of them are still in custody. The roundup of these individuals has been shrouded in secrecy, with the government providing no information about the detainees’ identities, where they are being held, why they are being detained, and what charges, if any, are being laid against them.
Many are held in solitary confinement. The whereabouts of some suspects are unknown to family members, and others either have no legal representation or have been denied contact with their lawyers. Much of the legal action against those in custody is taking place in secret court proceedings, with court documents sealed to the public. All of this is being done to shield the operations of federal, state and police agencies from public scrutiny.
The Justice Department has rejected appeals from civil liberties groups and some congressmen for information about the detentions, without giving any explanation for its blackout. Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, commented that the government’s conduct in the investigation is “frighteningly close to the practice of ‘disappearing’ people in Latin America.”
Following each of the two national alerts against terrorism since September 11, the number of those rounded up by the government has risen sharply, tripling in the past few weeks. One of the main purposes of the alerts is to signal state and local police to step up their surveillance activities and round up more suspects.
While the mass murder at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon is the pretext for the mass arrests, not a single one of those detained has been charged with any offense related to the September 11 attacks. Even the Justice Department claims that at most 10 or 12 of those detained are suspected, but not proven, of having links to the hijackers. The vast majority of the arrests have another purpose, unrelated to any investigation of the terrorist attack: to intimidate the immigrant population and accustom the American people as a whole to methods previously associated with police-military dictatorships.
A “war on two fronts”
Government officials have emphasized that the anti-terror measures adopted in recent weeks should not be regarded as temporary. At a briefing on October 29, Ridge declared, “We want America to be on the highest alert. And from time to time, we may issue the same general alert again.”
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in a column in the November 1 edition of the Washington Post, baldly stated that not only should the American people accept an open-ended war against terrorism, but they must “prepare now for the next war—a war that may be vastly different not only from those of the past century but also from the new war on terrorism that we are fighting today.”
In other words, America is going on a war footing, not for the duration of a specific conflict in Afghanistan, but indefinitely. Consequently, the domestic police measures being taken now by the government must also be accepted as a permanent state of affairs.
One catch phrase has more and more routinely appeared in the statements of Bush administration officials: America is fighting “a war on two fronts.” Announcing his terrorism alert last week, Ashcroft stated: “I trust the American people to be able to understand in this context the conflict, where there is a front overseas and there is another front here in the United States.”
Ridge said the following day, “We are engaged in a two-front war against terrorism.” In an October 31 speech urging passage of his economic stimulus plan, Bush repeated this mantra: “For the first time in our nation’s history, part of the battle front is here at home.”
Precisely what is meant by this “war on two fronts” is never explained. But in light of the extraordinary security measures taken by the government since September 11, references to a battle on the “home front” take on a chilling significance.
With their attempt to create an atmosphere of fear and hysteria over impending terrorist threats, authorities want to identify anyone rounded up in their investigation as the enemy, whether or not there is evidence against them. The same methods will be used against those who oppose the war against Afghanistan and other policies of the government, domestic or foreign.
Before and after September 11
The government’s actions in the period since September 11 constitute the most serious and sustained attack on civil liberties in US history. No one should believe that this is merely a reaction to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Such measures have long been sought by the most right-wing sections of the ruling elite, who have seized on the tragic events of September 11 to realize their political agenda at home, just as they are using them to launch a US military intervention in oil-rich Central Asia.
These sweeping changes are the culmination of two decades of political reaction and attacks on democratic rights, which have seen a steady buildup of the repressive forces of the state—two million Americans in prison, thousands on Death Row, legal restrictions on the rights of defendants, expanded powers of police spying and electronic surveillance. This has been accompanied by the emergence of a fascist-minded right wing with little popular support, but enormous influence in the Republican Party, in Congress, and now in the White House.
Those who want to claim that the recent escalation of the onslaught on civil liberties is simply a response to September 11 ignore the critical fact that the Bush administration came to power on the basis of an unprecedented assault on the most basic of democratic rights—the right to vote.
The drive by Bush and the Republican Party to hijack the election and take power, despite having lost the popular vote nationally, was consummated in a ruling by the right-wing majority on the US Supreme Court, which halted a legal recount in the pivotal state of Florida, handing the presidency to Bush. A government that takes power by methods of fraud and conspiracy must rule through the same methods.
This is an administration committed to a domestic and foreign policy tailored to the interests of the wealthiest and most privileged layer in American society. It is also an administration of enormous crisis. Prior to the terror attacks, the Bush administration was showing clear signs of internal disarray. Its already narrow social base of support was eroding under the pressure of a deepening economic slump, both in the US and globally.
The Republicans had lost control of the Senate, and on the international front, the Bush administration was increasingly isolated, with nominal allies as well as enemies opposing its aggressive and unilateralist posture. The events of September 11 were seized on by those who run the Bush administration as a welcome opportunity to shore up the government and rally public support by launching a military attack on the alleged perpetrators, while preparing for an upsurge of social struggle over rising unemployment, worsening slump and the government’s pro-corporate policies by expanding and restructuring the police powers of the state.
The Bush administration’s domestic “anti-terror” campaign must serve as a sharp warning. After the Florida debacle of November and December 2000, there were complacent commentaries in the press declaring that, unlike many other countries, the bitter political struggle in the United States did not end with tanks in the streets. Now the tanks are in the streets, and soldiers surround the Capitol, in what might be called a slow-motion coup d’état.
All of the traditional norms of bourgeois democracy in the US are in question. The Bush administration expresses the contempt for democracy that pervades powerful sections of the American corporate and financial oligarchy, as well as their fascistic allies in the Christian right, the gun lobby and the militia movement. They are determined to go as far as they can in establishing an authoritarian regime. Such concepts as the separation of powers between the three branches of government and legislative oversight of the executive branch are being tossed aside in the effort to vastly expand the police powers of the federal executive.
It is worth noting that at the height of the anthrax scare, in mid-October, congressional Republicans favored shutting down Congress and adjourning indefinitely, the better to give Bush, the FBI, the CIA and the military a free hand, both abroad and at home.
The Bush administration’s war on democratic rights has exposed the inability of the Democratic Party to offer any serious opposition to the extreme-right forces that dominate the Republican Party. Within hours of the September 11 attacks, the Democrats pledged unconditional support to the Bush White House, declaring that political dissent was no longer permissible.
The Democratic leadership not only lined up to give Bush an open-ended mandate to wage war abroad, it insured the passage of his “anti-terror” bill, suppressed any investigation of the unexplained intelligence failure that allowed the September 11 attacks to take place, and sanctioned the trashing of constitutional safeguards in the ongoing police dragnet.
The political collapse of the Democratic Party is the culmination of a protracted process of adaptation to the most right-wing sections of the ruling elite.
In their craven response first to the Republican impeachment conspiracy, and then to the theft of the 2000 election, the Democrats already demonstrated their inability and unwillingness to defend democratic rights.
While for the moment, the vast majority of those caught up by the government’s dragnet are immigrants of Middle-Eastern and Central Asian descent, it is only a matter of time before these anti-democratic methods will be used more widely. The wholesale attack on democratic rights can only be halted through the independent organization of the working class, which unites all sections of the working population—immigrant and US-born—in a political struggle against the financial oligarchy and its political representatives.
See Also:
Bush “anti-terror” law mandates sweeping attacks on democratic rights[31 October 2001]
US anthrax scare: Why the silence on right-wing terrorism?[27 October 2001]
Bush’s war at home: government censorship, secrecy, and lies[13 October 2001]
Nearly 600 detainedWidespread violations of civil liberties in US dragnet[6 October 2001]
Where is the Bush administration taking the American people?[22 September 2001]
Democratic rights in America: the first casualty of Bush’s anti-terror war[19 September 2001]
The political roots of the terror attack on New York and Washington[12 September 2001]
The White House has assumed vast new powers for internal repression, establishing by executive order an Office of Homeland Security that is not subject to either congressional oversight or any vote on the personnel appointed to run it. An all-encompassing political police agency is coming into being, through the passage of an “anti-terror” law that effectively amalgamates the FBI and CIA and abolishes the longstanding separation between overseas spying and domestic policing.
Side by side with the bombing of Afghanistan, the Bush administration has declared that there is a second front in the war, the war at home. The federal government issues vague and unsubstantiated “terror alerts,” which fuel anxiety while providing no protection to the public. Government spokesmen urge the population to get used to measures like random police searches and roadblocks as a permanent feature of life. National Guard troops patrol the airports, harbors, bridges, tunnels and even the US Capitol.
Fundamental constitutional safeguards—the right of habeas corpus, the right of the accused to know the charges against them, the right of arrested persons to see a lawyer, even the presumption of innocence—have been set aside for millions of immigrants from the Middle East and Central Asia. The right to privacy has been all but abolished for the entire population, with government intelligence agencies given the green light to plant bugs and wiretaps, monitor financial transactions, and conduct other forms of spying, virtually at will.
If the average American had been shown on September 10 a picture of the United States as it is today, the response would likely have been: “This is not the America I know. This looks more like a police state.”
The bitter irony is that such a sweeping attack on democratic rights has been perpetrated in the name of a war to defend “freedom” and “democracy” against terrorism. But neither the Bush administration, nor its Democratic Party collaborators, nor a compliant and complicit media bother to explain the following contradiction: the United States government never secured powers such as these at any point in the twentieth century. Not in World War I, World War II or the Cold War, when the antagonists were powerful and heavily armed states, was such a radical restructuring of the governmental and legal framework carried out. Why is this happening today, when the alleged enemy is a small band of terrorists operating out of caves in one of the poorest countries in the world?
The anti-terrorism law
One of the key elements of the assault on civil liberties is the new “anti-terrorism” act, which was rushed through Congress and signed into law only five weeks after the terror attacks. The law defines terrorism in such a way as to include political activity and speech previously protected by the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. It provides wide-ranging authority for police agencies to carry out secret searches, conduct expanded electronic surveillance, and indefinitely detain terrorism suspects. Non-citizens, including legal permanent residents, can be denied reentry to the US for expressing political views, and can be deported for having even the most incidental association with organizations designated as “terrorist” by the government. Attorney General John Ashcroft last week expanded the number of groups so designated from 46 to 74.
Among the most ominous provisions of the law is the abolition of the “firewall” between foreign and domestic intelligence agencies. The Central Intelligence Agency now has the authority to share information with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and thereby collaborate with the FBI in conducting domestic surveillance and preparing criminal prosecutions. The FBI is likewise authorized to share with the CIA information collected during grand jury proceedings, without a court order, giving the US spy agency access to domestic intelligence it had been barred from receiving in the past.
An article in the November 4 Washington Post carried the ominous headline, “An Intelligence Giant in the Making: Anti-Terrorism Law Likely to Bring Domestic Apparatus of Unprecedented Scope.” It noted that the media focus on the electronic surveillance and wiretapping provisions of the new legislation deflected attention from other provisions of the bill that will fundamentally alter the operation of US intelligence-gathering agencies. According to the Post, one of the most significant aspects of the law is that it “empowers the government to shift the primary mission of the FBI from solving crimes to gathering domestic intelligence.”
The law reverses legal reforms enacted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which segregated the FBI’s criminal investigation function from its intelligence-gathering operations against foreign spies and international terrorists.
The Post comments, “the bill effectively tears down legal fire walls erected 25 years ago during the Watergate era, when the nation was stunned by disclosures about presidential abuses of domestic intelligence-gathering against political activists.”
These changes go beyond a mere quantitative expansion of certain investigative powers. They constitute a basic restructuring of the police and intelligence apparatus to vastly expand its scope and reach.
In recent days, federal officials have urged the lifting of legal restraints on state and local police powers. Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson lamented that Justice Department agents “don’t have enough eyes and ears” to monitor terrorist suspects, and said restrictions on local police departments “need to be looked at.”
Many local police departments are already scrapping rules on intelligence-gathering that were established to protect First Amendment rights. The Los Angeles Police Commission voted last month to relax intelligence restrictions adopted in the early 1980s, following disclosures that police were monitoring anti-war protesters, liberal politicians and other political dissidents. Other big city police departments are moving to revive the surveillance methods utilized by “Red Squad” operations of the past.
Terrorizing the public
On October 29, the government issued its second general terrorism alert in less than three weeks. Declaring that major terrorist attacks against the US or US interests around the world were in the offing, Attorney General Ashcroft was utterly vague as to the likely targets, methods or perpetrators. He provided no information to support the claim of imminent danger. He gave no instructions as to how the public was to respond to the alleged danger. However, he issued an advisory to 18,000 state and local police agencies to “continue on highest alert and to notify immediately the FBI of any unusual or suspicious activity.”
Instructing the public to accept extraordinary measures, such as random stops or searches by police or National Guard troops, or questioning by FBI agents, Ashcroft said, “We ask for the patience and cooperation of the American people, if and when they encounter additional measures undertaken by local law enforcement or federal law enforcement authorities and others who are charged with securing the safety of the public.”
As an immediate consequence of the alert, National Guard troops were deployed in a number of states at transportation centers, water supplies and nuclear power plants. These are in addition to the troops who have patrolled major airports since the September 11 events.
At week’s end, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt announced that Congress, with bipartisan support, was authorizing the posting of armed soldiers at the Capitol building. The Supreme Court subsequently announced it would bar the public from its hearings.
The government claims that the “terror alerts” have been issued in order to warn and protect the public. But with no specific information provided about the imminent threat—when and where the terrorists might strike—what is public expected to do?
Their vacuous character demonstrates that these alerts are essentially fraudulent.
Their real purpose is to accustom the population to invasions of privacy, the dismantling of constitutional safeguards, and a general militarization of society. The authorities want people to accept as a normal state of affairs the deployment of armed troops at airports, public buildings, bridges, border checkpoints and in the streets.
The Bush administration has seized on the anthrax attacks as an additional means of bludgeoning the public into accepting such far-reaching restrictions on civil liberties. Although the evidence so far made available suggests that extreme right-wing elements of the Timothy McVeigh stripe are the most likely suspects, the White House and the media constantly suggest that Osama bin Laden is responsible for the anthrax attacks, depicting his Al Qaeda network as a pervasive and all-powerful threat.
Periodic alerts such as those issued October 11 and October 29 are intended to facilitate the consolidation of the new apparatus of internal repression. On October 29, the same day as the most recent alert, President Bush presided over the first meeting of the Council of Homeland Security. This new and unprecedented body includes—in addition to former Governor Tom Ridge, who has been named the director of the Office of Homeland Security—the vice president, the attorney general, the secretaries of defense, treasury, transportation and health and human services and the heads of the CIA and FBI.
The powers of this council as well as those of the Office of Homeland Security are vague and undefined, and therefore virtually unlimited.
Following that meeting, Bush announced the establishment of yet another agency with unspecified police powers—the “foreign terrorist tracking taskforce,” headed by Ashcroft. The establishment of this task force is part of a new border policy that will enable the government to more easily bar entry to immigrants alleged to have terrorist connections, and to carry out a general crackdown on those applying for or holding student visas.
Mass arrests among immigrants
These far-reaching changes come under conditions where the national security dragnet initiated after September 11 is expanding, with the number of people rounded up now standing at more than 1,100. While federal officials will not say how many of these detainees have been released, a Justice Department spokesperson said “a majority” of them are still in custody. The roundup of these individuals has been shrouded in secrecy, with the government providing no information about the detainees’ identities, where they are being held, why they are being detained, and what charges, if any, are being laid against them.
Many are held in solitary confinement. The whereabouts of some suspects are unknown to family members, and others either have no legal representation or have been denied contact with their lawyers. Much of the legal action against those in custody is taking place in secret court proceedings, with court documents sealed to the public. All of this is being done to shield the operations of federal, state and police agencies from public scrutiny.
The Justice Department has rejected appeals from civil liberties groups and some congressmen for information about the detentions, without giving any explanation for its blackout. Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, commented that the government’s conduct in the investigation is “frighteningly close to the practice of ‘disappearing’ people in Latin America.”
Following each of the two national alerts against terrorism since September 11, the number of those rounded up by the government has risen sharply, tripling in the past few weeks. One of the main purposes of the alerts is to signal state and local police to step up their surveillance activities and round up more suspects.
While the mass murder at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon is the pretext for the mass arrests, not a single one of those detained has been charged with any offense related to the September 11 attacks. Even the Justice Department claims that at most 10 or 12 of those detained are suspected, but not proven, of having links to the hijackers. The vast majority of the arrests have another purpose, unrelated to any investigation of the terrorist attack: to intimidate the immigrant population and accustom the American people as a whole to methods previously associated with police-military dictatorships.
A “war on two fronts”
Government officials have emphasized that the anti-terror measures adopted in recent weeks should not be regarded as temporary. At a briefing on October 29, Ridge declared, “We want America to be on the highest alert. And from time to time, we may issue the same general alert again.”
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in a column in the November 1 edition of the Washington Post, baldly stated that not only should the American people accept an open-ended war against terrorism, but they must “prepare now for the next war—a war that may be vastly different not only from those of the past century but also from the new war on terrorism that we are fighting today.”
In other words, America is going on a war footing, not for the duration of a specific conflict in Afghanistan, but indefinitely. Consequently, the domestic police measures being taken now by the government must also be accepted as a permanent state of affairs.
One catch phrase has more and more routinely appeared in the statements of Bush administration officials: America is fighting “a war on two fronts.” Announcing his terrorism alert last week, Ashcroft stated: “I trust the American people to be able to understand in this context the conflict, where there is a front overseas and there is another front here in the United States.”
Ridge said the following day, “We are engaged in a two-front war against terrorism.” In an October 31 speech urging passage of his economic stimulus plan, Bush repeated this mantra: “For the first time in our nation’s history, part of the battle front is here at home.”
Precisely what is meant by this “war on two fronts” is never explained. But in light of the extraordinary security measures taken by the government since September 11, references to a battle on the “home front” take on a chilling significance.
With their attempt to create an atmosphere of fear and hysteria over impending terrorist threats, authorities want to identify anyone rounded up in their investigation as the enemy, whether or not there is evidence against them. The same methods will be used against those who oppose the war against Afghanistan and other policies of the government, domestic or foreign.
Before and after September 11
The government’s actions in the period since September 11 constitute the most serious and sustained attack on civil liberties in US history. No one should believe that this is merely a reaction to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Such measures have long been sought by the most right-wing sections of the ruling elite, who have seized on the tragic events of September 11 to realize their political agenda at home, just as they are using them to launch a US military intervention in oil-rich Central Asia.
These sweeping changes are the culmination of two decades of political reaction and attacks on democratic rights, which have seen a steady buildup of the repressive forces of the state—two million Americans in prison, thousands on Death Row, legal restrictions on the rights of defendants, expanded powers of police spying and electronic surveillance. This has been accompanied by the emergence of a fascist-minded right wing with little popular support, but enormous influence in the Republican Party, in Congress, and now in the White House.
Those who want to claim that the recent escalation of the onslaught on civil liberties is simply a response to September 11 ignore the critical fact that the Bush administration came to power on the basis of an unprecedented assault on the most basic of democratic rights—the right to vote.
The drive by Bush and the Republican Party to hijack the election and take power, despite having lost the popular vote nationally, was consummated in a ruling by the right-wing majority on the US Supreme Court, which halted a legal recount in the pivotal state of Florida, handing the presidency to Bush. A government that takes power by methods of fraud and conspiracy must rule through the same methods.
This is an administration committed to a domestic and foreign policy tailored to the interests of the wealthiest and most privileged layer in American society. It is also an administration of enormous crisis. Prior to the terror attacks, the Bush administration was showing clear signs of internal disarray. Its already narrow social base of support was eroding under the pressure of a deepening economic slump, both in the US and globally.
The Republicans had lost control of the Senate, and on the international front, the Bush administration was increasingly isolated, with nominal allies as well as enemies opposing its aggressive and unilateralist posture. The events of September 11 were seized on by those who run the Bush administration as a welcome opportunity to shore up the government and rally public support by launching a military attack on the alleged perpetrators, while preparing for an upsurge of social struggle over rising unemployment, worsening slump and the government’s pro-corporate policies by expanding and restructuring the police powers of the state.
The Bush administration’s domestic “anti-terror” campaign must serve as a sharp warning. After the Florida debacle of November and December 2000, there were complacent commentaries in the press declaring that, unlike many other countries, the bitter political struggle in the United States did not end with tanks in the streets. Now the tanks are in the streets, and soldiers surround the Capitol, in what might be called a slow-motion coup d’état.
All of the traditional norms of bourgeois democracy in the US are in question. The Bush administration expresses the contempt for democracy that pervades powerful sections of the American corporate and financial oligarchy, as well as their fascistic allies in the Christian right, the gun lobby and the militia movement. They are determined to go as far as they can in establishing an authoritarian regime. Such concepts as the separation of powers between the three branches of government and legislative oversight of the executive branch are being tossed aside in the effort to vastly expand the police powers of the federal executive.
It is worth noting that at the height of the anthrax scare, in mid-October, congressional Republicans favored shutting down Congress and adjourning indefinitely, the better to give Bush, the FBI, the CIA and the military a free hand, both abroad and at home.
The Bush administration’s war on democratic rights has exposed the inability of the Democratic Party to offer any serious opposition to the extreme-right forces that dominate the Republican Party. Within hours of the September 11 attacks, the Democrats pledged unconditional support to the Bush White House, declaring that political dissent was no longer permissible.
The Democratic leadership not only lined up to give Bush an open-ended mandate to wage war abroad, it insured the passage of his “anti-terror” bill, suppressed any investigation of the unexplained intelligence failure that allowed the September 11 attacks to take place, and sanctioned the trashing of constitutional safeguards in the ongoing police dragnet.
The political collapse of the Democratic Party is the culmination of a protracted process of adaptation to the most right-wing sections of the ruling elite.
In their craven response first to the Republican impeachment conspiracy, and then to the theft of the 2000 election, the Democrats already demonstrated their inability and unwillingness to defend democratic rights.
While for the moment, the vast majority of those caught up by the government’s dragnet are immigrants of Middle-Eastern and Central Asian descent, it is only a matter of time before these anti-democratic methods will be used more widely. The wholesale attack on democratic rights can only be halted through the independent organization of the working class, which unites all sections of the working population—immigrant and US-born—in a political struggle against the financial oligarchy and its political representatives.
See Also:
Bush “anti-terror” law mandates sweeping attacks on democratic rights[31 October 2001]
US anthrax scare: Why the silence on right-wing terrorism?[27 October 2001]
Bush’s war at home: government censorship, secrecy, and lies[13 October 2001]
Nearly 600 detainedWidespread violations of civil liberties in US dragnet[6 October 2001]
Where is the Bush administration taking the American people?[22 September 2001]
Democratic rights in America: the first casualty of Bush’s anti-terror war[19 September 2001]
The political roots of the terror attack on New York and Washington[12 September 2001]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)