Secretary of State Rice has been touring Europe echoing Bush's words: "We do not torture." Although the claim is unambiguous about torture, Rice is more coy about the 'black sites,' neither confirming nor denying that the CIA is maintaining secret prisons in Europe. Nonetheless, to avoid embarrassment, CIA officials said that al Qaeda suspects were moved from detention in Europe to Africa before Rice's visit.
Although Hungarian officials were quick to deny the existence of such facilities in their country, il manifesto reported that the CIA was holding terrorists under "illegal conditions." The Polish prime minister is not so confident. While Polish officials repeatedly deny their existence, Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz commissioned a detailed investigation into the existence of 'black sites' in Poland.
The Polish probe better go back a few years. It turns out the CIA was rendering terrorist suspects to foreign countries for interrogation at least as far back as 9/11. Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was handed over to Egypt in January 2002, subsequently fabricating claims of ties between Iraq and al Qaeda (that the bush administration relied on to justify invading Iraq). The Defense Intelligence Agency issued a classified report in February 2002 expressing skepticism about Libi's credibility, saying he made the claims under duress of harsh treatment by the CIA.
The world has known for some time about 'black sites' in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Now it's becoming clear that the administration runs a network of secret prisons around the world. While the Democrats express concern about jobs being sent offshore, it seems the Republicans have been sending prisons and torture offshore.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Stay the course
Bowing to political pressure to regularly report on the progress of the war in Iraq to the Senate, the president released a 35-page document detailing his National Strategy for Victory in Iraq. Replete with the same rhetoric we've heard from the president for more than two years, his strategy can be summed up in three words: stay the course.
In all fairness to the president, the document elaborates on that summary, painting a beguiling picture of what the neo-conservative principles say will come to pass in Iraq. In fact, this Utopian society is something most Americans, including opponents of the president, would love to see in the Middle East. No one would deny how nice it would be to have this strategy bear out. However, this begs the question: How likely is it to play out as planned?
Even in retrospect, that'll be difficult to determine. Therein lies one of the problems with the president's strategy: it specifies no quantitative benchmarks against which success can be measured. Beyond that, it has precious few objective criteria of any kind that Americans can use to tell if we're making any progress with the plan. That leaves only the president himself to notify Americans of how well his strategy is playing out according to his own subjective determination.
For example, he defines victory in Iraq in three stages: short, medium, and longer term. However, he uses terms like "Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists ... and standing up security forces" to define short term victory. Midterm, Iraq is "on its way to achieving its economic potential." Longer term, "Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure." What does any of that mean? How can Americans tell if any of these milestones have been achieved unless the president makes the call?
The president goes on to lay out a three track strategy for victory. One of those tracks is The Security Track. That track has a three-part campaign:
The president's document concedes that "victory will take time." However, it refuses to tell Americans how much time. Instead, it says their "strategy is working." This is the same administration that told us, "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." Since then, almost 500 more American troops have been killed by the insurgency. Considering that they have been wrong about every prognostication they have made about the war, is there any reason to believe their strategy is working?
Instead of a timetable, the strategy is conditions-based. It identifies three metrics as the most important for tracking the conditions:
Measured against the Security metric, conditions are getting worse as time passes. Last year there were three Iraqi battalions at what is called Level One readiness. However, the top American commander in Iraq, General George Casey, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in September. He told congress that the number of Iraqi battalions capable of combat without U.S. support had dropped to just one.
The Economic metrics fared little better, with electricity and oil production falling well below the pre-war levels for years after the invasion. It wasn't until this past summer that electricity production was finally restored to the levels maintained while Hussein was in power and it's still hampered by frequent outages caused by insurgents sabotaging the grid. As of May, Iraqi oil production was less than three-quarters what it was before the invasion.
The president's strategy is far superior to any plan he had in place for Iraq before last week. However, it's still preliminary at best. More than a year and a half ago, this blogger recommended that the president put a plan in place that meets four basic criteria:
In all fairness to the president, the document elaborates on that summary, painting a beguiling picture of what the neo-conservative principles say will come to pass in Iraq. In fact, this Utopian society is something most Americans, including opponents of the president, would love to see in the Middle East. No one would deny how nice it would be to have this strategy bear out. However, this begs the question: How likely is it to play out as planned?
Even in retrospect, that'll be difficult to determine. Therein lies one of the problems with the president's strategy: it specifies no quantitative benchmarks against which success can be measured. Beyond that, it has precious few objective criteria of any kind that Americans can use to tell if we're making any progress with the plan. That leaves only the president himself to notify Americans of how well his strategy is playing out according to his own subjective determination.
For example, he defines victory in Iraq in three stages: short, medium, and longer term. However, he uses terms like "Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists ... and standing up security forces" to define short term victory. Midterm, Iraq is "on its way to achieving its economic potential." Longer term, "Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure." What does any of that mean? How can Americans tell if any of these milestones have been achieved unless the president makes the call?
The president goes on to lay out a three track strategy for victory. One of those tracks is The Security Track. That track has a three-part campaign:
- Clear areas of enemy control by remaining on the offensive, killing and capturing enemy fighters and denying them safe-haven;
- Hold areas freed from enemy influence by ensuring that they remain under the control of the Iraqi government with an adequate Iraqi security force presence; and
- Build Iraqi Security Forces and the capacity of local institutions to deliver services, advance the rule of law, and nurture civil society.
The president's document concedes that "victory will take time." However, it refuses to tell Americans how much time. Instead, it says their "strategy is working." This is the same administration that told us, "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." Since then, almost 500 more American troops have been killed by the insurgency. Considering that they have been wrong about every prognostication they have made about the war, is there any reason to believe their strategy is working?
Instead of a timetable, the strategy is conditions-based. It identifies three metrics as the most important for tracking the conditions:
- Political ... the number of Iraqis from all areas willing to participate in the political process as evidenced by voter registration and turnout.
- Security: The quantity and quality of Iraqi units; the number of actionable intelligence tips received from Iraqis...
- Economic ... electricity generated and delivered; barrels of oil produced and exported...
Measured against the Security metric, conditions are getting worse as time passes. Last year there were three Iraqi battalions at what is called Level One readiness. However, the top American commander in Iraq, General George Casey, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in September. He told congress that the number of Iraqi battalions capable of combat without U.S. support had dropped to just one.
The Economic metrics fared little better, with electricity and oil production falling well below the pre-war levels for years after the invasion. It wasn't until this past summer that electricity production was finally restored to the levels maintained while Hussein was in power and it's still hampered by frequent outages caused by insurgents sabotaging the grid. As of May, Iraqi oil production was less than three-quarters what it was before the invasion.
The president's strategy is far superior to any plan he had in place for Iraq before last week. However, it's still preliminary at best. More than a year and a half ago, this blogger recommended that the president put a plan in place that meets four basic criteria:
- He provides an unambiguous plan for winning the peace in Iraq.
- He provides milestones and objective metrics of success with each milestone.
- He provides an exit strategy from the war with a projected timeline for achieving it.
- He provides unambiguous criteria as to what constitutes the completion of the mission in Iraq.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Self-imposed barriers to the prosecution of terrorists
Jose Padilla is an American citizen. He has been detained more than three years in a Federal DoJ facility without being permitted a trial in a court of law. This, in spite of the Bill of Rights stating that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial."
Senior Bush administration officials claim that Padilla conspired with al Qaeda to set off a "dirty [hydrogen] bomb" on American soil. He is alleged to have traveled to Afghanistan on a number of occasions to meet with al Qaeda officials to plot other attacks against the US. He supposedly also spoke to fellow detainees about plans to use natural gas lines to blow up apartment buildings and hotels in New York.
Padilla is such a danger to the US that president George W. Bush wrote a memo to his secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, saying (among other things) that:
He is being charged with participating in a "North American support cell" by providing material support for terrorists and conspiring to murder, kidnap, and maim persons in a foreign country. The indictment neither mentions Padilla's reported plot to detonate a "dirty bomb" nor his purported involvement with al Qaeda, even though those are grounds that Bush used to justify holding Padilla as an "enemy combatant." Government officials said that he is being charged with the less serious crimes because the Bush administration is unwilling to allow testimony from two senior members of al Qaeda who had been subjected to harsh questioning.
This directly contradicts Bush's claim that "We do not torture." However, the CIA inspector general found that they had subjected the man who could tie Padilla to the bomb plots to excessive "waterboarding," a technique that involves near drowning. The other al Qaeda member who could testify against Padilla is thought to be held in the CIA's secret detention system and the Bush administration doesn't want its existence to be revealed in a criminal court.
Padilla should be convicted of all the crimes he has committed, not just the less severe ones. However, the incompetent manner in which Bush is waging the war on terror is not only causing an increase in global terrorism, it's also now preventing us from being able to punish terrorists to the fullest extent of the law here at home.
Senior Bush administration officials claim that Padilla conspired with al Qaeda to set off a "dirty [hydrogen] bomb" on American soil. He is alleged to have traveled to Afghanistan on a number of occasions to meet with al Qaeda officials to plot other attacks against the US. He supposedly also spoke to fellow detainees about plans to use natural gas lines to blow up apartment buildings and hotels in New York.
Padilla is such a danger to the US that president George W. Bush wrote a memo to his secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, saying (among other things) that:
- Mr. Padilla is closely associated with al Qaeda
- Mr. Padilla possesses intelligence, including intelligence about personnel and activities of al Qaeda
- Mr. Padilla represents a continuing, present and grave danger to the national security of the United States, and detention of Mr. Padilla is necessary to prevent him from aiding al Qaeda in its efforts to attack the United States
He is being charged with participating in a "North American support cell" by providing material support for terrorists and conspiring to murder, kidnap, and maim persons in a foreign country. The indictment neither mentions Padilla's reported plot to detonate a "dirty bomb" nor his purported involvement with al Qaeda, even though those are grounds that Bush used to justify holding Padilla as an "enemy combatant." Government officials said that he is being charged with the less serious crimes because the Bush administration is unwilling to allow testimony from two senior members of al Qaeda who had been subjected to harsh questioning.
This directly contradicts Bush's claim that "We do not torture." However, the CIA inspector general found that they had subjected the man who could tie Padilla to the bomb plots to excessive "waterboarding," a technique that involves near drowning. The other al Qaeda member who could testify against Padilla is thought to be held in the CIA's secret detention system and the Bush administration doesn't want its existence to be revealed in a criminal court.
Padilla should be convicted of all the crimes he has committed, not just the less severe ones. However, the incompetent manner in which Bush is waging the war on terror is not only causing an increase in global terrorism, it's also now preventing us from being able to punish terrorists to the fullest extent of the law here at home.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Can congress dispel the hex of fear?
The USA PATRIOT Act (The Act) was up for reathorization in congress this week. At first, it seemed that it was business as usual in the House, with our representatives succumbing to 9/11 hysteria. However, by the end of the week, it began to look like some semblance of rationality might be settling in, particularly in the Senate.
The Act is very intrusive on Americans' right to privacy and has proven wholly ineffective at intercepting and obstructing terrorism. Fortunately, some of the sections of The Act that are most destructive to our civil liberties are set to expire at the end of this year. Unfortunately, some of the rabid-right (ironically, since they traditionally stand for laissez faire government) would prefer that law enforcement agencies continue to have the unfettered ability to intrude on our freedoms. Therefore, they moved to eliminate the clauses of The Act that require the expiration of those sections.
This past summer, the House approved a bill to achieve these ends, believing that the dangers of terrorism warrant suspending our right to privacy (even though The Act has not led to a single conviction on terrorist-related grounds over the four years it has been in effect). Senators, on the other hand, seem to have slowly come to their senses and realized that (as Benjamin Franklin once said), "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." The Senate passed a bill that returns judicial oversight to the power of law enforcement agencies to confiscate the personal records of American citizens without their knowledge. Therefore, members of both houses met this week to reach an agreement on a bill that could pass both houses before the end of the year, when some sections of The Act expire.
Repeating the error that happened just before The Act was passed in 2001 of working out the details in secrecy, conferees met behind closed doors and came out with a bill that eliminated the safeguards to our freedoms that the Senate's version of the bill held. According to Bob Barr, former Republican representative from Georgia, "It's very similar to the process in 2001. We believe it's a very inappropriate and dangerous game to play. Politics seems to be driving this whole game. The Senate worked long and hard to fashion a compromise." Lisa Graves, senior counsel for legislative strategy at the American Civil Liberties Union, said: "There's been a lot of pressure by the administration and the Justice Department to refuse to go along with advances in the Senate bill. There's definitely an attempt to railroad this through."
Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. By Friday, liberals and conservatives from both sides of the aisle in both houses formed a coalition to block the latest version of the bill. They did so by dropping the immediate consideration of the bill and, thereby, avoiding a filibuster in the Senate over the weekend. What this broad coalition indicates is the recognition by many different political affiliations of the serious flaws in The Act. Although some legislators are still under the spell of the terrorist tactics of the Bush administration, there are now enough legislators who have regained their appreciation for the Constitution to stymie those who would surrender our liberties. Let's hope they can do it again at the end of the year when the bill is sure to come up for a vote again before sections of The Act expire.
The Act is very intrusive on Americans' right to privacy and has proven wholly ineffective at intercepting and obstructing terrorism. Fortunately, some of the sections of The Act that are most destructive to our civil liberties are set to expire at the end of this year. Unfortunately, some of the rabid-right (ironically, since they traditionally stand for laissez faire government) would prefer that law enforcement agencies continue to have the unfettered ability to intrude on our freedoms. Therefore, they moved to eliminate the clauses of The Act that require the expiration of those sections.
This past summer, the House approved a bill to achieve these ends, believing that the dangers of terrorism warrant suspending our right to privacy (even though The Act has not led to a single conviction on terrorist-related grounds over the four years it has been in effect). Senators, on the other hand, seem to have slowly come to their senses and realized that (as Benjamin Franklin once said), "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." The Senate passed a bill that returns judicial oversight to the power of law enforcement agencies to confiscate the personal records of American citizens without their knowledge. Therefore, members of both houses met this week to reach an agreement on a bill that could pass both houses before the end of the year, when some sections of The Act expire.
Repeating the error that happened just before The Act was passed in 2001 of working out the details in secrecy, conferees met behind closed doors and came out with a bill that eliminated the safeguards to our freedoms that the Senate's version of the bill held. According to Bob Barr, former Republican representative from Georgia, "It's very similar to the process in 2001. We believe it's a very inappropriate and dangerous game to play. Politics seems to be driving this whole game. The Senate worked long and hard to fashion a compromise." Lisa Graves, senior counsel for legislative strategy at the American Civil Liberties Union, said: "There's been a lot of pressure by the administration and the Justice Department to refuse to go along with advances in the Senate bill. There's definitely an attempt to railroad this through."
Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. By Friday, liberals and conservatives from both sides of the aisle in both houses formed a coalition to block the latest version of the bill. They did so by dropping the immediate consideration of the bill and, thereby, avoiding a filibuster in the Senate over the weekend. What this broad coalition indicates is the recognition by many different political affiliations of the serious flaws in The Act. Although some legislators are still under the spell of the terrorist tactics of the Bush administration, there are now enough legislators who have regained their appreciation for the Constitution to stymie those who would surrender our liberties. Let's hope they can do it again at the end of the year when the bill is sure to come up for a vote again before sections of The Act expire.
Monday, November 14, 2005
We do not torture
Last week, president George W. Bush met president Torrijos of Panama in Panama City. While there, they held a joint press conference. When asked if he agreed with vice president Cheney that the CIA should be exempt from legislation to ban torture, Bush's response was "We do not torture."
The presidency is notorious for having a hard time understanding advanced English vocabulary. After all, who could forget president Clinton saying, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." Last week's press conference leaves us wondering what Bush thinks the meaning of "we" is.
First of all, the context of the reporter's question that elicited the response begs the question. Why would Cheney want the CIA to be permitted to torture detainees if we do not torture? Does the CIA, an agency which is part of the executive branch of government led by Bush, not qualify as "we"?
If the CIA does not qualify as "we," then what about the military? The events at Abu Ghraib are now infamous incidents of torture. However, the highest rank court martialed for that torture was a sergeant. Could that have been a way to distance the guilty parties from the president? The former commander at Abu Ghraib, brigadier general Janis Karpinski, makes a convincing case that she was a scapegoat of her immediate commanders, military intelligence officials, and Rumsfeld. Do none of them qualify as "we" to the commander in chief?
In fact, secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld is being sued by two Iraqi businessmen. What are they suing him for? They claim they were tortured by American forces for months, violating their rights under the US Constitution and international law. This occurred after they were arrested during a business meeting in 2003, in spite of the fact that they were not part of any anti-American activity.
Iraq is not the only place where torture occurs at the hands of Bush's troops. An FBI memo documents abuses occurring at Guantanamo Bay as far back as 2002. It describes one incident in which a soldier reportedly bent a prisoner's thumbs back and "grabbed his genitals." In another, an FBI agent saw a detainee "gagged with duct tape" for refusing to stop chanting the Quran. In a third episode, a prisoner allegedly was threatened with an aggressive dog and the man was placed for three months in "intense isolation," causing him to experience "extreme psychological trauma."
But that was all in the past, right? Maybe Bush says we do not torture because things have changed. Well, according to Human Rights Watch, troops of the 82nd Airborne stationed at Forward Operating Base Mercury (FOB Mercury) near Fallujah were doing the following as recently as last year:
The presidency is notorious for having a hard time understanding advanced English vocabulary. After all, who could forget president Clinton saying, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." Last week's press conference leaves us wondering what Bush thinks the meaning of "we" is.
First of all, the context of the reporter's question that elicited the response begs the question. Why would Cheney want the CIA to be permitted to torture detainees if we do not torture? Does the CIA, an agency which is part of the executive branch of government led by Bush, not qualify as "we"?
If the CIA does not qualify as "we," then what about the military? The events at Abu Ghraib are now infamous incidents of torture. However, the highest rank court martialed for that torture was a sergeant. Could that have been a way to distance the guilty parties from the president? The former commander at Abu Ghraib, brigadier general Janis Karpinski, makes a convincing case that she was a scapegoat of her immediate commanders, military intelligence officials, and Rumsfeld. Do none of them qualify as "we" to the commander in chief?
In fact, secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld is being sued by two Iraqi businessmen. What are they suing him for? They claim they were tortured by American forces for months, violating their rights under the US Constitution and international law. This occurred after they were arrested during a business meeting in 2003, in spite of the fact that they were not part of any anti-American activity.
Iraq is not the only place where torture occurs at the hands of Bush's troops. An FBI memo documents abuses occurring at Guantanamo Bay as far back as 2002. It describes one incident in which a soldier reportedly bent a prisoner's thumbs back and "grabbed his genitals." In another, an FBI agent saw a detainee "gagged with duct tape" for refusing to stop chanting the Quran. In a third episode, a prisoner allegedly was threatened with an aggressive dog and the man was placed for three months in "intense isolation," causing him to experience "extreme psychological trauma."
But that was all in the past, right? Maybe Bush says we do not torture because things have changed. Well, according to Human Rights Watch, troops of the 82nd Airborne stationed at Forward Operating Base Mercury (FOB Mercury) near Fallujah were doing the following as recently as last year:
- routine, severe beatings of prisoners and other cruel and inhumane treatment
- a soldier is alleged to have broken a detainee'’s leg with a baseball bat
- detainees were forced to hold five-gallon jugs of water with their arms outstretched and perform other acts until they passed out
- soldiers applied chemical substances to detainees'’ skin and eyes, and subjected detainees to forced stress positions, sleep deprivation, and extremes of hot and cold
- detainees were stacked into human pyramids and denied food and water
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Contradictory juxtaposition
| U.S. Launches Major Offensive in Iraq | President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended |
| U.S. Launches Major Offensive Near Syrian Border; Two U.S. Troops Killed in Other Areas of Iraq | Remarks by the President from the USS Abraham Lincoln At Sea Off the Coast of San Diego, California |
| Nov 5, 2005 | May 1, 2003 |
Can both of these statements be true? If not, which one is the lie? Apparently, someone didn't get the News flash!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)