The Rag Blog

… you thought you had? Look fast, folks – they’re going, going, gone!

Bushies push NSA wiretap extravaganza: Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to hide
By Thomas C Greene in Dublin
Published Monday 20th November 2006 14:13 GMT

True freedom is protecting Americans by letting the NSA monitor their email and phone calls by the millions without a warrant, US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales explained to Air Force Academy cadets in a speech last week.

It’s a mistake to regard such Gestapo tactics as compromising freedom, he told the young officers in training. “This [antagonistic] view is shortsighted. Its definition of freedom – one utterly divorced from civic responsibility – is superficial and is itself a grave threat to the liberty and security of the American people”.

Only days earlier, vice president Dick Cheney had denounced an August court decision in Michigan that found the NSA wiretap program unconstitutional as “an indefensible act of judicial overreaching”.

It should surprise no one that the Bush administration is mounting a PR campaign to sell its illegal mass wiretap program, even though it’s hardly a hot news item at the moment (the Michigan decision is being appealed). The sales job is directed toward the lame duck Republican Congress, in hopes of having the domestic spying program legalised after the fact, before Democrats take control of the Hill.

As recently as February 2006, Cheney had sought to put a lid on public debate and news coverage of the illegal operation: “The biggest problem we’ve got right now, frankly…is all the public discussion about it. I think we have in fact probably done serious damage to our long-term capabilities in this area because it was printed first in the New York Times, and subsequently because there have been succeeding stories about it.”

But now he and Gonzales are reviving the debate, because this is the administration’s last chance to get the legislation it needs to avoid an embarrassing confrontation with Congress, that will, at a minimum, involve long, tortuous public hearings.

Back in February, Cheney confidently dismissed critics by declaring: “We believe…that we have all the legal authority we need.”

But Gonzales has softened this imperious message in light of the public’s recent vote of absolutely no confidence. The new spin goes like this: “We believe the president has the authority under the authorisation of military force and the inherent authority of the Constitution to engage in this sort of program, but we want to supplement that authority,” Gonzales explained.

Read the rest of it here.

Bush, Allies, Forced to Recant Mid-East Policies, Wear “Shame-rags”

US President George Bush, forced to recant and apologize for his illegal invasion of Iraq in Vietnam on Sunday, here wears the “cloak of shame” historically worn in Vietnam by prisoners awaiting execution by the French.

HANOI, VIETNAM. Sunday, November 19, 2006

Surrounded by angry Vietnamese in Hanoi on Sunday, US President George W. Bush was forced to recant his reasons for and initiation of the US war in Iraq. The protesting Vietnamese, many of whom had lost loved ones in the US war against Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s, said they were angry with Bush’s statement several days earlier that the “lesson of the Vietnam war is that we will win in Iraq if we don’t quit,” according to several people in the crowd.

Shouting slogans, including “American imperialism will die in Iraq” and “Would twenty years instead of ten have done it?”, the angry crowd quickly produced replicas of the “cloak of shame” historically worn by Vietnamese resistance fighters awaiting execution by the French during Vietnam’s war of liberation against French colonialism, and forced Bush and heads of state accompanying him to don them as a condition of release.

On the cloaks, an upright and an inverted “V” can be seen superimposed on the lion that symbolized the French empire, and the lion is supine.

“Like the French lion, the American eagle sometimes wanders too far from home in search of prey, and pays too great a cost for such adventure,” said an elderly man in the crowd.

Bush had briefly resisted wearing the garment, but when a spokesperson for the workers revealed that the protesters were all workers at a local Sony contract plant responsible for assembling the new Sony PlayStation III and threatened to withhold shipments of the popular toy until after Christmas, dropping US holiday-season retail sales markedly, Bush capitulated, and agreed to blackmail his companion heads of state into donning the robes as well.

At upper left, Bush propositions Russian leader Vladimir Putin, while new Canadian PM Stephen Harper attempts to expose himself to President Michelle Bachelet of Chile, whose only response, according to a TV cameraman’s microphone digital tape of the encounter, was this: “Stephen, I’m not frightened by that tiny ‘chile pequin,’ but I’m looking directly into your right ear, and seeing only a hollow tunnel and the trees to your immediate left. It’s the same with Bush — why is that?”

After several uneasy moments, Vietnamese security police arrived and rescued the group.

Bush and the others were released unharmed shortly thereafter, although new conservative Canadian PM Harper was taken away briefly “for a talk about how to conduct himself while in Asia,” according to a police spokeswoman.

Paul Crassnerd

This quote from John Bowman should serve to remind us all that the same forces which spied on us and harassed us in the ’60’s are still in power and would still like to see us all in Hell. Mariann Wizard

The same people who tried to kill me in 1973 are the same people who are here today, trying to destroy me. I mean it literally. I mean there were people from the forces of the San Francisco Police Department who participated in harassment, torture and my interrogation in 1973 … none of these people have ever been brought to trial. None of these people have ever been charged with anything. None of these people have ever been questioned about that. — John Bowman, former Black Panther

In 2005 several former members of the Black Panther were held in contempt and jailed for refusing to testify before a San Francisco Grand Jury investigating a police shooting that took place in 1971. The government alleged that Black radical groups were involved in the 34-year old case in which two men armed with shotguns attacked the Ingleside Police Station resulting in the death of a police sergeant and the injuring of a civilian clerk.

In 1973, thirteen alleged “Black militants” were arrested in New Orleans, purportedly in connection with the San Francisco events. Some of them were tortured for several days by law enforcement authorities, in striking similarity to the horrors visited upon detainees in Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib.

In 1975, a Federal Court in San Francisco threw out all of the evidence obtained in New Orleans.

The two lead San Francisco Police Department investigators from over 30 years ago, along with FBI agents, have re-opened the case. Rather than submit to proceedings they felt were abusive of the law and the Constitution, five men chose to stand in contempt of court and were sent to jail. They were released when the Grand Jury term expired, but have been told by prosecutors that “it isn’t over yet.”

For more information contact:
Committee for Defense of Human Rights (CDHR)
PO Box 90221
Pasadena, CA 91109

Or you can click here to find out much more information about the group and to order the DVD of “Legacy of Torture: The War Against The Black Liberation Movement.”

Although many, many people have heard of and seen “Fahrenheit 911,” few have noticed this hour-long piece about the Bush family. Kick back with all your favourite movie watching snacks and learn everything you always wanted to know about the nastiness that is family Bush.

Here’s what is posted on Google about it: This hour long documentary follows the award-winning reporter-sleuth Greg Palast on the trail of the Bush family, from Florida election finagling, to the Saudi connection, to the Bush team’s spiking the FBI investigation of the bin Laden family and the secret State Department plans for post-war Iraq.

These are the hard-hitting reports that have been seen in films like Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, broadcast internationally on BBC Newsnight television, and are found in Palast’s international bestselling book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.

Bush Family Fortunes (2003)

The eyes of Texas were upon 60s radicals
11/18/2006 3:51 PM
By: News 8 Austin Staff

Thorne Dreyer
The 1960s were a turbulent time in America. Protests against authority and the Vietnam War spilled over onto college campuses, including the University of Texas.

Some newly discovered documents shed light on the surveillance efforts of campus police during that time. UT police chief Allen Hamilton kept detailed records of underground movements. The documents were discovered upon his death last year.

Thorne Dreyer wrote an article for the Texas Observer called “The Spies of Texas.” [See our post of two days ago, which links to the Observer article.]

News 8 Austin’s Todd Boatwright spoke with Dreyer about his article.

Q: You’ve written a very interesting article in the Texas Observer. Take us back to what that is and how you discovered these files.

A: First off, I was involved back in the 60s. I was an underground newspaper editor, and I’m in these files. What happened was, these are the files of former UT police chief Allen Hamilton. When he died, his son found these boxes in his office and sold them to Half Price Books. Most of [the files] were about Charles Whitman [the 1966 UT Tower sniper.] Half Price Books realized it was something special and donated them to the library. But they gave us access to them first because they thought [the files] should be made public. So I wrote a story for the Texas Observer and now we’ve got all these files online.

Read a snip of the interview or see a video of the entire interview here.

Falling In Line on Israel
by Stephen Zunes

The election of a Democratic majority in the House and Senate is unlikely to result in any serious challenge to the Bush administration’s support for Israeli attacks against the civilian populations of its Arab neighbors and the Israeli government’s ongoing violations of international humanitarian law.

The principal Democratic Party spokesmen on foreign policy will likely be Tom Lantos in the House of Representatives and Joe Biden in the Senate, both of whom have been longstanding and outspoken supporters of a series of right-wing Israeli governments and opponents of the Israeli peace movement. And, despite claims—even within the progressive press—that future House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a “consistent supporter of human rights,” such humanitarian concerns have never applied to Arabs, since she is a staunch defender of right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his predecessor Ariel Sharon.

For example, when President George W. Bush defended Israel’s assaults on Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure this summer and defied the international community by initially blocking United Nations efforts to impose a cease-fire, the Democrats rushed to pass a resolution commending him for “fully supporting Israel .” The resolution, co-authored by Rep. Lantos, claimed that Israel’s actions were legitimate self-defense under the UN Charter and challenged the credibility of reputable human rights groups. Although groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch documented widespread attacks by Israeli forces against civilians in areas far from any Hezbollah military activity, the resolution praised “Israel’s longstanding commitment to minimizing civilian loss and welcom[ed] Israel’s continued efforts to prevent civilian casualties.” All but 15 of the House’s 201 Democrats voted in support.

Similarly, the Democrats echoed President Bush’s support for Israel’s 2002 offensive in the West Bank in another resolution co-authored by Lantos. In response to Amnesty International’s observation that the massive assault appeared to be aimed at the Palestinian population as a whole, all but two dozen Democrats went on record supporting the devastating Israeli offensive and claiming that it was “aimed solely at the terrorist infrastructure.”

Read the rest here.

Charlie ain’t gonna get what he thinks he will from doing this. And I have a difficult time with the argument that politicians won’t favour war if they think their children will have to fight. When we own up to the fact that it’s about the money, we may see some realism in Washington. Richard Jehn

Congressman Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft
By JOHN HEILPRIN, AP

WASHINGTON (Nov. 19) – Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.

“There’s no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way,” Rangel said.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.

Read it here.

IF YOU ARE AGAINST THE WAR, TAKE THIS QUIZ
By Danny Schechter
Nov 19, 2006, 09:22

New York, New York: Ok, class. No talking. Pencils up. All eyes on the exam. Here’s the first multiple-choice question:

The Iraq War is Bad Because:

1. It is illegal, immoral, and criminal
2. It has ended up killing and maiming millions of Iraqis we promised to free
3. It has devastated a country and ignited world opinion against the United States and caused thousands of US casualties
4. It has debased our media and turned much of it into a propaganda organ
5. It was badly managed and poorly executed

And that’s where we begin to disagree with what young Schechter says. Although each of a through e are true (well, except d – the media was already a piece of flaming garbage before 19 March 2003), it’s beside the point saying anything but the Iraq war is illegal, immoral and criminal. But now let’s get on with holding those responsible to account for the breaking of numerous international laws. Let’s get on with opening the Nuremburg Tribunal once again so that we can bring the Amerikan criminals to the dock where they belong. And let’s get on with turning off our televisions, ceasing to purchase propaganda sold as news in the US, and face reality and the truth. Richard Jehn

Now on with Schechter’s article:

If you survey world opinion, there would be a consensus on selecting A-D as a response. If you polled most Democratic politicians and mainstream journalists, you would find overwhelming support ONLY for E-“the we screwed it up” thesis as the correct answer.

What was once hailed as a heroic mission is now being dismissed as a fiasco, error and “mistake,” and to some former war boosters, even a “noble mistake.”

In fact, that’s the view that seems to be framing what debate there has been on the war. It is still-AAU-All About Us. In this view, all that matters is our policy objectives but rarely our economic or geo-political agenda. Iraq as a nation, as a culture and a people barely exists.

Read the rest here.

Norman Solomon: The New Media Offensive for the Iraq War
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Thu, 11/16/2006 – 2:52pm. Guest Contribution
by Norman Solomon

The American media establishment has launched a major offensive against the option of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

In the latest media assault, right-wing outfits like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal editorial page are secondary. The heaviest firepower is now coming from the most valuable square inches of media real estate in the USA — the front page of the New York Times.

The present situation is grimly instructive for anyone who might wonder how the Vietnam War could continue for years while opinion polls showed that most Americans were against it. Now, in the wake of midterm elections widely seen as a rebuke to the Iraq war, powerful media institutions are feverishly spinning against a pullout of U.S. troops.

Under the headline “Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say,” the Nov. 15 front page of the New York Times prominently featured a “Military Analysis” by Michael Gordon. The piece reported that — while some congressional Democrats are saying withdrawal of U.S. troops “should begin within four to six months” — “this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.”

Reporter Gordon appeared hours later on Anderson Cooper’s CNN show, fully morphing into an unabashed pundit as he declared that withdrawal is “simply not realistic.” Sounding much like a Pentagon spokesman, Gordon went on to state in no uncertain terms that he opposes a pullout.

If a New York Times military-affairs reporter went on television to advocate for withdrawal of U.S. troops as unequivocally as Gordon advocated against any such withdrawal during his Nov. 15 appearance on CNN, he or she would be quickly reprimanded — and probably would be taken off the beat — by the Times hierarchy. But the paper’s news department eagerly fosters reporting that internalizes and promotes the basic worldviews of the country’s national security state.

Read the rest here.

I don’t know why I hear Judy Garland singing “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” and have a vision of many little people dressed in green …

Leahy Seeks Documents on Detention
Associated Press
Saturday, November 18, 2006; Page A07

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who will chair the Senate Judiciary Committee next year, asked the Justice Department to release two newly acknowledged documents, which set U.S. policy on how terrorism suspects are detained and interrogated.

The CIA recently acknowledged the existence of the documents in response to a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The first is a directive President Bush signed giving the CIA authority to establish detention facilities outside the United States and outlining interrogation methods that may be used against detainees.

The second is a 2002 memo from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel to the CIA’s general counsel regarding interrogation methods that the spy agency may use against al-Qaeda leaders.

“The American people deserve to have detailed and accurate information about the role of the Bush administration in developing the interrogation policies and practices that have engendered such deep criticism and concern at home and around the world,” Leahy wrote Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

Read the rest here.

Plea agreements puzzle experts
By Linda Deutsch and Thomas Watkins
Associated Press

CAMP PENDLETON – In the beginning, there were eight. A squad of seven Marines and a Navy corpsman charged with kidnapping and murdering an Iraqi man, a crime described by a prosecutor as especially brutal.

They faced military trials; the death penalty was possible.

And now there are four. In the six months the men have been held at the Camp Pendleton brig, the profile of the Al-Hamdaniyah cases has changed dramatically. The death penalty is off the table and four of the defendants have struck plea bargains.

Some observers of the military justice system find the developments mystifying.

Gary Solis, a former Marine Corps prosecutor and judge who teaches law of war at Georgetown University Law Center, said he was surprised by the number of plea agreements in this case.

“It’s a wonderment to me that it’s happening in the military system,” he said.

The group was accused of kidnapping 52-year-old Hashim Ibrahim Awad in the town of Al-Hamdaniyah, taking him to a roadside hole, shooting him and then trying to cover up the incident. According to court testimony, the service members planned to kidnap and kill a known insurgent, and when they couldn’t get to him, some members of the squad went into Awad’s home.

“They killed a 52-year-old crippled man in cold blood,” Lt. Col. John Baker, a prosecutor, said during a recent hearing. “They killed a retired police officer with 11 children and four grandchildren. Hashim Awad was a very forgiving and gentle man. He was precisely the kind of man” the Marines were sent to help.

Read the rest here.