Monday, April 9, 2007

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/08/379/ Published on Sunday, April 8, 2007 by CommonDreams.org Torture Blowback and Selective Outrage David Lindorff The alleged torture of British Navy personnel by Iraqi Revolutionary Guards was page one news in the New York Times and other US publications on Saturday, and the outrage in America and Britain was almost universal.According to the just released 15 captives, they were blindfolded, then forced to listen to guns being cocked, which led them to believe they might be executed. They were placed in isolation from one another, yelled at, and forced to confess to having trespassed in Iranian territorial waters. These abusive treatments are all awful, and no one would want to have to endure them, but let[base ']s be honest here: they pale in comparison to what American captives have been put through in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Guantanamo, and at various secret "black sites" around the world from Poland to Ethiopia. People held in captivity by American forces[^]military and CIA[^]are known to have faced mock executions, to have been beaten to the point of death, and to have endured repeated water-boarding sessions. They have been forced to stay in stress positions for so long that they have suffered permanent muscular and neurological damage. They have been subjected to total sensory deprivation, such as we saw was applied to American captive Jose Padilla, to the point that they went insane. They[base ']ve suffered extended sleep deprivation, have been left staked to the ground in desert sun, or left wet and naked for days in front of blasting air-conditioners. They[base ']ve been attacked by dogs, sexually humiliated, raped, and forced to watch the desecration of their Korans. There are also forms of torture applied which we don[base ']t even know about[^]the reason provided by federal authorities for blacking out the testimony of captives at military tribunals in Guantanamo, and the reason two convicted [base "]terrorists,[per thou] David Hicks and John Walker Lindh, had to sign gag agreements barring them from talking about the conditions of their captivity in public in return for reduced sentences. If anyone wanted to know why President Bush[base ']s authorization of torture by American forces was a criminal act, they should go talk to the freed British detainees. So far, no one has asked them what they think about countries that torture captives. My guess is that they[base ']ll say it[base ']s a horrible idea, whoever does it. So far, from what I[base ']ve seen, none of the reports on the abusive treatment of British captives has made the connection to how American forces are torturing captives in their custody. This is shoddy journalism at its worst. So far, nobody in Congress, including Sen. John McCain, who once tried to pass a torture ban only to have it gutted by presidential signing statement, has said anything about this case-book example of blow-back of America[base ']s use of officially sanctioned torture of captives. Dave Lindorff is a Philadelphia-based investigative journalist and columnist. His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net and www.counterpunch.org His latest book, co-authored by Barbara Olshansky, is [base "]The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office[per thou] (St. Martin[base ']s Press, 2006). 7:59:36 AM    comment []

A Peaceful (!!) Rally in Iraq. Bad News for American Troops. Tens of thousands of people marched in Najaf today to protest the continued American occupation, exactly four years after the fall of Baghdad. (No protests were allowed in Baghdad because the U.S. military shut down the streets.) The protest was anti-American all the way, with chants of "Leave, leave occupier!" and "No, no, to the occupation." The event was organized (or called for, anyway) by Moqtada al-Sadr, and one of his key deputies spoke, saying, "We demand the exit of the occupier and withdrawal of the last American soldier and we also reject the existence of any kind of military bases." In my mind the most important thing here, after the fact that there is yet more evidence that the Iraqis want nothing to do with us, is the fact that it was a peaceful event. It's safe to say that the majority of the participants were Shiites because al-Sadr is a radical Shiite cleric and major Shiite political player. But the Sunnis stayed away from what was essentially a massive target practice opportunity. Possible reasons: (1) al-Sadr cut some kind of deal, (2) the one thing that brings Iraqis together is hating Americans, or (3) both. Couple this new sense of cooperation with the face that al-Sadr, who is possibly the most powerful man in Iraq, has called on Iraqis to cease attacking one another to instead focus on killing Americans, and we've got an even more hostile environment in which American forces must operate. Who thought that was even possible? [MotherJones.com | MoJo Blog - Social Issues and Political Commentary] 7:35:27 AM    comment []

Michael Shaw: Reading The Pictures: Bush Takes Over Command In Afghanistan... And Other Hallucinations . Yeah, it's like I just told you.  I'm in the humvee, on the radio, and then I see the new C.O. coming.  Except, he isn't in uniform; he's wearing a suit.  Yeah, a grey suit.  The shirt?  It was white -- with a blue tie.  It gets better though.  Or worse, I should say.  Walking back to camp, I see him again.  This time, he's instructing the IED unit on the new robot.  He makes it go this way, that way, every which way.  When I got up today, my head seemed much clearer ... until I stepped out of the barracks.  Then I saw him again, checking out the armor, marching straight as a stick. It's unimaginable a guy in civvies could be running the unit. Although no one else around here seems to notice. Maybe that fourth rotation puts you over the edge? For more on last week's hyper-realistic Ft. Irwin photo op (if you thought it was Afghanistan, Karl loves you!), wake up here at BAGnewsNotes. (image 1 & 3: Jason Reed/Reuters. image 2: Jim Watson/AFP. Fort Irwin, California. April 4, 2007. via YahooNews) [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed] 6:52:49 AM    comment []

Arianna Huffington: The Money Race: Politicians Win, You Lose. Money money money -- it's the talk of the political world right now. Who raised the most? Who had the most donors? Which party raised more? The answer to the last one is the Democrats, who crushed the Republicans in fundraising for the first quarter of 2007. But allow me to interrupt the victory parade for a moment to point out that the raising of political money isn't the whole story. It's what happens afterwards that should get our attention. A perfect example: the $10 billion dollar giveaway to the oil industry made possible by an omission in the offshore drilling leases agreed to in 1998 and 1999. The Bush administration's response has been exactly what you would expect: do nothing and let the oil companies keep the money. Inspector General Earl Devaney called the Interior Department's inaction on the mistake "shockingly cavalier." The Democrats, on the other hand, pledged to fix the oversight as part of their "First 100 Hours" campaign. And, in fact, the House has already passed a bill to that effect. But over in the Senate, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Diane Feinstein of California have suddenly gone all wobbly, and are leading an effort to water down the bill. Both of them, not coincidentally, are recipients of political donations from -- can you guess? -- oil companies. Bingaman actually gets more oil money than any other Senate Democrat. And here is the quid pro quo he gave to the oil industry: "The way I would like to proceed," he said, "is to find something that the administration thinks will pass muster." Really? If what passes muster with the administration is what passes muster with the American people, Bingaman would still be in the minority in the Senate. Feinstein, meanwhile, has endorsed the version favored by the Bush administration, which is to ask the companies to renegotiate, and, in exchange, extend their current leases without bids. Does anybody really believe that no-bid contracts for oil companies were what the American people voted for in November? If they wanted a Senate that opened the Treasury to the oil companies and pled helplessness when asked to exercise real oversight, the voters could have left the Republicans in charge. This story offers us a glimpse into the other side of political money. The media often treat the money race like a contest in which the total raised is the end of the story. But it's only the beginning, and until more light is shone on the paybacks, the real loser will continue to be the American people. For now we need to turn the searchlight on Senators Bingaman and Feinstein. Otherwise, we'll have to rubberneck at yet another wreck piled up at the intersection of money and influence. [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed] 6:49:47 AM    comment []

American Tortured in Iraq Sues Rumsfeld. Donald Vance was falsely accused by the US military of aiding terrorists. He was held without charge for more than three months in a high-security prison in Iraq, and subjected to psychological torture day and night without legal counsel or even a phone call to his family. On Wednesday, the former private security contractor was honored for his ordeal and for speaking out against the incident. In Washington, Vance received the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling, an award named in memory of Army helicopter gunner Ron Ridenhour, who struggled to bring the horrific mass murders at My Lai to the attention of Congress and the Pentagon during the Vietnam War. [t r u t h o u t] 6:47:56 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2007 Patricia Thurston.