The Rag Blog

The Cindy Sheehan Doctrine
by Cindy Sheehan / March 6th, 2008

One early morning, exactly five weeks after Casey was killed, I was awakened by a disturbing dream. Casey’s father, Patrick and I had traveled to Santa Barbara for Mother’s Day that year to visit the Arlington West exhibit sponsored by the Santa Barbara chapter of Veteran’s for Peace. This was when we still believed that that our marriage was not going to be a casualty of the illegal and immoral travesty of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

After the initial shock of having a cherished part of me violently torn away, the story that the Army told us about Casey’s death did not ring true. When a former-Lieutenant of Casey’s called a few days after his death to express his condolences, Patrick asked him the question that had been on all of our minds: “Casey was a mechanic, what was he doing in combat?” The Lt. replied: “Didn’t you know, Casey volunteered.” That story about Casey “volunteering” never sat right with me. It did not resonate with Casey’s Chaplain heart, his reluctance to go to Iraq in the first place, and his vow before he left that he would not “kill anyone” because he could not. Then to put the icing on the cake baked with lies, when the Lt. and one of Casey’s Sergeants came to his funeral, they told us what a great mechanic Casey was.

This lie was the one that I found so hard to swallow. Casey joined the Army to be a Chaplain’s Assistant and when he reported to boot camp in September of 2000, he was told that specialty was “full” and he would have to be a “cook or a humvee mechanic.” Casey picked the specialty that was the least abhorrent to him, but he didn’t like it. When the Lt. and Sgt. told me that he was a “great mechanic,” I said: “Really, he didn’t even know how to change his own oil.” This was just a small matter, but if the two soldiers would lie about a simple thing like Casey’s job to try and do damage control, then they would lie about how he died, too.

Like I said, Casey had been dead for exactly five weeks on that early Mother’s Day morning in 2004, and I hadn’t dreamed about him yet. In the first dream, I was at an outdoor amphitheater looking at the stage and I heard a booming voice over the loudspeakers say: “Specialist Casey Sheehan.” I looked up, surprised and overjoyed that he was alive. Casey walked out on stage with a can of Diet 7-up in one hand and an M-16 in the other. He was wearing briefs and nothing else. He nonchalantly put his rifle in his mouth and pulled the trigger. I collapsed on the ground screaming: “The Army made Casey kill himself.” I awakened from the dream and instantly there was an earthquake in Santa Barbara that shook our hotel room.

Of course, the dream fueled my suspicions that the story the Army told us was not true. Since Casey’s death, we have heard so many stories.

About six months after Casey died, one of his “buddies” came to visit. He said that Casey volunteered for the mission, and he said: “Sheehan you don’t have to go.” Casey said: “Where my Sgt. goes, I go.” Then this Sgt. claimed that Casey died in his arms. A year later, the medic who held Casey’s brains in his head said he was alive when he got to the medic station; the doctor who tried to keep him alive confirmed that story independently from the medic.

I spoke to two un-embedded journalists who told me that Casey’s unit, the First Cavalry, was on a “search and destroy” mission and after Casey was killed in the ambush, they went driving through Sadr City slaughtering anything that moved and strafing apartment buildings in the Shi’a slum that was built for three million people but contained ten million. Martha Raddatz, ABC correspondent, wrote a book that repeated the blatant US military lie that the Mahdi Army was using women and children as “human shields” forcing the US to kill civilians. First of all, “human shields” are not a very good barrier (unless the First Cav was using sling shots and pebbles). Second, insurgencies need popular support and do not benefit from killing innocent civilians, and third, the Iraqi people love their women and children as much as we do.

The “Casey volunteered” story was repeated in Martha Raddatz’s book and she got the info from the soldiers that were in the unarmed and open truck bed that Casey was in when he was killed — regurgitating the official US military lies. Recently this email was sent to my campaign office from a soldier who was near Casey when this event occurred:

I’m very sorry what happened to casey. I knew him I was in his unit and lived across the hall. There has been something I have been wanting to get off my chest though. Why am I hearing he volunteered for the mission. He was a humvee mechanic and he honestly sucked at it. He was a great guy but a horrible mechanic. The truth is that when the 1st sgt who was scared to go out himself asked for volunteers all the nco’s literally ran to the potapottys. Sheehans chief told sheehan to get on the lmtv. Sheehan said ” no, I’m a mechanic” well I remember watching ssg (XXXX) say” get your motherfucken ass on the god damn truck” and he literrally grabbed casey by his collar and dragged him onto the lmtv. Don’t believe me you better ask somebody. That’s also what I told Martha Raddatz but I guess for some reason she didn’t think she should write it that way. Well I’m sorry but if you were told different it was a lie. This is the truth I swear on my son. God Bless and good luck, [NOTE: This email has not been altered by me: CS].

Martha Raddatz confirmed that she was told this, but did not follow up because this soldier was “not on Casey’s truck.” This account of Casey’s last minutes of life upsets me so much, but this account makes more sense to me then the other accounts. The Army had him for almost four years, but I had him for 24 years.

Iraq Vets Against the War is holding a “Winter Soldier” event soon, and they will recount stories of how they participated in war crimes or witnessed war crimes, which is not in dispute because the entire invasion and occupation is a war crime. These young people came home alive and many of them will have to deal with their demons forever as my Vietnam veteran friends still do, but we families of soldiers who were killed will also be haunted by things we know and things we will never know or never know for sure. The stories of military neglect, abuse (sexual, physical, mental, emotional) or lies are almost as many as there are troops: living or dead.

Casey joined the US Army to be a Chaplain’s Assistant, was made a mechanic, then died five days after deployment as a very reluctant infantry soldier who had never been trained in urban guerrilla warfare. Do I want to sue someone for the wrongful death of my son caused by the criminal behavior of his Commander in Chief and for the cowardice and blood-lust exhibited by Casey’s superiors in the First Cavalry? Of course I do, not to bring Casey back (obviously) but to prevent future heartache and frustration. We families cannot sue because of the “Ferris Doctrine” which prohibits soldiers or family members from suing the government if a soldier is harmed or killed while in service… even for “gross negligence.”

If we cannot sue the military or government, I want to propose a “Casey Sheehan Doctrine” that will read something like this:

Whereas, citizens of the United States have basic and profound legal rights protected by this country’s Constitution, irrespective of enacted laws or executive orders, past, present, and future, that violate, weaken, or render nil the very core of those rights, and

Whereas, US citizens serving in the US military, and by virtue of military unilateral enlistment contracts, are by default denied these basic legal rights afforded others of the citizenry, and

Whereas, wars of aggression, imperialist in nature, unprovoked in substance, and profitable by design have been deemed illegal globally, and immoral universally; and that the purveyors of such atrocious events are to be held in contempt of humanity for their crimes of war, and

Whereas, the only justifiable use of force is for protective purposes, for life, liberty, and property, the last of which may be construed to mean one’s country in a broader sense, and

Whereas, any member of the US military has the legal and moral responsibility to refuse any order that is illegal or immoral in nature, especially one that may constitute a crime against humanity, and

Whereas, the US invasion/occupation of the country of Iraq, known as the Iraq War, soon into its sixth year of prosecution, has been shown to have been caused directly on the basis of lies, deceit, manipulation and duplicity on the part of the Executive branch of the government of the United States, and the acquiescence of the US Congress, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED, that all members of the US military war machine–soldiers, marines, airmen and women, and sailors–and those adjunct to them, are called upon to follow their conscience in all matters relating to their military service; and such persons should refuse any orders that might contradict matters of conscience, morality, or law, and further

BE IT RESOLVED, that those in uniform, and families, friends, advocates, and others, of those who serve their country will seek redress for any wrongdoing, abuse, mistreatment, injury, or death upon their person; and this justice should be pursued by any means available, legal and otherwise, up to and including acts of civil disobedience.

Resolved this day of March 5, 2008

Cindy Sheehan is the mother of Spc. Casey Sheehan who was killed in Bush’s war of terror on 04/04/04. Sheehan is a congressional candidate running against Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco. You can visit her campaign website at CindyforCongress.org.

Source

Black Prison Gulag and the Police State
by Glen Ford / March 6th, 2008

The United States has passed an historic and symbolic watershed in its unrelenting, two generations-long quest to incarcerate as many Blacks as humanly possible. As of January 1, more than one of every 100 adults is behind bars, about half of them Black. That’s not counting Afro-Latinos and other Hispanics. The U.S. is the unchallenged leader in mass incarceration, with the largest Gulag on the planet, based on raw numbers of inmates – 2,319,258 in federal and state prisons and local jails – and per capita incarceration: 750 inmates for every 100,000 people. Russia, which led the world back in Soviet times, is number two, with 628 inmates per 100,000. The Black and brown U.S. prisoner population, alone, roughly equals that of China’s – a nation with four times the population of the U.S.

Russia’s imprisonment practices grew out of the Tsarist Siberian and later, Stalinist model. America’s model is directly derived from slavery – the virtual imprisonment of an entire people. From the post-Emancipation “Black Codes” through the 1960s, Blacks have always been locked up in vastly disproportionate numbers. Still, white inmates were in the majority until at least 1964. Then, beginning in the early 70s, the prison population exploded, multiplying seven times. By 1996, African Americans comprised 53 percent of all persons admitted to state and federal prisons. One out of nine Black males between the ages of 20 and 34 now resides behind bars, compared to just one of every 30 whites.

The debate over U.S. prison growth and wildly disparate Black incarceration – to the extent there is a debate – usually centers on draconian and racially-engineered drug sentences. That’s descriptive of one modality of prison growth, addressing the “how” of the problem, but doesn’t address the “why” of it, the political intentions of massive imprisonment of African Americans.

Countless studies have shown beyond statistical doubt that the U.S. “justice” system is stacked against African Americans at every stage of the process: hyper-surveillance of Black neighborhoods, leading to disproportionate arrests, a nationwide pattern of prosecutorial fervor to charge Blacks with more serious crimes than white defendants, harsher sentences once convicted, and far fewer opportunities for Blacks to avoid hard time through “diversion” programs that are skewed to allowing far more whites to escape long term stints in prison. Once again, these factors explain how Blacks have become majorities in prison, even in states and localities with relatively small Black populations, but do not address why Black mass incarceration began to accelerate at breakneck speed in the early 70s, and continues no matter whether crime is up or down.

“Mass Black incarceration,” I wrote in February, 2007,” is America’s answer to the Black Freedom Movement of the Sixties and early Seventies.” Just as the “Black Codes” were the white South’s response to Emancipation, and as massive incarceration of Black “loiterers” to prison plantations and chain gangs followed the crushing of Reconstruction, whites got revenge against the Black Freedom Movement of the Sixties by throwing as many as possible African Americans in prison. This “nigger-caging” response was near-uniform across the country – North, South, East and West. It is the Mother of All White Backlashes – no, the Grandmother, showing no signs of diminishing in racist fury after more than 30 years.

“Reform” measures are surely needed, such as elimination of mandatory sentencing, broader application of prison “diversion” programs, abolition of racist crack cocaine super-sentences, a requirement that “racial impact” studies be instituted at all prisons and jails, repeal of state laws depriving convicted felons of the right to vote, and many other proposals. However, if mass Black incarceration, the “engine” of prison growth, is not understood as an ongoing, institutionalized crime whose purpose is wholly racial, the discussion will be limited to reformers who attempt to tinker around the edges of the historical catastrophe and Black clergy who think they can preach successive Black generations out of going to prison.

Read all of it here.

Campaign Blues
By Jim Kunstler

While it’s gratifying to watch Hillary Clinton melt back into her senate seat — in the process foiling the ascent of Emperor Bill the 1st — one can’t help but feel that the contest for president is taking place in a different “world-line” (shall we say) than the melt-down of the US financial sector, and with it, the US economy.

Whoever wins on November 5 will wake up to preside over a different America than the schematic one he was debating about during the primaries and the election. The long campaign will beat a path straight into the long emergency. The new president will inherit a wrecked banking system, an economy in freefall, a wobbling world oil market, and an American public extremely ticked off by its startling, sudden impoverishment. (This is apart from whatever melodramas spool out on the geopolitical scene.)

The president-elect will quickly realize that the number one problem is not that Americans can’t afford health care — it’s that they can’t afford anything, because their income is evaporating in terms of both lost jobs and a dollar that is racing toward worthlessness. They’ll be hard put to pay for food and gasoline, nevermind Grandma’s emphysema treatments. They will be walking away from home ownership — or yanked kicking and screaming by default-and-repo — and any government scheme devised to abridge their mortgage contracts will only undermine basic contract law that has made mortgage lending a credible thing in the first place. And that too, of course, would redound straight to a real estate sector already in price free-fall, with no one willing or able to think about buying a house.

As Obama and McCain go at it through the next eight months, they will likely focus on our situation in Iraq. (Calling it a “war” now is imprecise.) As merely one commentator among thousands, I’m not satisfied that either one of the contenders has defined his position on this coherently. Obama is disposed to get the US military out of there as quickly as possible. He’s right that the sheer awful cost of the adventure is one big factor in wrecking US finances while it erodes our standing in the world. But with our Iraq garrison shut down, he’d better be prepared for a further breakdown in Middle East stability and the oil markets that depend on it — meaning, the basis of American life for four generations, dependable oil imports, will sharply end. That would accelerate the disorderly abandonment of our massive misinvestment in suburban living, and also ramp up the anger and resentment of the public grieving over its lost entitlements.

McCain’s contrasting hundred-year plan does not take into account the severe impoverishment and exhaustion of the military itself, not to mention the overall purpose of the adventure — to keep suburban life and all its accessories running in the homeland — which is an exercise in futility under any terms. McCain would have to confront the terrible paradoxes of the war, namely that thousands of legs have been blown off for the sake of WalMart, which company will be hemorrhaging customers anyway, as incomes wilt, at the same time that WalMart’s own operating system — the “warehouse on wheels” — surrenders to the reality of five or six dollar-a-gallon diesel fuel. In any case, the implosion of the US economy during the next eight months will overshadow whatever we decide to do in Iraq, and that cratering will be laid directly at the feet of the Republican party. If the party survives that, which I doubt, it would a long time before anybody trusted it again.

Whoever wakes up as the next president on November 5 will have to preside over the comprehensive reorganization of American life. The big question is whether he can persuade the public to let go of its sunk costs, and all the sheer stuff that represents, and move ahead in a unified way that doesn’t end up tearing the nation apart. The danger is that the public will want to mount a kind of last stand effort to defend a way of life that has no future under any circumstances, and they will ask the president to lead that last stand.

To avoid that deadly outcome, the new president will have to be equipped with a realistic vision of what this society can actually do to survive the discontinuities that circumstances present. This will require him to confront the prevailing delusion that the US can become “energy independent” in the sense that we can run WalMart on something other than oil from foreign lands. The new president would have to carefully restate American expectations and goals — for instance, not to keep all the cars running at all costs, but to get us living in places where driving is not mandatory. I’m concerned that the American people will hate the new president if he tells them the truth: that an old way of life is over and a new one has to begin now. We’re about to find out how much “change” the public can really stand.

Source

TO: Whomever is no longer concerned

FROM: Scott, president, founder, and only member of THE UNASSOCIATED ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PAUPERS QUASI-REVOLUTIONARY QUITTERS CLUB

I (your name goes here), having CONCLUDED, based on the undeniable reality that all American problems invariably become exponentially clusterfucked and are always forcefully contagious, and that the American dream is a tiresome, unrewarding bad trip, not worth the efforts or the casualties. Understanding that participation is complicity, resistance is futile. Having consumed all the mind-numbing propaganda that I can bare. Being duly aware that, I, by having neglected to contribute to the coffers of the winning campaigns can expect no favors and no mercy. Having zero interest in the present electoral outcomes, even for their circus-like entertainment value.

We understand that descent into total class war and social chaos is inevitable, unstoppable, and evolutionarily necessary. We fully expect to eventually be enslaved, incarcerated, tortured, shot in the cross-fire, blown-up by CIA terrorists, euthanised, or simply left behind when Jesus, or Sun Myung Moon, finally comes.

With no fond memories or illusions of any real loss whatsoever. With all patriotic tendencies as thoroughly deceased as the countless Iraqi victims of the spreading of “freedom and democracy”. With the foundations of my trust for authority as wobbly as WTC Building 7. With all community affectations rendered ineffective and foreclosed. With not even a hint of a faith-based initiative. With no demand for a raise in wages. No care for a tax break. With no pleas for food stamp allotment increases or cost of living adjustments. Having no part to play in the stimulus program. With no expectations of receiving medical assistance from any of the greedy, incompetent, indifferent, upper-class medical professionals in this sanctimonious society of hustlers and pickle vendors. With no hopes of a secure, comfortable, contented, or full life. With no care for how my body is disposed of when I am relieved of the need for it. Not giving a shit who inherits my earthly belongings, if any shall somehow remain in my possession at the time of my demise or abduction.

Having no desire to profit from such an aggressively militant, murderous, deceptive, oligarchical, purified, religiously confused, environmentally rapacious culture. With no inclination to consume slave made wares, to eat toxic or genetically modified corporate American food or to interact socially with a generally lost and misguided society of hopelessly hypnotized consumer slaves or their xenophobic sycophantic superiors — preferring to be alone unto myself.

Knowing full well that I may be trampled in the cardboard box that I may be living in when the banks finally fail, the grocery trucks run out of gas, the plug gets pulled from the hologram, the shit hits the fan,and the urban masses stampedes towards the countryside in search of the farmers’ chickens or things to steal to trade for a rat-meat sandwich or a new tattoo, do hereby OPT OUT OF THE AMERICAN DREAM, goodbye and good riddance.

Source

Iraqis of Mosul speak of suffering

Five years of war have taken their toll on the Iraqi city of Mosul, where people live in fear, many without jobs, electricity or a reliable supply of water.

Engineer Ashwak al-Jaaf lost her husband and the eldest of her six children when unknown assailants killed them following the invasion, writing over their bodies that the pair had been members of Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath regime.

“I fled to Syria for two years,” said Mrs Jaaf, aged 50.

“When I returned I found that everything had been stolen, even my car. Life is very bad now, dangerous and there are no basic services. This is what happens if you leave a country without a strong leader.”

In certain parts of Mosul, whole roads are lined with mounds of rubble, the remains of a building destroyed by an American hellfire missile or a car bomb.

Sewage runs in the street and the graffiti on walls advertises house after house up for sale.

Mrs Jaaf said that she too would leave again if she had the resources.

“Before the war, life was perfect. My husband was a manager at the Ministry of Oil and we felt very well protected. I am unable to believe that the situation can ever be restored,” she said, blaming the US military for instigating the chaos.

“They destroyed our country and caused many people to be killed because they wanted to oust Saddam and take Iraq’s oil,” she said.

American commanders are working alongside the Iraqi army and the police to stop extremist groups, such as al-Qaeda, from operating in Mosul. Militants, opposed to the US military and US-backed Iraqi Government, have conducted a campaign of killing and intimidation in the city since 2004.

But some local people fear both sides of the fight in equal measure.

Read all of it here.

Today, March 8, KOOP Radio celebrates International Women’s Day both with women-oriented programming throughout its broadcast day, beginning at nine in the morning, and with a celebration at Mother Egan’s Irish Pub, beginning at eight in the evening.

Saturday night’s event at Mother Egan’s includes musical guests Megan Tubb, Larissa Ness, and Fine Fifteen; local activist Marguerite Jones; Vagina Monologues organizer Sascha Tunney; Circle of Health representatives; and other community groups.

You may visit the KOOP Website to see the full list of sponsors, which, among the many, include the KOOP programs “The Radical Mother’s Voice,” hosted by Sarah Fusco and Laura Shook (Wednesdays at 1:30 pm); and “Issues for YourTissues,” hosted by Katie Vitale (Wednesdays at 2:00 pm), not to mention CodePink Austin! Suggested donation at the KOOP Radio event at Mother Egan’s is five dollars. Mother Egan’s Irish Pub is located at 715 W. 6thSt.

Allan Campbell / KO-OP Fm / The Rag Blog

International Women’s Day March on Hutto Detention Center in Taylor Texas.

Adrienne Evans / The Rag Blog

To read all about the Hutto Family Detention and the efforts to close it on The Rag Blog, go here.

Have you seen these people?

The 1953 CIA Coup in Iran and the Roots of Middle East Terror

Democracy Now Interview With New York Times foreign correspondent Stephen Kinzer, author of All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror.

I think the National Intelligence Estimate might have perversely made the attack (On Iran) more likely.

AMY GOODMAN: From Gaza, we turn now to Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iraq Sunday for a historic meeting with Iraqi leaders, first visit to Iraq by an Iranian president since the Iran-Iraq conflict of the ’80s. At a news conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad, Ahmadinejad said his visit would open a new era in Iraq-Iran ties. He also rejected US allegations his government is interfering in Iraq’s affairs.

PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] We want to tell Mr. Bush that accusing others will increase the problems of America in the region and will not solve them. The Americans have to accept the region as it is. The Iraqi people do not like America.

AMY GOODMAN: Earlier, Ahmadinejad had made light of US allegations, saying, “Is it not funny that those with 160,000 forces in Iraq accuse us of interference?”

While Ahmadinejad’s visit could be a pivotal moment in improving Iran-Iraq ties, it’s also seen as a sign of the dwindling drumbeat for war coming from Washington. It’s been nearly three months since the release of a National Intelligence Estimate concluding Iran had shut down its nuclear weapons program years ago. The report was a major blow to Bush administration efforts to shore up support for a possible military strike on Iran.

Stephen Kinzer is the author of All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and The Roots of Middle East Terror. The book chronicles the CIA-backed 1953 overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government after Iran nationalized its oil industry. The aftershocks of the coup are still being felt. His book has just come out in paperback, and he’s traveling the country to warn against a US attack on Iran.

I sat down with him to talk about what is happening today in Iran.

STEPHEN KINZER: It’s more possible than you’d like to think. In a reality-based, fact-based policy environment in Washington, you’d think that the idea of attacking Iran would be off the agenda now. Not only is there no enthusiasm in the military for this, or even in the Defense Department civilian side, we’re very stretched in Iraq, obviously, and there doesn’t seem to be any public demand or urgency for it. In addition, we had this National Intelligence Estimate, which undercut what had been the principal argument for an attack, which was Iran is just about to develop a nuclear weapon and therefore we need a preemptive attack. Now, our sixteen intelligence agencies have issued this report saying, actually, no, they’re not developing a nuclear weapon nor have they been working on this project for at least five years. So, that also, you would think, would eliminate this possibility.

Unfortunately, though, I think the—first of all, the fact that the possibility is fading a little bit off the public agenda and public opinion is being kind of anaesthetized to this possibility increases the danger, because there doesn’t seem to be any public outcry or any outcry in Congress. Secondly, I think the National Intelligence Estimate might have perversely made the attack more likely in one sense. Before that estimate came out, the US’s policy was going to be: now we’re going to get the Security Council and the European Union to agree to really tight sanctions on Iran, because they’re about to develop a nuclear weapon. And we thought we were going to be able to do that because it was that urgent. But now, the reason why we said those sanctions were so urgent has been undercut by our own intelligence agency, so the sanctions option is more or less off the table. They’re not going to agree to sanctions now. And I think that might lead people in the White House to think, well, sanctions option isn’t there anymore; I guess bombing is the only option.

Here’s the nightmare argument that I could imagine being made inside the Oval Office. We had to suffer 9/11 because wimpy Clinton did not go over there and take care of that threat while it was gathering. There’s a threat gathering in Iran. It could be even more serious with millions killed in a nuclear bomb attack on the West. The next president won’t be able to carry out this drastic action for political reasons. But obeying the call of history, we’re going to realize we’ve got to take care of this threat before it grows out of hand.

I fear that some variation of this argument, particularly as the election approaches later this year, could lead us into a crazy adventure that’s not only going to set back the cause of democracy in Iran by a generation; strengthen the regime that we profess to detest; eliminate the entirely pro-American sentiment that now exists among the population of Iran; probably set off retaliation attacks by Iran on Israel and maybe states in the Persian Gulf; possibly result in the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran could do by just sinking a couple of tankers, and that’s 20 percent of the world’s oil right there; undoubtedly trigger a huge explosion of anti-American violence in Iraq, probably also in Afghanistan; and it would further destabilize Pakistan, which is already in upheaval. And I think throughout the Muslim world you’d see great upheaval.

So you can foresee all these negative effects, but based on what we now know about the long-term effects of the last time we intervened in 1953, I think I could predict one thing; despite all those negative effects, we could predict: history suggests that the worst long-term effects of this operation would be ones that nobody can now imagine. That’s the lesson we learned from the aftermath of 1953. And that’s why that story of 1953 is now so relevant again as we’re preparing possibly for another attack.

Read it here.

Latin American Crisis “Made In The USA”
By Bill Van Auken

07/03/08 “WSW” — – Nearly a week after Colombia’s cross-border raid against an encampment of the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) guerrilla movement in neighboring Ecuador, Latin America continues to confront its worst regional diplomatic and military crisis in decades. The US government and mass media have weighed in with unsolicited judgments and advice, attributing the tense standoff between Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela to the threat of terrorism to Colombia, the complicity in terrorism on the part of Venezuela and overheated animosities between the respective heads of state of these three countries.

State Department spokesman Tom Casey declared that “it’s important to recognize that the events that took place were, in fact, a response to the presence of terrorists.” Similarly, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino affirmed that Colombia “was defending itself against terrorism.”

This official reaction extends to Colombia—Washington’s principal client state in South America and the recipient of some $600 million annually in American military aid—the mantle of the Bush Doctrine, which holds that in the “global war on terrorism” such niceties as respect for sovereign borders and international law no longer apply.

The Washington Post went a step further, calling the March 1 raid a “remarkable success” and accusing Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa of “backing an armed movement with an established record of terrorism.” It compared the strike on the FARC camp to US air strikes against Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

[snip]

As for the air raid itself, Ecuador’s Defense Minister Wellington Sandoval reported the attack included the use of five “smart bombs” of the type utilized by the US military. “It is a bomb that hits within a meter of where it is programmed, from high velocity airplanes,” he said. He added that to target Reyes with such weapons, “they needed equipment that Latin American armed forces do not have.”

Both Washington and the right-wing regime in Colombia were determined to stop any further hostage releases in order to further efforts to politically isolate the Chavez regime and to enforce the Bush administration’s proscription against negotiations with “terrorists.”

At the same time, the bombs dropped on the FARC encampment were undoubtedly also meant as a message to Sarkozy not to meddle in Yankee imperialism’s “backyard.” It should be recalled that the French president, shortly after his election, sent his then-wife to Libya to consummate the release of six medical workers who had been held for eight years on false charges. This political coup managed to bypass the European Union, which had been negotiating the release, and paved the way for lucrative Libyan contracts for French corporations. Washington had no intention of seeing Paris pursue a similar path in relation to Venezuela, which constitutes the fourth largest source of US oil imports.

In the final analysis, this episode in the “global war on terrorism,” which has brought three South American nations to the brink of armed conflict, is the product of a filthy political murder carried out to defend the strategic and profit interests of US capitalism.

It is a reminder that “Murder, Inc.”—as the CIA became known during the 1960s and 1970s, when it organized numerous assassinations and assassination attempts, along with right-wing coups and dirty wars—is still very much in business in Latin America.

Source

$300 Million From Chavez To Farc A Fake: Here’s the written evidence
By Greg Palast

07/03/08 “ICH” — — Do you believe this?

This past weekend, Colombia invaded Ecuador, killed a guerrilla chief in the jungle, opened his laptop – and what did the Colombians find? A message to Hugo Chavez that he sent the FARC guerrillas $300 million – which they’re using to obtain uranium to make a dirty bomb!

That’s what George Bush tells us. And he got that from his buddy, the strange right-wing President of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe.

So: After the fact, Colombia justifies its attempt to provoke a border war as a way to stop the threat of WMDs! Uh, where have we heard that before?

The US press snorted up this line about Chavez’ $300 million to “terrorists” quicker than the young Bush inhaling Colombia’s powdered export.

What the US press did not do is look at the evidence, the email in the magic laptop. (Presumably, the FARC leader’s last words were, “Listen, my password is ….”)

I read them. (You can read them here.) While you can read it all in español, here is, in translation, the one and only mention of the alleged $300 million from Chavez:

“… With relation to the 300, which from now on we will call “dossier,” efforts are now going forward at the instructions of the boss to the cojo [slang term for ‘cripple’], which I will explain in a separate note. Let’s call the boss Ángel, and the cripple Ernesto.”

Got that? Where is Hugo? Where’s 300 million? And 300 what? Indeed, in context, the note is all about the hostage exchange with the FARC that Chavez was working on at the time (December 23, 2007) at the request of the Colombian government.

Indeed, the entire remainder of the email is all about the mechanism of the hostage exchange. Here’s the next line: “To receive the three freed ones, Chavez proposes three options: Plan A. Do it to via of a ‘humanitarian caravan’; one that will involve Venezuela, France, the Vatican[?], Switzerland, European Union, democrats [civil society], Argentina, Red Cross, etc.”

Read all of it here.

Uribe Learns that the Internet Makes Everyone’s Laptop Magic
By Borev

07/03/08 “Borev” — – What a relief! Latin America’s littlest strongman decided to “revise” his pledge bring Hugo Chavez up on charges of “genocide” and/or “terrorism” before the International Criminal Court. Venezuelan newspapers chalk it up to Uribe’s “democratic spirit,” but it probably had a bit more to do with “lawyers” and “dictionaries” and “a super dubious past.”

Anyway it got us thinking: What if the shoe were on the other foot? I mean, sure, back in the day Senator Uribe was considered to be one of the world’s top drug dealers, working for the Medellin cartel and being—how did U.S. intelligence put it?— “a close personal friend of Pablo Escobar.” But that was 1991, this is now, and surely we couldn’t hold a grudge going back to the early 90s (sorry just a little laptop humor!) Haha here at BoRev, we don’t need any miracle computer to tell you what a liberal democracy is made of. We’re kicking it analog after the jump.
For the record, Colombian paramilitaries are also listed as a terrorist group in the US and Europe. With that in mind, Uribe’s political allies alone make the FARC look like boy scouts. Por ejemplo:

>>> Fourteen of Uribe’s closest congressional allies remain behind bars for their terrorist links, and are slowly revealing where bodies have been dumped, leading to discovery of mass graves last spring.

>>> His foreign minister was forced to resign a year ago when her brother (a senator) was arrested for overseeing the killing of thousands of peasants. (Yeah that’s “thousands” with a “thu”)

>>> His campaign manager/secret police chief was jailed that same month for “giving a hit list of trade unionists and activists to paramilitaries, who then killed them.”

>>> His Army chief “collaborated extensively” with illegal death squads and, back in 2002, colluded in the massacre of 14 people for their supposed leftist politics.

>>> His police intelligence unit illegally wiretapped the phones of journalists and opposition figures for two years

>>> His Defense Minister “tried to plot with the outlawed private militias to upset the rule of a former president,” and

>>> In last fall’s elections, a whopping 30 major candidates turned up murdered.

And of course our little hero gags newspapers from reporting on corruption, jails journalists without trial, gave himself the power to rule by decree, overrides Supreme Court decisions by fiat, refers to human rights monitors as “political agitators in the service of terrorism,” and amended the Constitution to give himself a new term. But other than that he’s a goddamned democratic beacon.

Source