Tuesday, June 10, 2003

Re: Ashcroft's attack upon America Dear Friends: "Hubris" - (1) a wanton insolence or arrogance resulting from excessive pride or from passion. (2) a requirement for being a member of the Bush administration and his cabal. Humans are not infallible--that's why there are erasers on pencils. But we are responsible for our errors in judgment and action. If we are to live and interact with others, there are certain basic rules of conduct that apply. We must "play nice" with the other children. However, Attorney General John Ashcroft seems to be unwilling to accept these basic rules of civilization, and of life itself. When he was asked about a report from his own inspector general criticizing the way in which the Justice Department had treated 762 illegal immigrants locked up and detained after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, he responded with a shrug. "We make no apologies," he said. This continued arrogance of power endangers all of us--the innocent and the guilty alike. It threatens our civil liberties, our constitution, and the world at large. We were once an admired an virtuous country, but no longer. But there is still time to set things right and restore America its former place of honor in the world and in the eyes of its people. _____________________ The Washington Post June 10, 2003 Ashcroft's Attitude Problem by Richard Cohen My job is to connect the dots. So follow me as I take you from a typical newspaper story about yet another convicted murderer being freed after DNA testing to the testimony last week of Attorney General John Ashcroft. The first is clear evidence of the imperfectability of the criminal justice system, and the second is the smug refusal to admit it. Ashcroft has a serious attitude problem. That attitude was on display when he testified before the House Judiciary Committee. The AG was asked about a report from his own inspector general criticizing the way in which the Justice Department had treated 762 illegal immigrants locked up and detained after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. None of them -- that's precisely zero -- was ever linked to terrorist activities. Yet some of them were held incommunicado for months. Either they were refused lawyers or so many obstacles were put in their way that it amounted to the same thing. They were denied visitors. Some were held in solitary confinement, verbally harassed and threatened and, on occasion, allegedly physically manhandled. To all of this, Ashcroft responded with a shrug. "We make no apologies," he said -- and, of course, he asked for additional death penalties in terrorism cases. But apologies are most certainly in order. In the first place, the Justice Department got things exactly backward. In this country, you're innocent until proven guilty -- not the other way around. Second, harsh and inhumane treatment -- keeping the cell illuminated 24 hours a day -- ought not to be tolerated. After all -- and it is worth repeating -- the detainees were never charged with any crime linking them to terrorism. Most of them were detained because they were Muslims or Arabs. In this country, that ain't a crime. Two caveats are in order. After hacking through the gobbledygook of the IG report ("Prior to September 11, 2001, the MDC had a SHU, but not an ADMAX SHU"), I'd have to say that physical or verbal abuse was not all that common, and that it seems the Justice Department was more confused than it was tyrannical. After all, it was establishing a detention system virtually from scratch -- and in something of a panic, at that. We also have to remember that some of the Sept. 11 terrorists were in this country because the immigration system had failed. At the time, we were on the lookout for exactly the sort of people who had destroyed the World Trade Center and a section of the Pentagon -- young, Islamic males. The detention system made some sense. Nonetheless, innocent people were held behind bars, sometimes cruelly, for months at a time. They were sometimes called names and told they would never be set free. The report highlights the experience of one woman who for two months was repeatedly told her husband was not being detained (he was) and who, even after she found him, was permitted to visit him only three times in five months. Isn't she deserving of an apology? Not from Ashcroft. To hear him, the system worked perfectly. This is precisely the mind-set he brings to capital punishment, of which he clearly cannot get enough. Routinely, it seems, yet another person walks from death row, freed on account of DNA testing. Routinely, we hear of yet another case where the defense lawyer fell asleep, a lab technician lied or some cop got a confession out of some addled suspect who did not, as it turned out, commit that particular crime. Oops. I can appreciate the challenge the Justice Department had after Sept. 11. The FBI was overstretched and its agents were probably dog-tired. America had undergone a wrenching, tragic experience, and there was no reason then -- and no reason now -- to think it could not be repeated. Unprecedented challenges required unprecedented steps. Some innocent people were bound to be locked up. But when they were cleared, the detainees were owed an apology. A more humble attorney general would have conceded that mistakes were made and procedures violated, and that these are serious matters of concern. In this country, we bend over backward to protect the innocent. We don't casually trash their lives and then walk away as Ashcroft did, saying tough luck. Go ahead, connect the dots on Ashcroft yourself. A cavalier attitude toward civil liberties, an inability to concede mistakes, a refusal to see imperfections in the criminal justice system, a zealously irrational belief in the death penalty -- and pretty soon you can read between the lines of that Justice Department report: The attorney general is far more dangerous than any of the immigrants he wrongly detained. © 2003 The Washington Post Company _______________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ Read all about it and get the news that matters by receiving the War and Peace Watch. To subscribe, send an e-mail to:  Reikiworks@compuserve.com Thank you for your support, The War and Peace Watch publisher. contact:  Otoño Johnston ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment  for research and educational purposes only.) ========================================================= 2:41:00 PM

Re: US military presence in the Middle East Dear Friends: The active shelling of Iraq is over, but that doesn't mean the US is lessening its presence in the Middle East. We have a huge military influence in the region, and it looks like we're there to stay for the long haul. Instead of keeping a full-time, permanent cadre in any one country, we've managed to keep the back doors open in several, so that we now have long-term access, "just in case."  How happy those countries must be. Xanax anyone? _________________________ Asia Times June 10, 2003 The Ever-Growing US Military Footprint By David Isenberg The war in Iraq is over, so that means that the troops are coming home and the United States is reducing its presence - what military planners like to call its "footprint" in the region, right? Well, wrong, actually. Contrary to much of the recent news coverage about Pentagon pronouncements on the US seeking to reduce its presence in Saudi Arabia, the fact of the matter is that when one looks at the big picture, the US has a huge military presence in the region. And it is not going anywhere. Considering the rhetoric that has come out in the past month from the neoconservative camp and administration officials about their unhappiness with countries such as Syria and Iran, the US military ability to reach out and touch someone must be taken very seriously. A report by the Pacific Life Research Center, "Understanding the War On Terrorism": Preemptive Force - A Sequel" by Bob Aldridge details the bases that are now under the control of the US Central Command (CENTCOM). Contrary to US policy during the Cold War when the US stationed hundreds of thousands of troops in Europe, the current Pentagon strategy is to have "long-term access" to bases, rather than a permanent presence. Thus, forces can be shifted among numerous accessible points to meet various "threats", rather than have a full complement of troops at a few permanent locations. Some bases are reasonably well known, due to their use in the war against Iraq. For example, in Qatar the army base at Camp As-Sayliyah served as CENTCOM's forward headquarters and command center. Similarly, al-Udeid Air Base serves as the headquarters for CENTAF, CENTCOM's air component. There is also a base for pre-positioned army equipment at Doha airport, dubbed Camp Snoopy. This equipment is officially known as War Reserve Materiel (WRM) and provides support to bare base systems, medical, munitions, fuels mobility support equipment, vehicles, rations, aerospace ground equipment, air base operability equipment and associated spares and other consumables at designated locations. Kuwait sponsors four US military bases - Camp Doha, Camp Arifjan, Ali al-Salem Air Base and Ahmad al-Jaber Air Base - and is also the headquarters for CENTCOM's army component. The port of Manama in Bahrain is headquarters for the US Navy's 5th Fleet and hosts the headquarters of CENTCOM's navy and marine corps leaders. The Naval Support Activity occupies 79 acres of land in the center of downtown Manama. Also in Bahrain is Sheik Isa Air Base. In Saudi Arabia the main US Air Force control center for air operations was moved from Prince Sultan Air Base to Qatar prior to the start of the war. It is unclear if another base, the Eskan Village Air Base, home for air force and other military people deployed to Riyadh Air Base, is available for US use. Oman allows the use of three bases by the US military; the Masirah Air Base, the Thumrait Naval Air Base for anti-submarine patrol planes, and the US Air Force use of Seeb International Airport, which is Oman's largest airport. According to the Washington-DC based group Global Security, the transfer of Seeb International Airport to private sector management signaled the end of the airport's role as a base for the Royal Air Force of Oman. As of early-2002, Oman's Air Force was in search of new facilities, and contractors were bidding for the contract to build one of the first of these air bases at al-Masanah (Masana), northwest of Muscat. Completion of the project, which was first proposed a decade ago, was expected within 18 months of a contract award. Oman has worked with the US Air Force to ensure the base is built to American standards and can be used by American warplanes without further upgrades. Oman has long been a strong supporter of a US military presence in the Gulf. It signed an access agreement with Washington in 1981. And in Iraq there are four bases to which the US plans access: Baghdad International Airport, an airport at Tallil near Nasiriya in the south; the Bashur airfield in the northern Kurdish area, and a small airstrip in the western desert called H-1. The Baghdad airport is an army base, Talil and Bashur are air force bases and the H-1 airstrip was a foothold for special forces for rapid conquest. Use of the Bashur airfield means that the US will not have to rely on using Turkey's Incirlik air base Some dozen bases in Central Asia have also been made available to US forces since the war against Afghanistan. In Georgia, the Vaziani base will be the home for special forces instructors for a current mandate of two years, until May 2004. Turkmenistan has given permission for flyover and refueling of US military planes. This would be particularly important in allowing US aircraft based in Uzbekistan to reach Iran with munitions and special forces troops. According to Global Security, in November 2001 Tajikistan agreed to allow the US to evaluate three former Soviet airbases for potential use by US aircraft to support Operation Enduring Freedom. The agreement was announced after a meeting in Dushanbe between US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Tajik Foreign Minister Talbak Nazarov. The agreement followed an inspection of several airports in southern Tajikistan. In Uzbekistan, 1,500 to 1,800 special forces troops can be stationed at a former Soviet base in Khanabad. During the war against Afghanistan about 1,000 US troops worked at the facility handling tons of supplies for the war. In Kazakhstan, US military activities are shrouded in secrecy. But it is known that the government there allows military overflights, refueling and landing rights in emergencies. In Kyrgystan the base at Manas Airport near Bishek will eventually accommodate 3,000 troops and an unspecified number of aircraft. Manas has a 13,800-foot runway, built for Soviet bombers. There is room for four C-17 or C-5 cargo planes to park along the taxiway. The facility covers 37 acres. And in Afghanistan there are five airfields that could be used by US forces; at Bagram, Kandahar, Khost, Lwara, Mazar-e-Sharif and Pul-i-Kandahar. Also, sites outside the region are being considered as staging bases in order to deploy forces into the region. Consider that on June 3 Associated Press reported that US troops may soon use Balkans bases for training sites and staging points for possible interventions in the Middle East as the Pentagon weighs withdrawing 15,000 soldiers from Germany. Reportedly, the Pentagon wants to use big Romanian and Bulgarian training grounds in year-round programs that would have up to 3,000 battle-ready US soldiers at any time. In Romania, the Americans are interested in the Mihail Kogalniceanu air base, the Babadag training range and the Black Sea military port of Mangalia. In Bulgaria, talks are focusing on the use of the Sarafovo and Graf Ignatievo military airports and the Koren and Novo Selo training areas. (Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)    No material from Asia Times Online may be republished in any form without written permission. Copyright 2003, Asia Times Online, 4305 Far East Finance Centre, 16 Harcourt Rd, Central, Hong Kong _______________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ Read all about it and get the news that matters by receiving the War and Peace Watch. To subscribe, send an e-mail to:  Reikiworks@compuserve.com Thank you for your support, The War and Peace Watch publisher. contact:  Otoño Johnston ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment  for research and educational purposes only.) ============================================================ 2:40:10 PM

Re: Blair and Campbell shun Commons inquiry Dear Friends: Neither Prime Minister Tony Blair nor Alastair Campbell, his communications chief, will allow the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to question them about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Downing Street revealed yesterday. Instead, Blair will meet members of the Intelligence and Security Committee at Downing Street when they publish their annual report on MI5, MI6 and GCHQ today. The committee, which takes evidence in private and which can have its reports censored by the Government, has announced it will conduct an inquiry into the Iraq claims. Mr Campbell was in charge of the Coalition Information Centre, which produced the so-called "dodgy dossier" that later turned out to combine genuine intelligence with sections of a student thesis from the internet. ___________________________ The Independent (UK) June 10, 2003 Blair and Campbell Will Shun Commons Inquiry Into WMD by Paul Waugh, Deputy Political Editor Neither Tony Blair nor Alastair Campbell will allow the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to question them about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Downing Street revealed yesterday. The MPs wrote on Friday to ask if the Prime Minister and his communications chief would give evidence to their inquiry into claims that the Government had "sexed up" intelligence to justify the war. However, Mr Blair's official spokesman made clear that neither man would be appearing before the committee. He said "precedent" dictated that Number 10 officials did not talk publicly about their jobs. The Prime Minister will instead meet members of the Intelligence and Security Committee at Downing Street when they publish their annual report on MI5, MI6 and GCHQ today. The committee, which takes evidence in private and which can have its reports censored by the Government, has announced it will conduct an inquiry into the Iraq claims. But the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has also launched its own inquiry, and Mr Blair and Mr Campbell would have had to give evidence in the full glare of publicity. Iain Duncan Smith, the Tory leader, wrote to Mr Blair last night to warn that it would be "quite incredible" for any investigation into Downing Street's use of intelligence material not to take evidence from Mr Campbell. As the Government's director of communications and strategy, Mr Campbell was "associated with every allegation" and oversaw all the information released in the run-up to the war, Mr Duncan Smith said. Mr Campbell was in charge of the Coalition Information Centre, which produced the so-called "dodgy dossier" that later turned out to combine genuine intelligence with sections of a student thesis from the internet. Although he denied any personal involvement in the dossier, he has written to intelligence chiefs pledging that "far greater care" will be taken with such documents in future. Mr Blair's spokesman said that requests from the Foreign Affairs Committee for the Prime Minister and Mr Campbell to appear would be "considered in the usual way". But he made clear that Mr Blair would not appear before committee because he was already due to make his next six-monthly appearance before the Commons liaison committee next month. "And there is a precedent that Number 10 officials don't appear before select committees to discuss their work at Number 10," he said. Mr Campbell has appeared before the Public Administration Select Committee, but that was to "discuss Government communications", not work in Number 10, the spokesman added. Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary, had suggested earlier that Mr Campbell would not be giving evidence. Asked if she thought Mr Campbell would appear, she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I don't think so. I don't think that any of this is the most important thing. Frankly, an awful lot of people are fed up with the way we keep on going over, over, over, over details of the same issues." © 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd _______________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ Read all about it and get the news that matters by receiving the War and Peace Watch. To subscribe, send an e-mail to:  Reikiworks@compuserve.com Thank you for your support, The War and Peace Watch publisher. contact:  Otoño Johnston ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment  for research and educational purposes only.) ============================================================ 2:39:23 PM