The Torture Papers

Why we should leave Afghanistan

2009-11-23T03:33:00.000-08:00

But since news broke, a little less than a month ago, of his resignation from the State Department over the US war in Afghanistan — he is the first US official to publicly quit in protest — Hoh has swiftly become an influential voice, both within and outside the government. The timing of his resignation, dated Sept. 10, 2009, was fortuitous, he says: “People want to understand this.”

This week, as President Obama announced that he will soon decide how to proceed in Afghanistan and whether to escalate US troop levels, Matthew Hoh, former Senior Civilian Representative in Zabul Province, has been taking meetings on Capitol Hill and with administration officials. He was recently invited to speak with the Vice-President’s national security adviser, Tony Blinken. “It was a good conversation — they were very open and interested in what I had to say,” Hoh says. “Very inquisitive.”

From his colleagues, both military and civilian, Hoh says he has received overwhelming support. “My State Department counterparts and a lot of military officers feel the same way,” he says. “I did not have a Eureka moment. Nothing in that [resignation] letter is novel or unique.”

Public opinion sways similarly: Over the past few weeks, several polls have shown that support for the war in Afghanistan has reached its lowest point ever. A CBS News poll released this week shows 69% of Americans view the war as “going badly,” with the sharpest decline among Republicans and independents.

Hoh, now 36, served as an officer in the Marines in Iraq in 2006. He saw a good friend die, drowning after their helicopter crashed in Anbar province. He says the trauma he suffered in combat has not affected his decision to resign and go public: “I made my peace with that a long time ago.”

From the time Hoh was young, he says, he wanted to serve his country. He grew up working-class in New Jersey; his father was a “dirt poor” high-school dropout and teenage dad who worked hard, went to night school, “did everything he could for his family and did it well.”
Hoh has also worked at the Pentagon, and at the Department of Defense in Iraq. He was assigned to Afghanistan in May; five months later, he drafted his resignation letter.

“I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end,” he wrote. “To put simply: I fail to see the value or the worth in continued US casualties or expenditures of resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year-old civil war."

US ambassador to Afghanistan Karl W. Eikenberry — himself the author a leaked memo arguing for no further increase in troop levels — and Richard Holbrooke, US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, met with Hoh and tried to keep him from quitting. (Holbrooke has conceded that he largely agrees with Hoh’s assessment.) Hoh, swayed by the old argument that one can effect more change by working within the system, agreed to stay. He lasted a week.

“Seeing the kind of stuff I did — I didn’t want to participate in this,” he says.

Our top priorities, says Hoh, should be destroying al Qaeda, killing Osama bin Laden, and stabilizing Pakistan. “Al Qaeda has not been in Afghanistan since 2001,” when the US first invaded, he says. (Last month, Gen. Jim Jones, the president’s national security adviser, said that there were less than 100 al Qaeda in Afghanistan.) “Another 60,000 troops in Afghanistan won’t make a difference,” Hoh says. “But you’ll have hundreds more dead Americans.”

Further, he says, al Qaeda is an elastic, amorphous entity, one based not geographically but ideologically. Hoh points to the logistician for the attacks of Sept. 11, who coordinated everything from a small apartment in Hamburg, Germany. Al Qaeda’s largest attacks since then have occurred in Madrid, London and Indonesia.

“Al Qaeda is a collection of ideas, of independent, autonomous cells,” Hoh says. “They don’t need a lot of funding. They need an apartment with an Internet connection.”

Hoh is also deeply troubled by the conflation of the Taliban in Afghanistan with al Qaeda; the two, he says, are unrelated. “Al Qaeda is a worldwide organization with an apocalyptic vision to establish an Islamic caliphate throughout the world,” he says. “The Taliban’s views are very local.” Though the Taliban gave shelter to al Qaeda in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, it is offering to renounce the organization should they be represented in a coalition government.
“That’s something we should look at,” Hoh says. “But whether the Taliban were complicit in or lead any of the attacks — no. They are not in cahoots. They have separate goals.”

The shadow of Vietnam, to which this war has often been compared, is long. “People [in power] are taking that seriously,” he says. “There are parallels. The idea that we’re supporting the corrupt and illegitimate [Karzai] regime — I think that troubles a lot of people. Is that an honorable thing to do, to ask our young men and women to die? For this regime?”

As with Vietnam, US forces in Afghanistan, Hoh says, are attacked only because we are there, and so it follows that an insurgency abhors a vacuum. He talks about having visited Korengal — “the deadliest area for US troops” — and the primitiveness of the inhabitants, maybe 10,000 in all, speaking their own language, living off a timber-based economy. He recalls asking the commanding officer what would happen if he pulled his troops out.

“Nothing.”

“So why are we still here?”

“Because we were here before.”

“And that goes on so much,” says Hoh, with more sadness than anger. “It’s this mindset we have: ‘We’ve been here eight years, so we need to be here a ninth.’ To borrow a phrase, it’s the march of folly.”

That said, Hoh is not advocating for a sudden and complete withdrawal. He thinks the US needs to take a far harder approach to Karzai, force him to negotiate with Pakistan by threatening to cut off funds. He thinks the US should end combat in valleys and villages, work only at the lowest levels politically, and aim to be gone within a year.

And then, he says, the US should focus on Pakistan (a state Hillary Clinton recently criticized for harboring terrorists; Osama bin Laden is believed to be in hiding there) and destroying al Qaeda. Hoh does concede that Pakistan is an imminent danger to the US and the West, but says the notion that the bulk of al Qaeda operatives are recruited and trained in that nation alone is false.
“We need a much more serious approach, using intelligence and law-enforcement,” he says. “If we go down this rabbit hole that al Qaeda is tied to a political or geographical boundary, we are never going to defeat them. We have to acknowledge them for what they are, not what we’d like them to be.”

Obama's Vendetta Against Bush

2009-11-22T10:15:00.000-08:00

From the standpoint of politics, this decision makes no sense. According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Monday, only 34 percent of Americans support the decision to try the al-Qaida leaders in a federal district court. Sixty-four percent said they should be tried by a military commission, as the Bush administration planned to do.

The decision is unlikely to grow more popular with time. At a minimum, a highly publicized trial will remind Americans of the 9/11 attacks, something Democrats have been encouraging us to forget.

The potential consequences for the United States of extending to these terrorists the constitutional rights afforded U.S. citizens in a civil trial are grave.

The legal status of the al-Qaida bigwigs -- none of whom are U.S. citizens -- was that of unlawful combatant. In attacking the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, they committed an act of war, but did so in a manner which deprives them of prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Convention of 1949.

To be recognized as lawful combatants, irregulars must meet four criteria, the Geneva Convention states. The criteria are "(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; and (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

The al-Qaida bigwigs fail to meet three of those four criteria, and thus, under international law, are entitled only to such "rights" as their captors are willing to extend to them. And now Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder have decided to give them the rights of American citizens.
The most consequential of those rights is that of discovery -- the right of American defendants to see the evidence the prosecution has against them.

"Prosecutors will be forced to reveal U.S. intelligence on KSM, the methods and sources for acquiring its information and his relationships to fellow al-Qaida operatives," wrote former Justice Department official John Yoo in the Wall Street Journal last week. "The information will enable al-Qaida to drop plans and personnel whose cover is blown. It will enable it to detect our means of intelligence-gathering and to push forward into areas we know nothing about."
The concern isn't hypothetical. Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the blind sheikh, Abdel Rahman, after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was required to turn over to defendants a list of 200 possible co-conspirators which, he said, apparently was delivered to Osama bin Laden within days of its production as a court exhibit. Mr. McCarthy declined to prosecute another suspect in that bombing for fear the intelligence loss through discovery outweighed the benefits of a conviction.

To fail to turn over intelligence sought through discovery is to run the risk that KSM and his co-conspirators might be acquitted on a technicality. But to release them from custody would be political poison for Democrats. The administration would have to keep holding them even if they are found not guilty. But that would make a mockery the main reason Mr. Holder has given for trying them in federal court: that a civilian trial would showcase American justice.

Even if no vital intelligence is disclosed to al-Qaida, a civilian trial will be a propaganda fest, as was the trial of the "20th hijacker," Zacarias Moussaoui.

Former Justice Department official Shannen Coffin thinks the real reason for a civilian trial is that President Obama hopes KSM and his lawyers will attack the Bush administration. "The decision to try KSM in civilian court accomplishes indirectly what Obama does not wish to do directly -- it puts the Bush administration's interrogation tactics on trial for all the world to see," Mr. Coffin said.

This would be red meat for the liberal base. But it's unlikely to be popular with centrists who are already unhappy with Mr. Obama's economic policies.

This has been, arguably, the most political administration in modern times. Ten months after his inauguration, Mr. Obama still behaves more like a candidate than a president. But in pursuing his vendetta against his predecessor at the expense of American security, he may be campaigning to be a one-term president.

Who’s On Trial --KSM or George W. Bush?

2009-11-21T13:20:00.000-08:00

President Obama badly needs to remind Americans how much they disliked George W. Bush. With soaring unemployment, ballooning budget deficits, ugly wrangling over health care, failure on climate change, indecision on Afghanistan, rising trade wars, churlishness from China, and dead-end diplomacy efforts in Iran, Honduras, Israel and Palestine, a case could be made that things aren’t going too well for our young president. -- It was so much easier when Americans were content with just toppling the last guy.

This may be why Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed aka "KSM" in New York’s federal court. Putting the Bush administration on trial by reigniting the outrage over torture will come at a good time, perhaps distracting the public from Obama’s sinking poll numbers. Much as they have tried to push off the day, this administration is now perilously close to having to take responsibility for our monstrous unemployment and grotesque deficits. What better time to rev up the horror of waterboarding among the anti-Bush contingent? Or, to allow KSM a platform for some effective anti-Bush rhetoric all on his own?
In the transcript of his military tribunal, Mohammed took some shots at Bush. “You know the President he … makes his oath and he lied.

” Undoubtedly there will be more where that came from. He also roundly condemned the United States, which he claims has “oppressed” Muslims and has treated detainees unfairly. He describes the U.S. as clueless about the involvements of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. “When America invaded Afghanistan, they just arrive in Afghanistan cause they hear there (sic) enemy. They don’t know what it means Al Qaeda or Usama or Taliban.” Some of us might be inclined to agree with him, but these kinds of accusations will doubtless again have us looking backward as a nation, blaming the Bush administration for, well, nearly everything.The administration has suggested that they are eager to showcase the even-handedness of our legal system.

Since President Obama has already reassured the nation that KSM will be convicted and executed, it’s a little hard to trumpet our adherence to the “innocent til proven guilty” notion. New Yorkers are worried (rightly) about the security implications of hosting such a high-profile trial, disgusted with the estimated $75 million price tag for the trial and many are concerned that attempting to deliver justice to this fanatic will become a circus, causing yet more anguish for the families and friends of those killed in the Twin Towers.

Most worrisome is that this terrible person -- who has confessed to having orchestrated the murder of thousands of Americans and has begged to executed -- may well go free. By deciding to try KSM in a federal civilian court, Holder has committed to the rule of law that governs criminal proceedings. He has, in effect, guaranteed this terrorist’s civil rights. That may turn out to have been a great error. Considering that KSM was taken prisoner by soldiers unconcerned with the niceties of Miranda Rights and rules of evidence and that he is accused of crimes planned in a foreign country and actually performed by others, there is a distinct possibility that crucial evidence will be tossed and that the case will falter. In his tribunal statement, Mohammed claims to have been responsible for nearly every terrorist act since he was born – a list of 29 different events or undertakings that span the globe and that include the attempted assassination of several former presidents, including Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Seriously, the list could well lead a defense attorney to claim that KSM is delusional.

The judge in this case and KSM's legal team will likely press issues of evidence, of appropriate legal counsel and about the impossibility of receiving a fair trial in New York. For all these reasons, this monster could walk.

Why take this chance? Team Obama clearly weighed the political pros and cons of unleashing this nightmare on New York. What is to be gained? Do we really think that by parading the messiness of our legal system before the world we will make converts to our way of life? The more likely answer is that President Obama decided that the time was right for another wave of Bush nausea. The Obama team is exhausted from their push to pass health care legislation, worn down by opposition from Americans and by dissension in the president's own party. Their lofty liberal ambitions -- for gays, for climate change, for card check -- lie in tatters. They sorely need a shot of adrenaline. You can just hear the charge from the Oval Office: Bring Back George W. Bush!

The Torture Hearings (Part II)

2009-11-20T17:27:00.000-08:00

Ian Kelly

Department Spokesman

Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

November 19, 2009

TRANSCRIPT:

1:36 p.m. EST

MR. KELLY: Okay. Good afternoon. The Secretary had a full day in Kabul today. She met with, of course, the Afghan leadership, with international partners and allies. She had breakfast with foreign ministers, met with U.S. and international troops and staff from Provincial Reconstruction Teams, and also, of course, with Embassy staff.

She noted in her public comments that she was encouraged by President Karzai’s pledge in his inaugural speech to battle corruption and get his security forces sufficiently trained to take the lead in the country within five years. She also noted that President Karzai’s speech set forth an agenda for change and reform and that he outlined steps for tackling corruption.

She added that the U.S. is under no illusions about the difficulty of its mission in Afghanistan, that the road ahead is fraught with challenges and imperfect choices, and said that setbacks are inevitable and that, of course, we must remain realistic about what can be accomplished.

QUESTION: That’s real optimism.

MR. KELLY: She also said we’re starting to see results in areas like alternatives to poppy cultivation, opening of girls’ schools, opening of clinics, and better roads, and said that the international community can do better, and vowed more transparency in our aid. And she stressed that, while there are – there will be setbacks, she believes we can make progress.
So with that, I will take your questions. Mr. Lee gets the first question.

QUESTION: Are you going to announce Bosworth’s travel, since it seems to be --

MR. KELLY: I think it’s been announced.

QUESTION: Yeah, it has.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: One wonders why it wasn’t announced yesterday from here.

MR. KELLY: One wonders. Well, I think it may have something to do with the fact that the President announced it a few hours after that.

QUESTION: Yes, his big news sending the envoy to North Korea. What are the details of this?
MR. KELLY: He is – he’s going on December – he will be there on December 8th with a small interagency delegation to engage in direct talks with North Korean officials. And our goal here is, of course, the resumption of the Six-Party Talks and to secure North Korea’s reaffirmation of the September 2005 joint agreement.

And as you know, we made this decision after consulting with our partners in South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia. And Ambassador Bosworth plans to continue on after Pyongyang to the capitals of our partners in these Six-Party Talks to give them a readout of his talks with North Korean officials.

QUESTION: Including Moscow?

MR. KELLY: Including Moscow.

QUESTION: Do you have dates for those?

MR. KELLY: I don’t have an exact schedule for you beyond the fact that he’s going to be in Pyongyang on December 8th.

QUESTION: Are you under any illusions that the North Koreans will come back willingly?

MR. KELLY: Well, it’s pretty fair to say that we – we’re going to go into this with our eyes wide open. We are not interested in being distracted by issues beyond the issues – the most important issues facing the region in terms of security, and that’s the complete and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. So that will be the focus of our – of Ambassador Bosworth’s trip to Pyongyang.

Within the context of the Six-Party Talks, there’s – there is an opportunity to have working groups around the Six-Party Talks about bilateral issues. We’re not interested in those kinds of issues in this – in these direct talks that we’re going to have in Pyongyang.

Yes.

QUESTION: Whom is he going to meet in Pyongyang? Is it Kang Suk-ju, or do you know?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. I don’t – I’m not prepared to announce exactly who it’s going to be. But I understand it’s going to be an appropriate, really senior level for Ambassador Bosworth to have these discussions that I just described.

Yes.

QUESTION: Nazira Karimi for Ariana Television. As you mentioned, President Karzai at his inauguration today, he has pledged too many things, and he mentioned about fighting against corruption. Do you think that he going to be able to deliver it? And also, of course, he has an expectation from the U.S. authority and also international community.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: What do you think about U.S. position or role about this?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think the important thing is – is that he made a real commitment in the speech to tackle these issues. And they’ve already taken some steps to try and institutionalize the fight against corruption. And so we see it – we saw that speech as something hopeful in terms of setting out a new way forward for the new government. But as they do go forward, we’ll be looking to see the government actually implement and follow through on some of these steps that he outlined.

I think that for our part, we also see this as a new opportunity for our partnership with Afghanistan. And on our side, we also want to ensure that there is transparency and accountability for the assistance that we’re providing. And we have – we’ve set up some, on our own end, some of our own monitoring and verification mechanisms to ensure that our aid is meeting – is going to the right people, is meeting our goals for Afghanistan. And so we have a very robust monitoring procedure in place. We’re conducting a review of all the recipients on the side of the Afghan Government for our aid to ensure that they’re using the aid in the proper way. And if these agencies and ministries don’t – if we’re not able to certify them as having open and accountable procedures, they simply won’t receive the direct aid.

So this really is kind of a new chapter in our relationship and a renewed partnership. But it’s a partnership with mutual responsibilities. President Karzai recognized that they have their own responsibilities to be open and transparent, and we recognize that we have our own responsibilities to our own taxpayers, to our own people, but also to U.S. national interests to ensure that this is – that our aid program meets our goals.

QUESTION: How about the new cabinet? U.S. will have a special opinion – they don’t want to interfere about the people who will be in the future government of President Karzai?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think that the next step here is for the president to present his slate of ministers to the lower house. So there is a mechanism in place in Kabul for a kind of – I guess we’d call it a confirmation process. It’s not really a confirmation process, but they need – the slate of ministers needs to be approved. And I expect that will happen over the next few weeks. But I think the key here is that our assistance really is performance-based. And that’s not just us. That’s also – that’s a pledge that President Karzai made as well, and it’s a pledge that we make to our taxpayers too, that our aid has to be delivered in an open and transparent and accountable fashion.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Even after Karzai made these promises today, and we’re on the verge of making decisions on whether or not we’re going to be sending or how many troops we’ll be sending, the Germans came out today – the German defense minister came out today and said that they did not want to send more troops. They’re our third-largest partner in Afghanistan. What’s your reaction to that?

MR. KELLY: Well, I mean, Germany is an important partner, and they have a very comprehensive approach to assisting in Afghanistan, both in terms of aiding in their security needs but also aiding in their developmental needs. And I think that every country has to decide what’s in their own national interests how they can best help in this effort. I haven’t actually seen these remarks, in particular. But as you point out, they are the third-largest contributor, and we’ve been very appreciative of their assistance

QUESTION: Same subject.

MR. KELLY: Same subject?

QUESTION: Yes. This monitoring and verification mechanism is already in place. Is it effective now?

MR. KELLY: On our side, you mean?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. KELLY: Yes, it is. I mean, we have a special inspector general in place, the special inspector general for Afghan reconstruction. That office has been in place for quite some time. We’re in the process of going ministry by ministry to certify that they have the proper accounting procedures in place to receive aid directly. This is not only to improve transparency, but it’s also to ensure they have the capacity to receive this aid. We’re also dramatically increasing the number of officers from the U.S. Agency for International Development who can get out into the field and actually see how the aid is being delivered. So we have some mechanisms already in place, but we’re also looking to increase our own capacity to monitor the aid.

QUESTION: Yeah. But as you know, the major (inaudible) of U.S. aids goes to Afghanistan through the NGO sector, nonprofit sector. Only 30 percent goes through the Afghan Government. So what’s the mechanism to verify and monitor the aid which goes through the nonprofit organizations?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think we have the same kind of monitoring structures in place for NGOs as well. I mean, we also want to make sure that they’re – they have the proper accounting procedures in place. So it’s, I think, a similar mechanism for them as well.

QUESTION: Currently, the ratio of aid going to Afghanistan to NGOs and the government is 70/30; 70 percent goes to the nonprofit and 30 percent to Afghan Government. Is there any move to change this imbalance of aid going to Afghanistan?

MR. KELLY: Well, I’m not sure whether or not it’s imbalanced. But I know that we’re looking to increase the capacity of the Afghan Government, not just in Kabul but also out in the regions as well. So I think we’ll be looking to increase that proportion going to the government, as they are able to be certified that they have the capacity and the kind of accounting mechanisms that we need to have in place to actually deliver the aid. But it’s not just – we’re not just talking about the Afghan central government here. We’re talking about also the local and provincial authorities as well.

QUESTION: So the local and provincial authorities will go directly to them or through – routed through the central government?

MR. KELLY: It’s a good question. I’m not sure exactly. I mean, I’m sure that it has to be coordinated with the central government, but I’m not sure if it actually – the money actually flows through the central government.

QUESTION: On the theme of accountability, Senator Kerry has written a letter to the IG, and copied also to the Secretary, asking for a new investigation into Blackwater --

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- given recent developments. And he says in the letter that the director of defense trade controls has told a Foreign Relations Committee staff member that Blackwater is engaged in broad violations of export laws, unlicensed shipments of weapons to Iraq, and potentially other places. Do you know: (a) If the IG is going to conduct a new investigation or at least review whether Blackwater is still appropriate – or Xe Services – sorry --

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- is still an appropriate company to get contracts under the worldwide protective services – personal protective services scheme; and (b) – well, let’s just stick it – stick with (a) for a moment.

MR. KELLY: Okay. We can get to (b), if you want, a little later. Yes, we – I mean, Matt, I’ll just confirm we received the letter today. The Office of the Inspector General has the letter, and I’m sure the Secretary will see it as soon as she gets back. These are very serious allegations. We look forward to learning more from the committee about these allegations, because I think the letter says that they have new information. And so we’re looking forward to a discussion of that, and we’re looking forward, I think, to – in general, to a discussion of the issue of contractors. I think you’ve seen the Secretary has said before that we’re concerned about our dependency on contractors.

QUESTION: Well, why is –

MR. KELLY: But at the same time, though, we’re also – we have to – we have a need to provide protection for our people overseas. So it’s a – there are these two imperatives that we need to balance out.

QUESTION: Well, (b) – then the (b) part of the question then is: You are not aware of this new information? And do you know anything about --

MR. KELLY: Well, I’m not sure what he means by new information.

QUESTION: The directorate’s acting director of compliance telling them that Blackwater engaged in broad violations of export laws; are you aware of that? It seems to me that you would be.

MR. KELLY: I think we’re – well, we’re – we’ve seen the – I mean, there have been stories in the media about this – about these allegations.

QUESTION: Forget about the – forget about stories in the media. I’m just talking about the letter from Senator Kerry, who is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, saying that the directorate’s acting director of compliance told the committee staff that Blackwater, quote, “engaged in broad violations,” end quote, of export laws. Do you know anything about that?

MR. KELLY: I don’t know that the Department of State has this information at the present time.
QUESTION: He said unlicensed shipments went beyond weapons for personal use by Blackwater Security personnel.

MR. KELLY: This sounds like something that probably --

QUESTION: All right. So you’re not --

MR. KELLY: -- should be referred you to the Department of Justice.

QUESTION: This building is not privy to the information that Senator Kerry has?

MR. KELLY: I don’t think that – well, we are not aware of the specifics of these allegations.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

QUESTION: On a different subject?

MR. KELLY: Different subject? Okay.

QUESTION: Yeah, on Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi has returned a letter to the senior general Than Shwe about meeting him directly. And there are – some statements have also come from the senior general and the military junta about possibilities of releasing Aung San Suu Kyi. Do you see any development – positive development going on inside the country?

MR. KELLY: Well, we, of course, have started a new, very focused dialogue with the Government of Burma. This has been a dialogue that, as I say, is focused on the need for Burma to open up its political system to – for more debate and discussion. And the – I think the – one of the best steps that they could take to show that they are willing to open up their system is to release political prisoners. There are over 2,000 of them. And of course, we’ve called, in particular, for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. And we’re aware of this letter that she’s written to the senior general, and we hope that this will be the beginning of a dialogue that will lead to her release.

Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Any updates on that transit agreement and how the operation’s technical teams were doing?

MR. KELLY: They wrapped up today. They’re on their way back. I understand that a second flight was conducted today. It landed in Bagram. For details on that, I think you have to go to my colleagues over at the Pentagon. And we look forward to many more such flights. And we also look forward to getting a debrief from the team when they get back.

QUESTION: Are there reasons to believe then that they will start on a regular basis then?
MR. KELLY: I hope so. But like I say, we need to talk to them when they get back. I don’t have a complete readout of their trip.

Yeah.

QUESTION: On Venezuela?

MR. KELLY: On Venezuela.

QUESTION: Yeah. (inaudible) the friend of the freedom of expression, the president of Globovision Venezuela, the opposition channel, denounced yesterday that his human rights have been violated, and that could lead to an order of detention actually ordered by the president of Venezuela himself. Do you have any position, any comments on that?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think our position on freedom of the press in Venezuela has been very clear, that we call for a removal of the – of intimidation and other moves against the media there, particularly Globo. And I’m not aware of these most – more recent developments, but this is an important issue and we’ve been very forthright about our calls for more freedom of expression in Venezuela.

QUESTION: Do you have had the opportunity to speak to the government, to the Venezuelan Government, and to say what is your opinion towards --

MR. KELLY: I’m sure we have. I mean, we have an ambassador in Caracas and we have diplomatic contacts, and I’m sure we have had these kind of conversations privately as well through diplomatic channels.

Samir, you’ve got – your hand is up highest, so we’ll let you ask the next one.

QUESTION: Okay. Palestinian President Abbas told BBC today that he doesn’t want to go to the Security Council to ask for support for a declaration of a Palestinian state in a unilateral way, but he would like to ask for a resolution to reaffirm the endorsement of the Roadmap which is endorsed by Resolution 1515. Will the U.S. support this move, or do you – will you object to it?

MR. KELLY: Well, we – it’s hard for me to say if we’ll object to a move, not having seen the details of the resolution. But what you’ve just outlined to me is what we support too. We support both sides abiding by their agreements under the Roadmap. We do not support unilateral moves by one side or the other. We believe that these differences have to be worked out through bilateral dialogue.

QUESTION: But these things does not contradict U.S. policies in the past. Like Resolution 1515, the U.S. voted it, supported it.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. I’m – Samir, I’m sorry, I don’t have Resolution 1515 in front of me. If – we’ll get you – you want a very specific response to --

QUESTION: No, no, just reaction, a general reaction, because he’s calling only for reaffirmation of the Roadmap, that Resolution 1515 endorses the Roadmap at the Security Council .

MR. KELLY: Right. Yeah. Well, Samir, I can’t give you a response to some – to a resolution that I haven’t seen, to a text that we haven’t seen. Once we see the text, we’re happy to give a response to it.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Egypt has recalled its ambassador to Algeria, following incidents surrounding a soccer game between these two nations in Sudan. Do you have any comment on that?

MR. KELLY: I haven’t seen that report, so I don’t have any comment on it. Sorry, Christophe.

Yes.

QUESTION: Could I ask you about Iran? The President promised consequences when the Iranians rejected the nuclear fuel deal, and there’s a meeting tomorrow of the P-5 plus Germany in Brussels. What is the best that you can expect out of that, given that your Russian counterpart said that there are no prospects for new sanctions? Are you just going to be satisfied with adding names to asset freezes and travel bans?

MR. KELLY: Well, first of all, let’s talk for a minute about what’s going to happen tomorrow. There is going to be a meeting that’s been called by Javier Solana of the political directors of the P-5+1, political directors or their representatives. And I think that they’re going to basically talk about three or four things.

One is, of course, that Iran, as the President said, is having trouble getting to yes on the proposal that the IAEA has put forward on sending their low-enriched uranium out of the country, so they’re going to discuss responses to that. They have also not been responsive to the invitation of the P-5+1 itself to sit down again and talk about the nuclear issue. They’re going to discuss the recent IAEA report of noncompliance and the ramifications of that and what can be expected in the meeting of the Board of Governors of the IAEA on November 26th.

And then finally, and last but not least at all, is to talk about what the President said that we have to start turning our attention to, and that’s developing a package of measures that will show to Iran the seriousness of the consequences of their noncompliance with the requirements of the international community. And I think that the important thing here is that there is unity in the P-5+1 of the overall goal of getting Iran to live up to its obligations, and there is a commitment by all members of the P-5+1 to this dual track, which includes not only engagement but also pressure.

So as the President said, over the next few weeks, we’re going to consult with our partners and allies about what we can do to show Iran that their nonresponsiveness, if you will, is – will have real consequences.

QUESTION: So the open-ended application of these consequences that the President mentioned seems to be – I mean, it’ll just go on and on. I mean, will --

MR. KELLY: Well, it’s not open-ended. No, I mean, he was very clear that this is not – this is not open-ended, that there is an end to this. And I think he’s pointed to the end of this year, which is coming very quickly.

QUESTION: So we’re still on to the end of this year? That’s still the deadline for that?

MR. KELLY: Well, this is a multilateral approach, and I – we will have to do this in consultation with our allies and partners. But I think that everybody realizes that we have to approach this with some urgency.

Peter.

QUESTION: Yes, Ian, you mentioned a package of measures. If you don’t mind, could you name just some?

MR. KELLY: Can I name them?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. KELLY: I’m going to decline from naming them at the present time. This is something that’s going to be discussed within the P-5+1 and within various multilateral fora. But I’d – it’s – it wouldn’t be productive for me to get into specifics right now.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. KELLY: Much as you’d like me to.

QUESTION: Yeah. That’s fine.

QUESTION: I have a question on next week’s visit by the Indian prime minister, Dr. Singh. Is there any event scheduled here by Secretary Clinton (inaudible)? Would you be able to announce them?

MR. KELLY: There will be – yes, there will be an event here. I believe it’s a lunch, but off the top of my head I don’t the – I can’t remember the date of it. I think it’s Tuesday, but I’m not a hundred percent sure.

QUESTION: And there will be separate meeting between Secretary Clinton and the prime minister?

MR. KELLY: Within this event here, and there may be another one as well. But the Secretary, of course, will be – she will be in the meetings at the White House that the President will have, bilateral meetings and other events at the White House. But there will be a bilateral meeting between her and Mr. Singh, and also a – she will host a lunch here as well for his delegation.

QUESTION: And what are the issues do you think would be – would come up for discussion?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think that regional issues will be very important, particularly since the Secretary has just come back from Afghanistan, so they’ll want to talk about issues related to South Asia. She’ll want to talk about the State Department’s role in the Strategic Dialogue with India, so we’ll want to get into more detail on how we carry through with that. And just a whole range of diplomatic issues.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. KELLY: Dave.

QUESTION: Yeah. Human Rights Watch had a report out yesterday, said basically that the Cuban Government’s human rights record has not gotten any better under Raul Castro, and in fact, in some aspects, is worse in that they’re doing some preemptive arrests of people they think might violate whatever order is there. I’m just wondering, has this given the Administration any cause to rethink some of the contacts that it’s been having with the Cuban Government?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think first of all, we share many of the concerns put forth in this report, particularly regarding the incarceration of political prisoners as well as actions that have violated the human rights of Cuban citizens and have basically limited the exercise of what we call or we would consider fundamental freedoms.

We – human rights is at the center of our Cuban policy. We are interested in promoting human rights for all Cubans. We have begun an engagement with Cuba of – in areas of national interest and mutual concern. We’ve also launched some initiatives creating opportunities for Cuban civil society to more easily receive information and interact with their family and also with Cubans who live in the United States. This is the increasing the mail service and increasing telephone service.

So this is a real priority for the United States, and it will continue to be so.

QUESTION: One other – Human Rights Watch recommended that, again, the United States sort of abandon a general embargo against Cuba and get together with other interested countries and just basically issue an ultimatum on Cuba to release all political prisoners by a date certain or face sort of targeted sanctions. Is that an idea that has any appeal to the Administration?

MR. KELLY: Yeah, I haven’t seen the exact recommendations of the Human Rights Watch. I think you’ve heard me say before that we’ve made some gestures to Cuba, and we are waiting to see Cuba make some – take some concrete steps to show that they are also serious in opening up their society and opening up exchanges and interactions with the U.S. And I think that we need to see some more concrete steps before we take any actions like that.

QUESTION: Is that – human rights in the hemisphere?

MR. KELLY: Sure.

QUESTION: I believe last week, or maybe a little bit before then, you were asked about human rights abuses in Honduras, and reports from the same organization that Dave just mentioned as well as Amnesty International and local human rights groups who have catalogued 4,234 violations since the coup, including 21 murders, or executions as they call them.
There are growing calls from trade union movement here for the U.S. not to recognize the elections unless these things are corrected. Is this something of concern to you guys?

MR. KELLY: It is. It has been and remains a concern. There have been a number of human rights violations since the coup, and we have consistently called on the regime to respect the rights of individual citizens. And we’ve been particularly concerned about some of the moves against the media. And the U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa is closely monitoring the situation. It has reported back to us about a number of allegations of arbitrary arrests, disproportionate use of force, and, in particular, restrictions on freedom of expression. So yeah, we are concerned about it.

QUESTION: Well, what are you doing about it?

MR. KELLY: Well, I just laid out to you that we’re monitoring very, very closely and we’re engaged with the government of Mr. Micheletti to express our concerns.

QUESTION: Right, but do you think that this has any impact on whether the election can be free and fair?

MR. KELLY: I mean, an election being recognized as free and fair has many different aspects. The lack of freedom of media, of course, is an important – would be an important indicator of this. But as I’ve said before, I think we need to look at exactly how the elections are conducted. But it is fair to say that we are concerned about the human rights situation.

QUESTION: All right. Well, I guess what I’m trying to get at is does this play any role in whether you will recognize the election, setting aside the whole Zelaya reinstitution?

MR. KELLY: Well --

QUESTION: Or is it a case where, “Well, there may be some abuses going on and it may – but it’s not going to – we’re still going to recognize the election?”

MR. KELLY: We’ll have to see how it – how they’re actually conducted. Part of it, of course, is the run-up to the elections themselves. It’s not just the day of the election. A big part of whether or not elections are free and fair --

QUESTION: That’s exactly why I’m asking the question. In the run-up to the election, so it --

MR. KELLY: Yeah, yeah. Well, sure, I mean, we’ll look at restrictions on the media, particularly restrictions of access to candidates in the campaign before the elections themselves.

Yes.

QUESTION: While we’re on Honduras, you seem to have indicated this week that although the United States still thinks that the restitution of Zelaya to the presidency is key for the October 30th accord to be played out, you indicated also that it doesn’t really matter when the congressional vote takes place. Does this mean that if the congress drags its feet on voting to approve the accord or not, that as long as Zelaya occupies the presidency for a day, an hour, a minute before the new president takes over, that this is okay with Washington?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think first of all, the vote to decide to restore Zelaya is important. But the accord lays out one very important thing that has to happen before the elections, and that’s the establishment of a government of national unity and reconciliation before the election. So I just wanted to emphasize that that really is – if you’re looking at this as a step-by-step process, that’s one step that we are really focusing on. They’ve already missed that deadline. The accord, I think, really only had one deadline. The October 30 accord had one deadline and that was November 5th to form this government of national unity and reconciliation. And that deadline has passed.

I think it’s important – I don’t want to overemphasize the importance of it – but it’s important that they have taken action to set a date for the consideration of the restoration, and that’s December 2nd. So I would point to that. But this formation of the national unity government is important because part of this whole process is reconciliation. For Honduras to have a government that really reflects the will of the people, we need to have this process of reconciliation between the Zelaya camp and the de facto camp. So that’s one thing that Craig Kelly was really focused on when he was down there yesterday and the day before, was to get some movement on this.

QUESTION: Yeah, thank you.

MR. KELLY: Yeah, Matt, go ahead.

QUESTION: I’ve just got a couple of loose ends here. Do you have any comment on the rising tensions between Russia, Georgia, and the kidnappings of people that have been going on in Ossetia and Abkhazia?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think we’re – we are concerned that the situation down there remains tense, remains unresolved in many ways. There are parts of the ceasefire agreement of last year, last August, that haven’t been completely implemented. And there is a process for the two sides to talk these issues out, the Geneva process. And that, I think, is one good forum to try and resolve these issues. But yeah, we are concerned about the tension in the South Caucasus.

QUESTION: When was the last time that that met in Geneva?

MR. KELLY: That’s a good question.

STAFF: It was recently, I think a few weeks ago.

MR. KELLY: Yeah, a few weeks ago.

QUESTION: All right. And then do you have any indication from the Iraqi Government at all that they’re getting involved in the case of the detained hikers in Iran?

MR. KELLY: I don’t have anything on that, I’m afraid.

QUESTION: All right. Okay. And lastly, tomorrow is the three-month anniversary of al-Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds. And Senator Schumer has written a letter to Gordon Brown with a rather interesting suggestion that – or not suggestion, a demand that since the guy isn’t dead yet and they said that he only had three months to live, he should be returned to – immediately returned back to Britain to go to jail. Schumer said – he said in his statement from his office, which actually misspells Lockerbie, unfortunately – (laughter) – says that since --

MR. KELLY: Hey, can you release the text of that?

QUESTION: -- since he has outlived the term of his release, and there has been speculation about exaggerations of the severity of his condition, the British Government should seek his immediate transfer back to prison in Scotland. Do you share Senator Schumer’s belief that since he hasn’t died yet, he should be sent back?

MR. KELLY: Well, you know what our stance on this has been, is that we believed all along that Mr. Megrahi should have served out his sentence in Scotland.

QUESTION: Well, no, but now this is – this three-month thing, I’m just wondering if – would the U.S. Government join in with Senator Schumer in demanding that since he’s still alive, he should go back to prison?

MR. KELLY: Well, we’d be happy to get Senator Schumer’s points of view on this. I haven’t seen the letter, but I’d be happy to have discussions with him.

QUESTION: All right. I’ll give it to you.

MR. KELLY: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The Daily Briefing was concluded at 2:17 p.m.)

The Torture Hearings

2009-11-20T14:49:00.000-08:00

In April 2002, the CIA paid Blackwater more than $5 million to deploy a small team of men inside Afghanistan during the early stages of US operations in the country. A month later, Erik Prince, the company's owner and a former Navy SEAL, flew to Afghanistan as part of the original twenty-man Blackwater contingent. Blackwater worked for the CIA at its station in Kabul as well as in Shkin, along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, where they operated out of a mud fortress known as the Alamo. It was the beginning of a long relationship between Blackwater, Prince and the CIA.

Now the New York Times is reporting that in 2004 the CIA hired Blackwater "as part of a secret program to locate and assassinate top operatives of Al Qaeda." According to the Times, "it is unclear whether the CIA had planned to use the contractors to capture or kill Qaeda operatives, or just to help with training and surveillance."

The Times reports that "the CIA did not have a formal contract with Blackwater for this program but instead had individual agreements with top company officials, including the founder, Erik D. Prince, a politically connected former member of the Navy Seals and the heir to a family fortune." A retired intelligence officer "intimately familiar with the assassination program" told the Washington Post, "Outsourcing gave the agency more protection in case something went wrong." The Post reported that Blackwater "was given operational responsibility for targeting terrorist commanders and was awarded millions of dollars for training and weaponry, but the program was canceled before any missions were conducted."

"What the agency was doing with Blackwater scares the hell out of me," said Jack Rice, a former CIA field operator who worked for the directorate of operations, which runs covert paramilitary activities for the CIA. "When the agency actually cedes all oversight and power to a private organization, an organization like Blackwater, most importantly they lose control and don't understand what's going on," Rice told The Nation. "What makes it even worse is that you then can turn around and have deniability. They can say, 'It wasn't us, we weren't the ones making the decisions.' That's the best of both worlds. It's analogous to what we hear about torture that was being done in the name of Americans, when we simply handed somebody over to the Syrians or the Egyptians or others and then we turn around and say, 'We're not torturing people.'"

Reached by telephone, Illinois Democrat Jan Schakowsky, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said that because of her oath of secrecy on sensitive intelligence issues, she could neither confirm nor deny that Congress was aware of Blackwater's involvement in this program before the Times report. Schakowsky also declined to comment on whether Blackwater came up at a June briefing by CIA director Leon Panetta, which she attended. That briefing sparked calls for an investigation into whether Vice President Dick Cheney ordered the CIA to conceal an assassination program from Congress.

"What we know now, if this is true, is that Blackwater was part of the highest level, the innermost circle strategizing and exercising strategy within the Bush administration," Schakowsky told The Nation. "Erik Prince operated at the highest and most secret level of the government. Clearly Prince was more trusted than the US Congress because Vice President Cheney made the decision not to brief Congress. This shows that there was absolutely no space whatsoever between the Bush administration and Blackwater."

As The Nation has reported, Blackwater continues to operate on the US government payroll in both Iraq and Afghanistan, where it works for the State Department and the Defense Department. The CIA will not confirm whether Blackwater continues to work for the agency (or, for that matter, if it ever has).

Blackwater's work for the CIA was the result of meetings in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 between Prince and Alvin "Buzzy" Krongard, then-executive director of the CIA, the agency's number-three man. Krongard and Prince, according to a former Blackwater executive interviewed by The Nation, "were good buddies." In a 2006 interview for my book, Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, Krongard said that the company was hired to provide security for the CIA in Afghanistan. "Blackwater got a contract because they were the first people that could get people on the ground," Krongard said. "The only concern we had was getting the best security for our people. If we thought Martians could provide it, I guess we would have gone after them."

The relationship between Krongard and Prince apparently got chummier after the contract was signed. One former Blackwater executive said in 2006, "Krongard came down and visited Blackwater [at company headquarters in North Carolina], and I had to take his kids around and let them shoot on the firing range a number of times." That visit took place after the CIA contract was signed, according to the former executive, and Krongard "may have come down just to see the company that he had just hired."

The relationship between Blackwater and the CIA quickly evolved. Shortly after Prince arrived in Afghanistan in May 2002, according to a former Blackwater executive who was with Prince, the Blackwater owner focused on winning more business with government agencies, providing private soldiers for hire. In 2002 Prince, along with former CIA operative Jamie Smith, created Blackwater Security Consulting, which would put former Navy SEALs and other special ops on the market.

Prince subsequently tried to join the CIA but was reportedly denied when his polygraph test came back inconclusive. Still, he maintained close ties with the agency. He reportedly was given a "green badge" that permitted him access to most CIA stations. "He's over there [at CIA headquarters] regularly, probably once a month or so," a CIA source told Harper's journalist Ken Silverstein in 2006. "He meets with senior people, especially in the [directorate of operations]."

Prince would also go on to hire many senior Bush-era CIA officials to work at Blackwater. In July 2007 Buzzy Krongard joined the company's board; Prince offered him a $3,500 honorarium per meeting attended plus all expenses paid. "Your experience and insight would be ideal to help our team determine where we are and where we are going," Prince wrote in a letter to Krongard. At the time his brother, Howard "Cookie" Krongard, was the State Department inspector general responsible for overseeing Blackwater's work for the State Department. In September 2007 California Democratic Representative Henry Waxman accused Cookie Krongard of impeding a Justice Department investigation into Blackwater over allegations the company was illegally smuggling weapons into Iraq.

Prince hired several other former CIA officials to run what amounted to his own private CIA. Most notable among these was J. Cofer Black, who was running the CIA's counterterrorism operations and leading the hunt for Osama bin Laden when Blackwater was initially hired by the CIA in 2002. Black left the government in 2005 and took a job at Blackwater running Prince's private intelligence company, Total Intelligence Solutions.

While at the CIA, Black ran the "extraordinary rendition" program and coordinated the CIA "Jawbreaker" team sent into Afghanistan to kill or capture bin Laden and senior Al Qaeda leaders. In the days immediately after 9/11, he told Bush that his men would aim to kill Al Qaeda operatives. "When we're through with them, they will have flies walking across their eyeballs," Black promised Bush. When Black told Bush the operation would not be bloodless, the president reportedly said, "Let's go. That's war. That's what we're here to win."

Before the CIA Jawbreaker team deployed on September 27, 2001, Black gave his men direct and macabre directions: "I don't want bin Laden and his thugs captured, I want them dead.... They must be killed. I want to see photos of their heads on pikes. I want bin Laden's head shipped back in a box filled with dry ice. I want to be able to show bin Laden's head to the president. I promised him I would do that." According to CIA operative Gary Schroen, a member of the Jawbreaker team, it was the first time in his thirty-year career he had been ordered to assassinate an adversary rather than attempt a capture.

In September 2002, five months after Blackwater's first known contract with the CIA in Afghanistan, Black testified to Congress about the new "operational flexibility" employed in the "war on terror." "There was a before 9/11, and there was an after 9/11," Black said. "After 9/11 the gloves come off." Black outlined a "no-limits, aggressive, relentless, worldwide pursuit of any terrorist who threatens us," saying it "is the only way to go and is the bottom line." Black would later brag, in 2004, that "over 70 percent" of Al Qaeda's leadership had been arrested, detained or killed, and that "more than 3,400 of their operatives and supporters have also been detained and put out of an action." The Times reports that the Blackwater-CIA assassination program "did not successfully capture or kill any terrorist suspects."

In addition to Black, Total Intelligence's executives include CEO Robert Richer, the former associate deputy director of the CIA's Directorate of Operations and second-ranking official in charge of clandestine operations. From 1999 to 2004, Richer was head of the CIA's Near East and South Asia Division, where he ran covert operations in the Middle East and South Asia. As part of his duties, he was the CIA liaison with Jordan's King Abdullah, a key US ally and Blackwater client, and briefed George W. Bush on the burgeoning Iraqi resistance in its early stages.

Total Intelligence's chief operating officer is Enrique "Ric" Prado, a twenty-four-year CIA veteran and former senior executive officer in the Directorate of Operations. He spent more than a decade working in the CIA's Counterterrorist Center and ten years with the CIA's "paramilitary" Special Operations Group.

Total Intelligence is run out of an office on the ninth floor of a building in the Ballston area of Arlington, Virginia. Its Global Fusion Center, complete with large-screen TVs broadcasting international news channels and computer stations staffed by analysts surfing the web, "operates around the clock every day of the year" and is modeled after the CIA's counterterrorist center, once run by Black. The firm employs at least sixty-five full-time staff--some estimates say it's closer to 100. "Total Intel brings the...skills traditionally honed by CIA operatives directly to the board room," Black said when the company launched.

Representative Schakowsky says the House Intelligence Committee is investigating the CIA assassination program and will probe alleged links to Blackwater. "The presidential memos (often referred to as 'findings') authorizing covert action like the lethal activities of the CIA and Blackwater have not yet surfaced," says Ray McGovern, a retired twenty-seven-year CIA analyst who once served as George H.W. Bush's national security briefer. "They will, in due course, if knowledgeable sources continue to put the Constitution and courage above secrecy oaths."

Blackwater Strikes Back

The Times report comes as Prince and his Blackwater empire are facing the prospect of a potentially explosive civil trial over the killing of Iraqi civilians. Attorney Susan Burke and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), who are suing Prince and his companies on behalf of their Iraqi victims, have alleged that Prince is "equivalent to a top mafia boss who is responsible for all the day-to-day crimes committed at his direction and behest." If the case proceeds, the process of discovery could blow the lid off some of the darkest secrets of the powerful security contractor and its secretive owner. Burke and CCR are suing Prince and his companies directly rather than his individual employees because they say Prince "wholly owns and personally controls all Defendants." Burke also alleges that Prince has committed "violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a federal statute permitting private parties to seek redress from criminal enterprises who damage their property." Among the allegations are war crimes, extra-judicial killings and assault and battery of Iraqis.

Since the first case was filed by Iraqi civilians against Prince and Blackwater over the killing of seventeen Iraqis at Baghdad's Nisour Square on September 16, 2007, the company's high-powered lawyers have fought feverishly to have that and four other cases dismissed. Now, facing a crucial August 28 hearing in federal court in Virginia, they are putting forward a new argument: instead of Prince and Blackwater standing trial, the US government should be the defendant.

In a motion filed August 12, Blackwater's lawyers asked federal Judge T.S. Ellis III to order "that the United States 'be substituted as the party defendant,' in place of all of the current Defendants." In his motion, Blackwater lawyer Peter White of the powerhouse firm Mayer Brown argued that the company was working for the State Department in Iraq and therefore was on official business when the alleged killings and injuries of Iraqis took place. White cites the 1988 Westfall Act, which prohibits suits against government employees for their actions on behalf of the government and states that the government will assume liability for any lawsuits against employees.

Federal tort law defines "employees" in this context as "persons acting on behalf of a federal agency in an official capacity, temporarily or permanently in the service of the United States, whether with or without compensation." The fact that the defendants are "corporate entities" in this instance, White claims, "does not alter that conclusion." In the motion, Blackwater's attorneys note that the company, which recently renamed itself Xe Services, now does business with the government under the name US Training Center (USTC).

"The idea that the United States government should accept liability for the unprovoked criminal manslaughter of seventeen innocent Iraqis by Blackwater mercenaries, and place it on the back of taxpayers, is corporate animism run amok," says Ralph Nader, who has spent his entire career fighting against corporate personhood. "If Blackwater wants to be treated like a person, then its latest mutation, USTC, should be prosecuted, convicted and given the equivalent penalty of corporate capital punishment by revoking its charter and terminating its corporate operations."

The Westfall Act was passed in 1988 as an amendment to the Federal Torts Claim Act "to protect federal employees from personal liability for common law torts committed within the scope of their employment, while providing persons injured by the common law torts of federal employees with an appropriate remedy against the United States." After Westfall, the government assumed legal responsibility for suits filed against federal employees and made the sole remedy for victims suits against the government.

Blackwater has asked Attorney General Eric Holder to intervene in the case and to assume liability for the allegations against Blackwater. If that were to happen, legal experts say, the case would be dead in the water. "It's clear that if they win this motion and the government is substituted, since the wrongs occurred in a foreign country, the government is absolutely immune and the case will be dismissed," says Alan Morrison, a former federal prosecutor who is now the associate dean for public interest at George Washington Law School. "This is an effort [by Blackwater and Prince] to absolve themselves...of any liability for the alleged wrongs to the plaintiffs." He adds: "A gigantic, for-profit corporation is seeking to use this statute, designed to protect government employees, to shield themselves from any responsibility for the deaths and injuries" of Iraqis.

"When Blackwater chooses to interpose itself in the middle and to make profit off these individual employees in the relationship with the government, the notion that Blackwater itself, a corporation, could be an employee is unusual to say the least," says Morrison. "Why would Congress want to, in effect, transfer liability from a large, well-heeled corporation like Blackwater to the United States taxpayers for this kind of conduct? What they'd be saying [if Blackwater's interpretation of the Westfall Act is accepted] is they would have wanted to assume liability for that which they didn't have any liability in the first place."

The Justice Department has not yet issued a position in this case. "Unfortunately, there's nothing we can provide in regard to your inquiry at this time," an official wrote in an e-mail. Earlier, in response to questions from The Nation, a Justice Department spokesperson sent a memo filed by the department earlier this year in a similar case against Blackwater in federal court in Florida, in which the department had rejected the company's attempt to make the government responsible. "Defendants' request for Westfall Act certification should be denied because only natural persons can be considered 'employee[s] of the government,'" Assistant Attorney General Tony West wrote on June 8 in a thirty-five-page filing opposing Blackwater's motion.

Several legal experts interviewed by The Nation said they could not foresee the Justice Department intervening on Blackwater's behalf. But the Westfall Act has been used by attorneys general in both the Bush and Obama administrations to attempt to absolve senior Bush officials of liability for their alleged role in crimes and to make the government liable. On June 26 Holder's office intervened in a lawsuit filed by CCR against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and twenty-three other military and medical officials "for their role in the illegal detention, torture, inhumane conditions and ultimate deaths" of two Guantánamo prisoners.

Citing the Westfall Act, Tony West wrote that "the type of activities alleged against the individual defendants were 'foreseeable' and were 'a direct outgrowth' of their responsibility to detain and gather intelligence from suspected enemy combatants." In defending the government's position, West cited case law stating that "genocide, torture, forced relocation, and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment by individual defendants employed by Department of Defense and State Department were within scope of employment" and similar cases justifying CIA torture as part of official duty.

"It is essentially saying torture is all in a day's work when it comes to holding people in military detention," says Shane Kadidal, who heads the Guantánamo project at CCR. In that case, the issue was not whether Rumsfeld and the others were "employees" but whether they were doing official business. Blackwater's argument is a tougher sell, says Morrison. "Does it hold water?" he asks. "It holds Blackwater."

Meanwhile, in another development, Prince's lawyers have responded to explosive allegations made against Prince by two former employees. In sworn affidavits submitted by lawyers representing the Iraqis suing Blackwater, the two alleged that Prince may have murdered or facilitated the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal authorities investigating the company. One of the former employees alleges that Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe," and that Prince's companies "encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life." They also charge that Prince was profiting from illegal weapons smuggling. In a motion filed August 10, Prince's lawyers asked Judge Ellis to strike from the record the sworn statements of the two former employees, saying that "the conclusory allegations they contain are inadmissible on multiple grounds, including lack of foundation, hearsay, irrelevance, and unfair prejudice." They charge that the lawyers suing Blackwater are attempting to "use this litigation as a 'megaphone' to increase their ability to influence the public's perceptions regarding the use of contractors in military battlefield situations, the Iraq War, and most particularly about Erik Prince and the other defendants. Unsubstantiated statements made in filings in this Court become 'newsworthy' simply because they appear in those filings." The lawyers characterize the allegations as "scandalous, baseless, inadmissible, and highly prejudicial." Interestingly, nowhere do Prince's lawyers say flatly that the allegations are untrue.

As the cases against Prince move forward, the company continues to do a robust business with the federal government, particularly in Afghanistan. Schakowsky has called for a review of all of the companies' current contracts, and she has called on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to stop awarding the company contracts. The "Obama administration should at the very least cancel and debar [Blackwater's] present and pending government contracts," says Nader. "Otherwise corporate crimes, privileges and immunities continue to pay and pay and pay."

Do You Believe George W. Bush Should Be Tried For War Crimes ?

2009-11-20T08:48:00.000-08:00

Please visit the The Bush Commission homepage for more details, and help support the cause ! Because, we need our country back !

Thank you !

Benjamin Wright

Should George W. Bush Be Tried For War Crimes?

2009-11-20T03:20:00.000-08:00

International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration

Indictments

Submitted by administrator on Fri, 2006-04-21 20:22.

Wars of Aggression

The Commission will inquire into the following charges:

Count 1: The Bush administration authorized a war of aggression against Iraq.

Count 2: The Bush administrations authorized conduct of the war that involved the commission of “war crimes.”

Count 3: The Bush administration authorized the occupation of Iraq involving, and continuing to involve, the commission of “war crimes”, “crimes against humanity” and other illegal acts.

full indictment

Torture and Indefinite Detention

The Commission will inquire into the following charges:
Torture:

Count 1: The Bush administration authorized the use of torture and abuse in violation of international humanitarian and human rights law and domestic constitutional and statutory law.

Rendition:

Count 2: The Bush administration authorized the transfer (“rendition”) of persons held in U.S. custody to foreign countries where torture is known to be practiced.

Illegal Detention:

Count 3: The Bush administration authorized the indefinite detention of persons seized in foreign combat zones and in other countries far from any combat zone and denied them the protections of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war and the protections of the U.S. Constitution.

Count 4: The Bush administration authorized the round-up and detention in the United States of tens of thousands of immigrants on pretextual grounds and held them without charge or trial in violation of international human rights law and domestic constitutional and civil rights law.

Count 5: The Bush administration used military forces to seize and detain indefinitely without charges U.S. citizens, denying them the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.

Murder:

Count 6: The Bush administration committed murder by authorizing the CIA to kill those that the president designates, either US citizens or non-citizens, anywhere in the world.

full indictment

Destruction of the Global Environment

The Commission will inquire into the following charges:

Count 1: Denial and Distortion of Scientific Consensus and Findings--The Bush administration has consistently denied the scientific consensus around global warming and its causes. Administration officials have misrepresented, distorted, and suppressed scientific information on the subject, especially as it would impact public opinion.

Count 2: Obstructionism on International Efforts--The Bush administration has refused to take any measures to curb the emissions of greenhouse gases, guided by narrow corporate interests. It has withdrawn from any international efforts that would impose binding restrictions, however minimal. It has done this with full knowledge of the catastrophic effects of global warming and the disproportionate U.S. share of world greenhouse gas emissions, the leading cause of global warming.

full indictment

Attacks on Global Public Health

The Commission will inquire into the following charges:

Count 1: Imposition of Abstinence-Only HIV Prevention Programs--The Bush administration is using its political influence, aid, and funding in the sphere of HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment to advance policies and programs that worsen the AIDS pandemic. Guided by a Christian fundamentalist ideological agenda, the administration is promoting and forcing deadly abstinence-only HIV prevention and sex education programs instead of proven comprehensive programs that comprise consistent and correct use of condoms.

Count 2: Imposition of “Gag-Rule”--The Bush administration has re-instated the “gag-rule” policy which restricts foreign organizations that receive US funds from using their own, non-U.S., funds to provide legal abortion services or even provide accurate medical counseling or referrals regarding abortion. This policy has led to the closing of reproductive health clinics dependent on international funding in very poor parts of the world. In many areas, these clinics have also been the only source of HIV/AIDS prevention and care programs, including the supply of much-needed and life-saving condoms.

Count 3: Distortion of Science--The Bush administration and its political operatives have distorted sound science and attempted to suppress medical research studies in HIV prevention when it conflicts with the ideology of the Christian Right.

Count 4: Restriction of Generics--The Bush administration has used its political and economic power to coerce other countries into agreements that severely restrict the manufacture and supply of generic drugs, the only affordable option for most HIV positive people in the Third World.

full indictment

Hurricane Katrina

Count 1: Knowing failure of the Bush administration to adequately maintain and upgrade the levees directly contributed to the foreseeable loss of life and suffering of many people when Hurricane Katrina struck.

Count 2: Despite foreknowledge of Hurricane Katrina striking land as a greater than category 3 storm and the devastation that this would cause, the Bush administration failed to implement an emergency evacuation plan for people who were in the path of the storm and unable to evacuate the area on their own.

Count 3: The Bush administration neither launched an immediate rescue operation nor provided the emergency shelter, food and water needed to save peoples’ lives and prevent needless suffering.

Count 4: Federal authorities blocked the provision of emergency services, including rescue and provision of food and water on the part other levels of government and private sources despite the obvious need for this kind of relief.

Count 5: Federal authorities enforced repressive conditions and eventually carried out an evacuation that separated families, including separating small children from their parents, and left many people not knowing where their loved ones were located and even if they had survived the storms.

full indictment

The Defendants

Submitted by administrator on Mon, 2006-06-19 02:16.

The indictments in which the defendants are named are numbered as follows:
1. Wars of Aggression

2. Torture, Rendition, Illegal Detention and Murder

3. Destruction of the Global Environment

4. Global Health

5. Hurricane Katrina

The Bush Administration collectively: 1, 2, 3, 4

George W. Bush, President of the United States: 2, 3, 4, 5
Dick Cheney, Vice President: 2, 3, 5

Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense: 2

George Tenet, former Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet: 2

Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, Commanding General, V Corps, and formerly in charge of Combined Joint Task Force 7, Iraq: 2

Col. Thomas M. Pappas, Brigade Commander, 205th Military Intelligence Brigade: 2

Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller: 2

Alberto Gonzales, formerly White House Counsel and now Attorney General of the United States: 2

Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General: 2

David Addington, Vice Presidential Counsel: 2

John Ashcroft, formerly Attorney General of the United States: 2

Tom Ridge, formerly Secretary of State for Homeland Security: 2

Michael Chernoff, Secretary of Homeland Security: 2

Michael Brown, former head of FEMA: 5

You may read more of these shocking accusations on former President George W. Bush on possible indictments on War Crimes here.

Holder Is Confident of 9/11 Convictions

2009-11-19T12:39:00.000-08:00

Attorney General Eric Holder directly responded for the first time to critics of his decesion to try the alleged 9/11 plotters in a civilian court, saying he was confident they would be convicted.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, some relatives of people killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks weren't convinced. They applauded when a Republican senator mocked Mr. Holder over his assertion that the men were more likely be convicted in civilian rather than military trials .

In an encounter after the hearing, Alice Hoagland, whose son died in the crash of United Airlines Flight 93 in Pennsylvania, told Mr. Holder that she opposed his decision. Ms. Hoagland said he gave "short shrift" to military commissions.

Mr. Holder set off a bitter debate last week when he said the U.S. would try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other accused plotters in federal district court in New York City. Many Republicans, and some New Yorkers, have criticized the move as a costly threat to the city.

Mr. Holder also said the government is planning military tribunals for five other detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, alleged to have planned the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole.

At Wednesday's hearing, Mr. Holder said one reason he chose civilian courts for Mr. Mohammed and the others was a certainty of success. In response to questions about the possibility of not-guilty verdicts, he said: "Failure is not an option. These are cases that have to be won."

Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) asked Mr. Holder: "How could you be more likely to get a conviction in federal court, when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has already asked to plead guilty before a military commission and be executed?"

Mr. Holder, after some more prodding from Mr. Kyl, responded: "That was then. I don't know what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wants to do now. And I'm not going to base a determination on where these cases ought to be brought on what a terrorist -- what a murderer -- wants to do."
The attorney general also pushed back against critics who said using civilian courts for Mr. Mohammed suggested the government has returned to a "pre-9/11" mentality.

"Prosecuting the 9/11 defendants in federal court does not represent some larger judgment about whether or not we are at war. We are at war, and we will use every instrument of national power -- civilian, military, law enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic and others -- to win," Mr. Holder said.

The Obama administration has found key support for civilian trials in New York from that city's mayor, Michael Bloomberg.

Tough job for prosecutors to get death penalty for evil 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed

2009-11-18T16:45:00.000-08:00

* Attorney General: "failure not an option" for 9/11 trials

* Republicans say attacks were war, require military trials (Adds details from congressional hearing, NY court, Guantanamo)

By Jeremy Pelofsky and James Vicini

WASHINGTON, Nov 18 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama suggested on Wednesday the self-professed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks would be convicted and put to death, but later said he was not trying to prejudge the trial.
Speaking in television interviews while traveling in Asia, Obama acknowledged he would miss his Jan. 22 deadline to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay , Cuba, where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is now held, but said he believed it would be shut next year.

Separately, Attorney General Eric Holder told lawmakers Mohammed and his accused four co-conspirators could be safely tried in New York despite Republican security concerns.

In testimony before Senate hearings, Holder also said the federal government was open to paying for some of the added security costs, which a New York senator said could be upwards of $75 million a year.

Obama defended Holder's decision on Friday to move the five men from the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for a trial in a U.S. federal court in New York.

"(What) I think we have to break is this fearful notion that somehow our justice system can't handle these guys," Obama said in an interview with NBC News.
Asked if he understood why some people were offended by trying the men in U.S. courts, he replied: "I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him."

He then backtracked, saying, "What I said was people will not be offended if that's outcome. I'm not prejudging" them.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Holder also defended his decision and predicted Mohammed and the others would be convicted. "Failure is not an option. I don't expect that we will have a contrary result."

TRYING TO AVOID CIRCUS TRIALS

Many Republicans have argued the terrorism suspects should be tried in military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay because they believe criminal courts are not suited for such trials and they worry that the U.S. trial sites could become targets.

New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer said initial cost estimates he had seen to secure the trials in lower Manhattan would be $75 million a year plus costs for added security around the city and additional police personnel.

The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions, said that the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington were acts of war and therefore the accused should be prosecuted in military court.

Holder Defends Sept. 11 Trial Decision on Capitol Hill

2009-11-18T08:14:00.000-08:00

Attorney General Eric Holder faces tough criticism from Sen. Jeff Sessions , R-Ala., the ranking Republican on the committee, who said the September 11 trial and several other administration decisions signal a return to a "pre-9/11 mentality."

Attorney General Eric Holder, declaring "I know that we are at war ," delivered a point-by-point rebuttal Wednesday to critics who say his decision to send professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and his co-conspirators to New York for trial in civilian court marks a return to "pre-9/11 mentality."

The attorney general said he knew his decision would be controversial and considered it a "tough call." He said the defendants could have been tried in either military or civilian court, since, "The 9/11 attacks were both an act of war and a violation of our federal criminal law."

But he stood by his call to bring the five defendants into federal court, saying he considered "every alternative" and determined that New York is the venue "most likely to obtain justice for the American people."

"We need not cower in the face of this enemy. Our institutions are strong ... and our people are ready," Holder said. Asked what might happen if the suspects are acquitted, Holder replied: "Failure is not an option. These are cases that have to be won. I don't expect that we will have a contrary result."

Holder appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, testifying for the first time on the decision.

His testimony comes after days of criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike who warn that New York civilian court is not the appropriate venue and could pose several problems for the prosecution.

Critics say the venue could make it difficult to use evidence obtained without a warrant, create problems over classified information and give Mohammed the platform he wants.

But Holder defended the record of the civilian courts in handling international and domestic terrorists, and said Mohammed would have no more of a platform to "spew his hateful ideology" in New York than in a military commission.

"I'm not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial and no one else needs to be afraid either," Holder said, adding that the judge in the case will ensure "appropriate decorum."
Holder faced tough criticism Wednesday from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., the ranking Republican on the committee, who said the Sept. 11 trial and several other administration decisions signal a return to a "pre-9/11 mentality."

"I believe this decision is dangerous. I believe it's misguided. I believe it is unnecessary," Sessions said.

Chairman Patrick Leahy , D-Vt., defended Holder, voicing "great confidence" in the nation's top law enforcement official.

"They committed murder here in the United States and we'll seek justice here in the United States," Leahy said of the defendants.

Meanwhile, President Obama said in one of a series of TV interviews during his trip to Asia that those offended by the legal privileges given to Mohammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won't find it "offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him."

President Obama quickly added that he did not mean to suggest he was prejudging the outcome of Mohammed's trial. "I'm not going to be in that courtroom," he said. "That's the job of the prosecutors, the judge and the jury."

Trial in New York is triumph for al-Qaida

2009-11-18T04:12:00.000-08:00

Five jihadi warriors, including the mastermind of the attacks on September 11, will return to New York to face the consequence of their crime in a court of law.

Editorial writers in the Obama press over the weekend waxed eloquent about the triumph of American justice. The long night of torture, rendition and endless incarceration under the evil Bush is at last over and due process is restored even for our attackers, to show the world how fair and civilized America has once again become under President Obama – or, as the Chinese call him, Oba-mao.

A while back in law school, I was taught that a criminal trial was a search for truth during which the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime(s) the government charged.

In December 2008, before a military court at Gitmo, these same defendants admitted committing the crimes charged, and, rather than expressing remorse for the deaths of 3,000 people that resulted, bragged about the attacks of Sept. 11 and proclaimed that they wore the government's charges like a "badge of honor."

Congress authorized the military court in 2006 in response to criticism of long incarcerations of Gitmo detainees by Bush. Nonetheless, in January 2009, newly sworn-in President Obama acted swiftly to suspend the military trial at Gitmo before that court could pronounce sentence on the admittedly guilty jihadis.

Democrats in Congress had seen to it in 2006 that the law authorizing the military courts protected the defendant's rights to the lawyer of their choice, to call witnesses in their defense, to have the right of appeal – to observe all the due process demanded for these jihadis by the American Left. The jihadis ignored all of it and bragged about their role in attacking America, asserting in writing that their actions were the will of Allah.

Why would the president risk humiliation for America if this "show trial" results in acquittal, or even in endless defense motions and appeals which drag out for years and demonstrate not the strength of our justice system but its weakness?

You can well imagine the defense attorney's targets here. For example: Was my client given the "Miranda" warning when he was captured during battle, advising him of his legal rights? No? Well then, all the government "evidence" gathered since then, including his confession(s), is inadmissible in this trial. You waterboarded my client how many times? All "evidence" against my client is tainted by this torture and therefore inadmissible. You want the trial where? How can he get a fair trial in the city he's falsely accused of attacking? We need at least six months to find a venue where the jury pool is not tainted by knowledge of the alleged "incident" of Sept. 11.

Speaking of the jury, can you imagine the selection process to find American "peers" of jihadi warriors from the Middle East? Will Maj. Hasan be available now that John Allen Muhammad has gone to his eternal rest in the arms of 72 virgins? Anyone seen Johnny Walker Lindh lately?
Andrew McCarthy, as a New York federal prosecutor in the '90s, led the prosecution of the "Blind Sheik" in the case of the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. On my radio program last week, Mr. McCarthy used the phrase "show trial" to describe the Obama/Holder plan for the Gitmo detainees. He pointed out that the defendants had ample due process in the military trial at Gitmo, were clearly guilty and interested in using further proceedings only as a propaganda platform for jihad.

But McCarthy's startling analysis went deeper to answer the question of why would Obama order this "show trial."

He pointed out that defense attorneys would also press for revelations of methods and practices of the CIA and the U.S. military and would seek detail on the rendition of detainees to third countries (for "torture" that the evil and cowardly Bush would not do directly).

In other words, the civilian trial would reveal to the jihadi enemy all the secrets of the U.S. in fighting this war. Or, if the court denied revealing these secrets, this denial would form the basis for acquittal of the defendants and "proof" that the attacks of 9/11 were a Bush lie all along.
With both Attorney General Holder and President Obama promising convictions in the case, it looks like the Bush plans that kept America safe from attack between Sept. 11, 2001, and this month's massacre at Fort Hood will become public knowledge.

But even more importantly to accomplish the fervent goal of the international Left, the trial would thus force into the open the factual bases for indicting Bush and Cheney for crimes against humanity and bring them to trial before the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
This analysis becomes frighteningly real when you consider the case of 23 CIA employees indicted by Italy (in a case involving the rendition of a jihadi from Italy to Egypt) and recently found guilty in an Italian court. Will the Italians demand extradition? Will Interpol hunt these Americans down?

The "show trial" sold to the public as long delayed justice for the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks is just the opposite. This trial will begin the criminalizing of everyone connected with the "War on Terror" during the Bush years.

It will be for al-qaida a triumph of propaganda, a bonanza of intel, and a mighty blow against the evil Bush and his resistance to Islam conquering the world.

As with all appeasements, Obama's craven "show trial" and its proclaimed "fairness" will not stop the attacks on our country but rather encourage new attacks as the enemy perceives a fatal deterioration in the American will to resist.

This article was written by Roger Hedgecock for WND (WorldNet Daily).

Majority in US see Afghan war not worth cost: poll

2009-11-17T18:21:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON — Support for the US mission in Afghanistan has slipped to a new low, with 44 percent of Americans now saying the war there has been worth the cost, according to a recently released poll.

Amid mounting divisiveness over what was once one of President Barrack Obama's top foreign policy issues, the poll by The Washington Post and ABC News also showed ratings for how he has handled the mission there eroding, to 45 percent approving of how he is dealing with Afghanistan and 47 disapproving, compared to 63 percent approval last year.

The numbers come as Obama grapples with whether to send more U.S. Troops to Afghanistan to boost the fight against a growing Talibans-led insurgency, just a week after a stopover at a U.S. military base in Alaska at the start of his Asia trip when he told US troops he will get "public support back home" for the mission.

Only 44 percent now say the war in Afghanistan has been worth fighting -- the fewest since early 2007 -- and 52 percent say it has not, up 13 points from its low of last December, the news outlets' polling divisions said.

And while 55 percent expressed confidence that Obama will forge a successful Afghan strategy, Americans appeared evenly split on whether the president should order large numbers of new troops into the country, with 46 percent supporting a larger US force and 45 percent a smaller one.

Just as many also appeared to trust Republicans in Congress to handle the war as trust the president.

While divisions were evident about the war, Americans clearly doubted the reliability of the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who was declared winner of a second term this month after a fraud-marred election.

"Just 26 percent of Americans see Karzai as a reliable partner for the United States, and just 38 percent think his government will be able to train an effective army to take over security at some point," ABC News reported.

As for whether the risk of a terrorist attack in the United States would rise or fall if US troops withdraw from Afghanistan, nearly two-thirds of American said the risk stayed the same whether or not the troops went home.

The poll of 1,001 residents was conducted by telephone and has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

About The UNHCR

2009-11-17T12:37:00.000-08:00

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is an international organization that helps people from all over the world for different forms of assistence; as well as Human Rights.

The UN refugee agency emerged in the wake of World War II to help Europeans displaced by that conflict. Optimistically, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was established on December 14, 1950 by the United Nations General Assembly with a three-year mandate to complete its work and then disband. The following year, on July 28, the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees - the legal foundation of helping refugees and the basic statute guiding UNHCR's work - was adopted.

By 1956 UNHCR was facing its first major emergency, the outpouring of refugees when Soviet forces crushed the Hungarian Revolution. Any expectation that UNHCR would become unnecessary has never resurfaced. In the 1960s, the decolonization of Africa produced the first of that continent's numerous refugee crises needing UNHCR intervention. Over the following two decades, UNHCR had to help with displacement crises in Asia and Latin America. By the end of the century there were fresh refugee problems in Africa and, turning full circle, new waves of refugees in Europe from the series of wars in the Balkans.

The start of the 21st Century has seen UNHCR helping with major refugee crises in Africa, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia, and Asia, especially the 30-year-old Afghan refugee problem. At the same time, UNHCR has been asked to use its expertise to also help many internally displaced by conflict. Less visibly, it has expanded its role in helping stateless people, a largely overlooked group numbering millions of people in danger of being denied basic rights because they do not have any citizenship. In some parts of the world, such as Africa and Latin America, the original 1951 mandate has been strengthened by agreement on regional legal instruments.

In 1954, the new organization won the Nobel Peace Prize for its ground-breaking work in helping the refugees of Europe. Its mandate had just been extended until the end of the decade. More than a quarter century later, UNHCR received the 1981 award for what had become worldwide assistance to refugees, with the citation noting the political obstacles facing the organization. From only 34 staff members when UNHCR was founded, it now has 6,650 national and international members of staff, including 740 in UNHCR's Geneva headquarters. The agency works in 118 countries, with staff based in 108 main locations such as regional and branch offices and 151 often remote sub-offices and field offices.

The budget has grown from US$300,000 in its first year to more than US$2 billion in 2009. UNHCR now deals with 34.4 million people of concern to UNHCR: 14.4 million internally displaced people, 10.5 million refugees, 2 million returnees, 6.6 million stateless people and more than 800,000 asylum seekers. An organization with a three-year mandate to solve the problem of refugees will soon be celebrating its 60th anniversary, aware that the humanitarian needs are unlikely to disappear.

The Executioner's (Last) Song

2009-11-17T03:07:00.000-08:00

Most people would agree that beheading is another form of execution . Whether it is solely a justifiable cause of Capital punishment, it is still "ending a life". For many years, people have used many methods of Capital punishment; as a way to send a strong message, the things they did will not be tolerated in their society. And, that Justice will be served.

But sometimes, radical groups like Al Qaeda, and Talibans like to use other forms of execution, for another purpose. Mostly for Greed and Power. They know they could get what they want, if they execute someone from another country (mostly Americans). Because, they know that, the other country (United States) will comply. If they don't, that person or group of people are executed if their demands aren't met.

Torture Memo: Waterboarding Is "Simply A Controlled Acute Episode," Not Torture

2009-11-16T03:34:00.000-08:00

You can read the 1949 Geneva Convention's full text on Torture here:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument

Here's the official Bush legal rationale for waterboarding -- which Eric Holder recently confirmed was torture -- from that 2002 memo by Jay Bybee.

Finally, you would like to use a technique called the "waterboarding." In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth. This causes an increase in carbon dioxide level in the individual's blood. This increase in the carbon dioxide level stimulates increased effort to breathe. This effort plus the cloth produces the perception of "suffocation and incipient panic," i.e., the perception of drowning. The individual does not breathe any water into his lungs. During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths. the sensation of drowning is immediately relieved by the removal of the cloth. The procedure may then be repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with a spout. You have orally informed us that this procedure triggers an automatic physiological sensation of drowning that the individual cannot control even though he may be aware that he is not in fact drowning.

You have also orally informed us that it is likely that this procedure would not last more than twenty minutes in any one application.

As we understand it, when the waterboard is used, the subject's body responds as if the subject were drowning -- even though the subject may be well aware that he is in fact not drowning. You have informed us that this procedure does not inflict actual physical harm. Thus, although the subject may experience the fear or panic associated with the feeling of drowning, the waterboard does not inflict physical pain. as we explained in the Section 2340A Memorandum, "pain and suffering" as used in Section 2340 is best understood as a single concept, not distinct concepts of "pain" as distinguished from "suffering".... The waterboard, which inflicts no pain or actual harm whatsoever, does not, in our view, inflict "severe pain and suffering". Even if one were to parse the stature more "finely" to attempt to treat suffering as a distinct concept, the waterboard could not be said to inflict severe suffering.

The waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, lacking the connotation of a protracted period of time generally given to suffering.

Of course, thanks to today's announcement by DOJ, CIA officers can't be prosecuted for this.

Ten Terrible Truths About The CIA Torture Memos, Part 1by Andy Worthington, April 20, 2009

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4

Andy Worthington, author of The Guantánamo Files, analyzes ten particularly disturbing facts to emerge from the four memos, purporting to justify the use of torture by the CIA, which were issued by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in August 2002 and May 2005, and released by the Obama administration last week.

The OLC, as the New York Times explained in September 2007, holds a uniquely influential position, as it “interprets all laws that bear on the powers of the executive branch. The opinions of the head of the office are binding, except on the rare occasions when they are reversed by the attorney general or the president.” The legal opinions were, therefore, regarded as a “golden shield” by the administration, although, as lawyer Peter Weiss noted after I last wrote about the Bush administration’s war crimes, “it cannot be binding if it violates the constitution, or a jus cogens prohibition of international law, e.g. torture, or, perhaps, if it was made to order for the executive, as you demonstrate it was.”

1) The “torture memos” (August 2002)

The first of the four memos (PDF), dated August 1, 2002, is a companion piece to the notorious “Torture Memo” of the same day (PDF), leaked in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, which, notoriously, attempted to redefine torture as the infliction of physical pain “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death,” or the infliction of mental pain which “result[s] in significant psychological harm of significant duration e.g. lasting for months or even years.”

These definitions were justified as legitimate attempts to interpret what the memo’s authors — OLC lawyer John Yoo and Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee — regarded as imprecision in the wording of the prohibition against torture in the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as implemented by Sections 2340-2340A of title 18 of the United States Code, which defines torture as any act committed by an individual that is “specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering … upon another person within his custody of physical control.”

In their attempts to justify the use of torture by U.S. forces, Yoo and Bybee not only sought to redefine “severe pain or suffering” and “severe mental pain or suffering”; they also sought to nullify the concept of “specific intent” by providing a defense for anyone whose actions were undertaken “in good faith,” and, in addition, noted, “Even if an interrogation method arguably were to violate Section 2340A, the statute would be unconstitutional if it impermissibly encroached on the President’s constitutional power to conduct a military campaign.”

The “torture memo” was disturbing enough in and of itself, of course, and in particular because it provided so much of the justification for the horrendous mistreatment of prisoners that followed, in Guantánamo, Afghanistan and Iraq, but until last week the contents of the second memo — authorizing the use of specific torture techniques for the CIA to use on the supposed “high-value detainee” Abu Zubaydah — had never even been glimpsed, although we knew much of what it contained from the reports of Red Cross interviews with the 14 “high-value detainees” transferred to Guantánamo in September 2006 — including, of course, Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) — which were first reported by Jane Mayer, and featured prominently in her book The Dark Side, and were then analyzed in detail by Mark Danner for the New York Review of Books, in an article published last month, and a follow-up article, accompanied by the Red Cross report itself (PDF), that was published two weeks ago.

In the 18-page memo, John Yoo and Jay Bybee approved the use of ten techniques prohibited in the Army Field Manual, which eschews physical violence, and, instead, lays out a series of psychological maneuvers to secure cooperation. When applied with patience by skilled interrogators, these techniques (which are, essentially, also followed by several intelligence agencies including the FBI) are demonstrably effective, and have, for years, served to demonstrate that the U.S. is capable of operating without resorting to the use of torture, but the Bush administration ignored their effectiveness, introducing torture into the military and the CIA, and sidelining those, like the FBI, who had actually begun to achieve results with both Abu Zubaydah and some of the Guantánamo prisoners without resorting to the use of torture.

The ten techniques — whose use is minutely micro-managed with a chillingly cold attention to detail — include a handful of physical tactics which, to my mind, seem mild compared to the widespread physical violence that accompanied detention in the “war on terror” (“attention grasp,” “facial hold,” and “facial slap (insult slap)”), and a more insidious form of violence (“walling”), which involves repeatedly hurling prisoners against a false wall. Much more disturbing are the use of stress positions, sleep deprivation, confinement in small boxes, waterboarding, and — straight out of George Orwell’s 1984 — a proposal to prey on Zubaydah’s fear of insects by placing an insect into his “confinement box.”

This latter technique was, apparently, never used, but the others all were, and the memo blithely attempted to dismiss long-standing proof that all can be regarded as torture by being satisfied with time limits imposed on imprisonment in the “confinement boxes,” by declaring that the use of painful stress positions (on which no time limit seems to have been imposed) was only undertaken “to induce muscle fatigue,” and by claiming that the well-chronicled mental collapse that can result from sleep deprivation would, instead, only involve mild discomfort that “will generally remit after one or two nights of uninterrupted sleep,” even though, as Yoo and Bybee also noted, “You have orally informed us that you would not deprive Zubaydah of sleep for more than eleven days at a time.”

Justifying the use of waterboarding — a form of controlled drowning that was known to the honest torturers of the Spanish Inquisition as “tortura del agua,” and that, in a previous incarnation of the United States (Vietnam), involved prosecuting U.S. soldiers for its use — Yoo and Bybee calmly approved of 20-minute sessions in which, presumably, the 20- to 40-second procedure was repeatedly as frequently as required, and shrugged off waterboarding’s demonstrably well-documented use as a form of torture by noting that, in the U.S. military schools, where it is taught in the counter-interrogation program known as SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape), from which it was reverse-engineered for the “war on terror,” it has never, according to “experts” consulted by the administration, produced “any adverse mental health effects.”

2) The Bradbury memos (May 2005)

This assertion is, of course, monstrously untrue, as psychologist Jeffrey Kaye demonstrated in an article last week, but the underlying premise of the August 2002 memo — that, although torture was needed to “break” the CIA’s prisoners, it was not actually torture because it did not inflict “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” — was spelled out much more clearly in May 2005, when the OLC’s Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Steven G. Bradbury, produced another three memos, also released last week (and available as PDFs here, here and here), which picked up where Yoo and Bybee had left off.

Over the course of 106 pages, as he attempted to interpret torture so that it did not contravene the Convention Against Torture and Sections 2340-2340A of Title 18 of the United States Code, Bradbury revisited much of the ground covered by Yoo and Bybee, but inadvertently made it even clearer than his predecessors had that there was a ludicrous gulf between, on the one hand, endorsing torture, and, on the other, attempting to claim that it would not cause either severe physical or mental harm.
As with the earlier memos, from my point of view the arguments about the techniques not causing severe physical pain were more plausible than those in which Bradbury attempted to argue that techniques derived from the SERE program — which are based on teaching soldiers to resist techniques designed to cause a complete mental collapse — do not cause severe mental pain or suffering. The very fact that SERE psychologists were so prominent in the CIA’s torture program makes it clear that “learned helplessness” — involving the brutal training of prisoners to become dependant on their interrogators for every crumb of comfort in their wretched, tortured lives — was designed not just to cause them severe mental pain or suffering but to completely destroy them mentally. As Bradbury himself noted, when discussing the “conditioning techniques” that underpin the CIA prisoners’ conditions of confinement, “they are used to ‘demonstrate to the [detainee] that he has no control over basic human needs.’”

And yet, for page after page, Bradbury concluded that “nudity, dietary manipulation and sleep deprivation” — now revealed explicitly as not just keeping a prisoner awake, but hanging him, naked except for a diaper, by a chain attached to shackles around his wrists — are, essentially, techniques that produce insignificant and transient discomfort. We are, for example, breezily told that caloric intake “will always be set at or above 1,000 kcal/day,” and are encouraged to compare this enforced starvation with “several commercial weight-loss programs in the United States which involve similar or even greater reductions in calorific intake.”

In “water dousing,” a new technique introduced since 2002, in which naked prisoners are repeatedly doused with cold water, we are informed that “maximum exposure directions have been ‘set at two-thirds the time at which, based on extensive medical literature and experience, hypothermia could be expected to develop in healthy individuals who are submerged in water of the same temperature,’” and when it comes to waterboarding, Bradbury clinically confirms that it can be used 12 times a day over five days in a period of a month — a total of 60 times for a technique that is so horrible that one application is supposed to have even the most hardened terrorist literally gagging to tell all.

Taken from: http://www.fff.org/comment/com0904i.asp

The Losing War: The War on Terrorism

2009-11-15T16:19:00.000-08:00

The War On Terrorism officially started September 14, 2001 , three days after that now infamous September 11th, 2001; and it has cost American taxpayers dearly for what has happened quickly to their freedom. (Who ever said that "Freedom was ever free ?")

The History of 9/11: Discussion on Race & Religion:

The tension between religious identity and national loyalty has become the focus of much of the world's attention since the attacks on September 11th. In the first three readings we explored how individuals construct their identity in relation to their cultural identities. This reading begins to explore the connection between religious identity and national loyalty as it has emerged in our world. Throughout recorded history adherence to a particular religious tradition could mean acceptance and privilege, while in other places and times practicing the very same religion could make the individual suspect in the eyes of the government and society. Often monarchs ruled over their subjects and justified their power in the name of the divine; their rule was sanctioned by God. While religion has often legitimized the power relationship between a monarchy and its subjects, these empires have used many strategies for dealing with religious differences. In some empires subjects have been forced to convert to the religion of the monarch. In others those of different faiths were expelled from their lands, and still others tolerated religious differences.The issue of membership - who is in and who is out - in society was significantly altered when people began to see themselves no longer as subjects but instead as members of a nation. In the past, people expressed loyalty to their ruler, not to their country. People living within empires began to organize as national groups for independence. In central Europe, after the military successes of Napoleon, Germans, Austrians, Slavs, and Italians fought to free themselves and in the process began to think of themselves in a new way. In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, groups seeking independence from the Ottoman Empire sought to express their national identity free of the Sultan's rule. Before long, the ideas of nationalism spread over the globe.Historian Hans Kohn defines nationalism as "a state of mind inspiring the large majority of a people and claiming to inspire all its members." It asserts that the nation-state is the ideal and only legitimate form of political organization and that nationality is the source of all cultural creative energy and economic well being. Sociologist Theodore Abel views nationalism as a feeling "more positive than patriotism, or love of one's country for its beautiful streams, valleys, and mountains" and warns that it may involve "a certain amount of ethnocentrism, a feeling of superiority of one's nation over other nations." Martin Thom, in Nations, Republics and Tribes, marks the transformation of the French idea of a nation from encompassing all residents of a territory regardless of ethnicity and religion, into a romantic ethno-nationalist concept focusing on exclusion of those who do not fit in.What role would religion play in this new vision? As nation-states took on either an official religion or an intensely secular identity, traditional religious identities and beliefs were called into question. In France, for example, Jews were given citizenship in 1791, along with other French men and women. Despite their new status, in 1807, Napoleon called together 71 rabbis and other Jewish religious leaders to help him decide whether the Jews of France were members of the French nation. He asked:

In the eyes of Jews, are Frenchmen considered their brethren or are they considered strangers? Do Jews born in France, and treated by the laws as French, consider France their own country? Are they bound to defend it? Are they bound to obey the laws and conform to the requirements of the French civil code, the legal system?1

The Jews Napoleon questioned offered the following response:

The love of country is in the heart of Jews a sentiment so natural, so powerful, and so consonant to their religious opinions, that a French Jew considers himself in England, as among strangers, although he may be among Jews; and the case is the same with English Jews in France.To such a pitch is this sentiment carried among them, that during the last war, French Jews have been seen fighting desperately against other Jews, the subjects of countries then at war with France.

Napoleon was satisfied with their response. This conflict between religious identity continues as nations struggle for their identity. After the cold war, Russian influence dwindled in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Tension between nationalists, former Communists, and long silenced religious groups flared. In his book Jihad, Ahmed Rashid, a journalist based in Pakistan, described how this conflict has become the focus of the world's attention. He offers one explanation for the rise of Islamic extremism in Central Asia after the cold war:

For the majority of the people in Central Asia, independence from the Soviet Communist system did not immediately translate into an urge for democracy, the market economy, or Western culture and consumerism, as was the case elsewhere in the former Soviet Union, for example Russia and the Baltic republics. Instead, Islamic revival swept through the region. One of the key tenets of the Soviet system had been that religion was incompatible with communism, and the Communists methodically set about repressing all forms of religious expression within the country. As the Soviet empire fell apart, the people of Central Asia, who had been forced to renounce or hide their religion for seventy-four years, at last saw an opportunity to reconnect spiritually and culturally with their Islamic past.The Central Asians embraced Islam not only to reestablish their own ethnic and cultural identity but to reconnect with their Muslim neighbors to the south, who had been cut off from them ever since Stalin closed the borders between the Soviet Union and the rest of the world. Almost the first new visitors to the independent Central Asian republics were Islamic missionaries from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and elsewhere, who helped build hundreds of new mosques and distributed free copies of the Koran translated into Russian and other native languages. Millions of Central Asians emotionally seized this opportunity to rediscover their identity and heritage, all of which they linked intimately with Islam. As I traveled through the region in that first heady year of independence, I was besieged by people wanting to know about the world of Islam outside their valleys and mountain villages. Few people knew about the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, the depth of Palestinian resistance to Israel, or the mini-wars that had been waged by Islamic militants in Kashmir, Algeria, Egypt and the Philippines.

Many had forgotten their prayers and other rituals of Islam, even though an underground movement of itinerant preachers, as well as local mystics and teachers, had kept alive traditions of the faith and the cultural and social mores that this faith fostered.What Central Asians did know about, however, for many of them had experienced its effects firsthand, was the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and the ten-year war that followed. Thousands of young men had been conscripted into the Soviet Army and sent to fight the Afghan Mujahedeen (Islamic fighters). Contrary to Soviet expectations, many young men returned home with admiring stories of the sacrifices and Islamic zeal of their opponents. Even though some of their comrades had come back in zinc lined coffins, the survivors spoke with glowing pride of the Mujahadeen guerrillas' success and bravery against the overwhelming firepower of their own Soviet forces. Sipping tea, men of an older generation compared the Afghans to Central Asia's own Mujahedeen - the Basmachis - who had resisted the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution for more than a decade. Their hatred for the Soviet army and political system was obvious. The fact that they shared an ethnic and linguistic affinity with the people they were fighting made them realize even more deeply how the Soviet Communist system had deprived them of their common heritage and national pride.When independence came, with its rush of excitement and religious fervor, Central Asians nonetheless realized that the policies and actions of their governments would determine the political and economic futures of their fragile states as well as the future of their Islamic revival.

Would the rulers embrace popular Islam and democracy and rejoin the wider Islamic community with its culture of tolerance or would they continue to embrace the Communist policies of political, social, and religious repression, thereby ensuring greater resistance from the newly aroused population? Such critical decisions would determine whether the Central Asian countries moved towards stability and progress or dissolved into instability and civil war.The choice was there, but it quickly became apparent that the Central Asian leaders - all but Kyrgyzstan's President Askar Akayev apparatchiks from the Communist era were never going to consider these options. Instead, these highly centralized bureaucratic post-Soviet ruling elites lumbered along well-trodden paths they knew best - the suppression of dissent, democracy, popular culture, and eventually the Islamic revival.Central Asia's reemergence into the world brought global conflicts as well. The region's enormous oil and gas reserves, which had lain largely untapped because Moscow preferred to exploit the resources of Siberia, now became a battleground for the competing interests of Russia, the United States, and neighbors such as Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and China.

In what analysts quickly came to call the "new Great Game" (after the 19th century rivalry between the empires of tsarist Russia and Great Britain for control of Asia), Russia, China and the United States struggled to establish pipelines that would give them access to natural resources and influence over the peoples of Central Asia.Afghanistan, which had been a pawn in the Cold War U.S.-Soviet rivalry since 1979, found itself still caught in the middle, despite the breakup of the Soviet Union. However, the money the United States had funneled via Pakistan's secret service to the most extremist of the anti-Soviet Islamic fighters during the war started a movement that would change the game altogether. A new group, the Taliban, rose to power and created a model of extremist Islamic fundamentalism unknown in the Muslim world. With the financial and military help of the Saudi extremist Osama bin Laden, the Taliban ruled Afghanistan which became a base for Islamic militants of every kind, who trained with the Taliban cadres before returning to their homes to spread political and social instability across the region.2

While much of this history is still being written, Marc Gopin instructs us in the introduction to these readings that, "much of the struggle of recent months has been over events in the Middle East, and specifically in countries such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is wonderful to think in the abstract about identity, spirituality and religion, and democracy. But the hard work of intellectual maturity and responsible citizenship comes in understanding the details of human experience. We dare not speak in generalities and not know the facts about specific places and their particular circumstances."

CONNECTIONS

Why do you think religious and national identities have so often come into conflict? What kind of situation aggravates the tension?

Is it possible to have a "we", like a nation, without having a "they" who do not belong?

What is citizenship? How is it obtained? What rights and responsibilities are attached to citizenship? Some scholars claim that through citizenship in a nation people and nations develop a sense of common good and shared purpose. How do those ideas help us understand the place of religious identity in a political community?

What is secularism? What role should religion have in a secular country?

Based on Napoleon's questions to the Jewish religious leaders, what were his concerns about Judaism? Have you seen those concerns reflected in other religious traditions?

How did religious loyalty and national identity come together in Afghanistan?

Rashid describes missionaries and Mujahedeen flocking to Afghanistan during the war against the Soviets. They brought with them interpretations of Islam - wahhabi or salafi - that were new to Afghanistan. John L. Esposito, author of Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam describes wahhabism as "Saudi Arabia's ultraconservative, puritanical brand of Islam: literalist, rigid, and exclusivist. Presenting their version of Islam as the pristine, pure, unadulterated message, the Wahhabi seek to impose their strict beliefs and interpretations, which are not commonly shared by other Sunni or by Shii Muslims throughout the Muslim world."3

Through a combination of fundamentalist religious schools and terrorist training camps, Esposito writes "A hitherto little-noted part of the world spawned a Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance that became the base for a network of organizations and cells from across the Muslim world that hijacked Islam, indiscriminately slaughtering non-Muslims and Muslims alike."4

Why does Rashid suggest fundamentalist missionaries targeted Afghanistan? What might have made the population more susceptible to their message?

Ahmed Rashid describes a religious fervor that came with independence in Central Asia. Why do you think questions of religious identity in Central Asia have become so pronounced following the fall of the Soviet Union?

How does Rashid explain the rise of the Taliban? What factor seems most important? What is the relationship between belief and action?

What roles does religion play in your community, state, or country? Do religious identities come into conflict with local or national interests? How are those tensions negotiated or resolved?
Why have so many governments attempted to restrict and regulate religious practice? Does a nation-state ever have any legitimate reasons for doing so?

Historically various nations in Europe have defined citizenship according to blood or residency at different times depending on contemporary circumstances. What other markers of citizenship are suggested in the reading?

To explore these issues further read Chapter 2, "We and They," in Facing History and Ourselves: Holocaust and Human Behavior. For more on the relationship between Jews and Nationalism read Chapter 2, "Outsiders in Eastern Europe," of Facing History and Ourselves: The Jews of Poland.

You want to know how much we are really spending to fund the "War on Terrorism" ? Click here to find out the facts:

The Cost of War

Read more on the so-call "War On Terrorism" here.

List of Detainees At Gitmo

2009-11-15T07:10:00.000-08:00

A list of detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, and home countries where available, whose cases before U.S. military tribunals are detailed in records in a federal court. Click on a name to see related court documents:

Abd Al Aziz Sayer Uwain Al Shammeri, Kuwait

Abdul Khaled Ahmed Sahleh Al Bedani, Saudi Arabia

Abdul Aziz Adbullah Ali Al Suadi, Yemen

Abdullah Saleh Ali Al Ajmi, Kuwait

Abdullah Al-Noaimi, Bahrain

Abdullah Kamel Abudallah Kamel, Kuwait

Abdul Latif El Banna, Jordan, lived in Great Britain

Adil Kamil Abdullah Al Wadi, Bahrain

Juma Mohammed Abdul Latif Al Dosari

Adil Said Al Haj Obeid Al Busayss

Mustafa Ait Idr

Jamal Muhammad Alawi Mar'i

Mahmoud Abd Al Aziz Abd Al Mujahid

Mohammed Mohammed Hassen

Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab

Allal Ab Aljallil Abd Al Rahman Abd

Boudella Al Hajj

Mohammad Nechle

Bashir Nashir AI-Marwalah

Saeed Ahmed Mohammed Abdullab Sarem Jarabh

Ali Yahya Mahdi Al Raimi

Khaled Qasim

Jalal Salam Awad Awad

Fahmi Abdullah Ahmed

Bisher Amin Khalil Al-Rawi

Adil Zamil Abdull Mohssin Al Zamil

Sa'ad Madhi Sa'ad Ha Wash Al-Azmi

Fouad Mahoud Hasan Al Rabia

Mohammed Fenaitel Mohamed Al Daihani

Omar Rajab Amin

Jarallah al Marri

Faruq Ali Ahmed

Sabir Mahfouz Lahmar

Majid Mahmud Abdu Ahmad

Muktar Yahya Najee Al Warafi

Sadeq Muhammad Sa'id Ismail

Issa Ali Abdullala Al Murbati

Atag Ali Abdoh Al-Haj

Ali Husayn Abdutlah Al Tays

Musab Omar All Al Mudwani

Emad Abdalla Hassan

Ali Ahmed Mohammed Al Razehi

Adil Zamil Abdull Mohssin Al Zamil

Nasir Najr Nasir Balud Al Mutayri

Fouzi Khalid Abdullah Al Awda

Khalid Bin Abdullah Mishal Thamer Al Hameydani

Faiz Mohammed Ahmed Al Kandari

Saifullah Paracha

Salah Abdul Rasul Ali Abdul Rahman Al Balushi, Bahrain

Salem Abdul Salem Ghereby, Libya

Salman Ibrahim Al Khalifa, Bahrain

Salman Yahya Hassan Mohammed Rabeii, Yemen

Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed Uthman, Yemen

Yasin Qasem Muhammad Ismail, Yemen

Zohair Abdul Mohammed Al-Shorabi

These five men are known to have appeared before tribunals and been freed:

Feroz Ali Abassi

Mamdouh Ibrahim Ahmed Habib

Martin Mubanga

Moazzam Begg

Richard Dean Belmar

For more of Complete list of Detainees in Afghanistan, please click here. (Reminder: The list is in PDF format)

The Torture Papers

2009-11-14T18:02:00.000-08:00

Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and Afghanistan are just a few places these dangerous and ruthless 9/11 detainees have been held for eight years for their role for in the attacks on America. But there is a new book that even tells more than we are "believed" to know - the whole story. The book is title: The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib. It is written by Karen Greenburg and Joshua Dratel.

WASHINGTON — In a move both politically and legally risky, the Obama administration plans to put on trial the professed mastermind of the Sept. 11 terror attacks and four alleged accomplices in a lower Manhattan courthouse.
The venue for the biggest trial in the age of terrorism means prosecutors must balance difficult issues such as rough treatment of detainees and sensitive intelligence-gathering with the Justice Department's desire to prove that the federal courts are able to handle terrorism cases.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced the decision Friday to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to trial in a courtroom barely a thousand yards from the site of the World Trade Center's twin towers they are accused of destroying.

Trying the men in civilian court will bar evidence obtained under duress and complicate a case where anything short of slam-dunk convictions will empower President Barack Obama's critics. U.S. civilian courts prohibit evidence obtained through coercion, and a number of detainees were questioned using harsh methods some call torture.

Holder insisted both the court system and the untainted evidence against the five men are strong enough to deliver a guilty verdict and the penalty he expects to seek: a death sentence for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people who were killed when four hijacked jetliners slammed into the towers, the Pentagon and a field in western Pennsylvania.

"After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September the 11th will finally face justice. They will be brought to New York — to New York," Holder repeated for emphasis, "to answer for their alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks away from where the twin towers once stood."

Holder said he decided to bring Mohammed and the other four before a civilian court rather than a military commission because of the nature of the undisclosed evidence against them, because the 9/11 victims were mostly civilians and because the attacks took place on U.S. soil.

Lawyers for the accused will almost certainly try to have charges thrown out based on the rough treatment of the detainees at the hands of U.S. interrogators, including the repeated waterboarding, or simulated drowning, of Mohammed.

The question has been raised as to whether the government can make its case without using coerced confessions, but prosecutors have other evidence including a written confession from Mohammed and other statements and documents to bolster their case.
Held at Guantanamo since September 2006, Mohammed said in military proceedings there that he wanted to plead guilty and be executed to achieve what he views as martyrdom. In a letter from him released by the war crimes court, he referred to the attacks as a "noble victory" and urged U.S. authorities to "pass your sentence on me and give me no respite."

Holder insisted the case is on firm legal footing, but he acknowledged the political ground may be more shaky when it comes to bringing feared al-Qaida terrorists to U.S. soil.

"To the extent that there are political consequences, I'll just have to take my lumps," he said. But any political consequences will reach beyond Holder to his boss, Obama.
Bringing such notorious suspects to U.S. soil to face trial is a key step in Obama's plan to close the military-run detention center in Cuba. Obama initially planned to close the prison by next Jan. 22, but the administration is not expected to meet that deadline.

Obama said he is "absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice. The American people will insist on it and my administration will insist on it."

The five suspects headed to New York are likely to face thousands of counts of murder and conspiracy. Mohammed and the four others — Waleed bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali — are all accused of orchestrating the 2001 attacks.

The government also announced five other Guantanamo detainees, including the alleged mastermind of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, would be sent to military commissions to face charges.

Of course, this doesn't go without controversy. You see, if this 9/11 detainee is "allow" to go free and walk, you can bet that the former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney could be brought up on War Crimes for their role of "Torturing" detainees "under their watch".