By Richard L. Fricker
March 10, 2007
Canadian lawmakers have written an Afghanistan version of the Iraq Study Group report, reaching a conclusion that the conditions on that original battlefront in the “war on terror” are grave and deteriorating.
The 16-page Canadian Senate report, entitled “Taking a Hard Look at a Hard Mission,” foresees a conflict that could drag on for generations and might well fail unless NATO significantly increases its commitment of money and troops.
Read on.
Friday, March 09, 2007
'Axis of Evil' Report Card
By Ray McGovern
March 9, 2007
More than five years have passed since President Bush labeled Iraq, Iran and North Korea the ''axis of evil.'' It is imperative that we try to piece together what role U.S. intelligence played in supporting the ''axis'' idea and the misguided policies and actions that ensued.
For the ''axis of evil'' sobriquet morphed into axes for grinding by accomplices like then-CIA Director George Tenet, and the pandering was consequential. Here is the ''axis'' part of Bush's State of the Union address on Jan. 29, 2002:
``North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction. . . . Iran aggressively pursues these weapons. . . . The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. . . . States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil . . . posing a grave and growing danger. . . . I will not wait on events . . .''
Nor, apparently, wait on good intelligence, either.
Read on.
March 9, 2007
More than five years have passed since President Bush labeled Iraq, Iran and North Korea the ''axis of evil.'' It is imperative that we try to piece together what role U.S. intelligence played in supporting the ''axis'' idea and the misguided policies and actions that ensued.
For the ''axis of evil'' sobriquet morphed into axes for grinding by accomplices like then-CIA Director George Tenet, and the pandering was consequential. Here is the ''axis'' part of Bush's State of the Union address on Jan. 29, 2002:
``North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction. . . . Iran aggressively pursues these weapons. . . . The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. . . . States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil . . . posing a grave and growing danger. . . . I will not wait on events . . .''
Nor, apparently, wait on good intelligence, either.
Read on.
Killing U.S. Troops Slowly
By Michael O'McCarthy
March 9, 2007
Twenty-five years ago, March 14, 1981 Jim Hopkins, Marine veteran of Vietnam, born on the Marine Corps birthday of Nov. 10, drove his army Jeep through the glass doors and into the lobby of the multi-million dollar, showcase edifice of Wadsworth VA hospital, at Los Angeles, California. He did so to protest the gross, willfully negligent treatment given US veterans within the VA system, specifically, those veterans of the US war in Southeast Asia, aka, the Vietnam War.
He fired rounds from his AR 14 into the official pictures of then-President Ronald Reagan and ex-President Jimmy Carter. For emphasis he then fired his .45 caliber handgun and a shotgun screaming that he was not receiving the medical attention needed. Hauled from the hospital by law enforcement, he screamed into the cameras that his brain was "being destroyed by Agent Orange."
Read on.
March 9, 2007
Twenty-five years ago, March 14, 1981 Jim Hopkins, Marine veteran of Vietnam, born on the Marine Corps birthday of Nov. 10, drove his army Jeep through the glass doors and into the lobby of the multi-million dollar, showcase edifice of Wadsworth VA hospital, at Los Angeles, California. He did so to protest the gross, willfully negligent treatment given US veterans within the VA system, specifically, those veterans of the US war in Southeast Asia, aka, the Vietnam War.
He fired rounds from his AR 14 into the official pictures of then-President Ronald Reagan and ex-President Jimmy Carter. For emphasis he then fired his .45 caliber handgun and a shotgun screaming that he was not receiving the medical attention needed. Hauled from the hospital by law enforcement, he screamed into the cameras that his brain was "being destroyed by Agent Orange."
Read on.
Facing Protest, Bush Attempts to Salvage U.S. Influence in Latin America
As has become expected whenever George W. Bush goes abroad, cities across Latin America are erupting in protest in response to his tour of the region. In Sao Paolo yesterday, an estimated 35,000 took to the streets and were met with tear gas by state security forces.
As the Associated Press reported today,
Below is some footage of the protest from Youtube.
The stated purpose of Bush’s tour is to “remind people that we care,” as Bush said in an interview Wednesday with CNN En Español. The president went on to say that he worries “about the fact that some say, ‘Well, the United States hasn’t paid enough attention to us,’ or ‘The United States really isn't anything more than worried about terrorism.’ And when, in fact, the record has been a strong record.”
The notion, however, that Bush can bolster the U.S. image by paying a visit to the region is rather laughable, considering how incredibly unpopular he is –- approximately 85% of Latin Americans disapprove of the president and particularly his war policy in Iraq. And with the history of U.S. intervention in the hemisphere, not to mention its imposition of neoliberal economic policies through its influence over the IMF and World Bank, it’s hard to believe that many Latin Americans are concerned that the United States “hasn’t paid enough attention” to the region.
Indeed, in recent years, Latin American politicians who have explicitly rejected the “Washington Consensus” on economic policy have done exceptionally well, with left-leaning populists winning elections in Venezuela, Bolivia, and most recently, in Nicaragua.
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs suggests that the trip has several unstated ulterior motives.
“The President is taking the trip at this juncture for a number of pressing, if not particularly strategic reasons,” the Council says.
WSWS also highlights the economic motivation of the trip. Bush will “meet with Brazil’s President Luis Ignacio Lula da Silva on the morning of March 9,” WSWS notes, “when the two will visit the Transpetro terminal in Guarulhos, a town outside of the industrial and financial center of São Paulo.”
Regardless of the ultimate goals of his trip however, there’s a good chance Bush will be surprised by the level of resistance to his agenda, both in the streets and in the offices of Latin American leaders that he visits. U.S. influence in the region is steadily eroding, as exemplified by the rising popularity of populists like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia. His visit might best be seen as a last-ditch attempt to salvage what is left of the Monroe Doctrine, or America’s historical influence over what it has long considered its “backyard.”
As the Associated Press reported today,
students, environmentalists and left-leaning Brazilians held a largely peaceful march through the heart of Sao Paulo before police fired tear gas at protesters and beat them with batons. Hundreds fled and ducked into businesses to avoid the chaos, some of them bloodied.
Authorities did not say how many people had been injured, but Brazilian media said at least 18 people were hurt and news photographs showed injured people being carried away.
Protesters said scuffles broke out when some radical demonstrators provoked officers and threw rocks and sticks at them -- but said police overreacted. A police officer who declined to give his name in keeping with department policy confirmed that extremists appeared to cause the confrontations.
Below is some footage of the protest from Youtube.
The stated purpose of Bush’s tour is to “remind people that we care,” as Bush said in an interview Wednesday with CNN En Español. The president went on to say that he worries “about the fact that some say, ‘Well, the United States hasn’t paid enough attention to us,’ or ‘The United States really isn't anything more than worried about terrorism.’ And when, in fact, the record has been a strong record.”
The notion, however, that Bush can bolster the U.S. image by paying a visit to the region is rather laughable, considering how incredibly unpopular he is –- approximately 85% of Latin Americans disapprove of the president and particularly his war policy in Iraq. And with the history of U.S. intervention in the hemisphere, not to mention its imposition of neoliberal economic policies through its influence over the IMF and World Bank, it’s hard to believe that many Latin Americans are concerned that the United States “hasn’t paid enough attention” to the region.
Indeed, in recent years, Latin American politicians who have explicitly rejected the “Washington Consensus” on economic policy have done exceptionally well, with left-leaning populists winning elections in Venezuela, Bolivia, and most recently, in Nicaragua.
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs suggests that the trip has several unstated ulterior motives.
“The President is taking the trip at this juncture for a number of pressing, if not particularly strategic reasons,” the Council says.
For starters, with his public approval rating dancing just above thirty percent and the political climate on capital hill [sic] becoming increasingly more chilly to his administration, Bush could—conceivably—naively view his southern visit as a diversion from White House pressures being generated by the Iraq war. Regardless of Bush’s preconceived notion of how he will be received in Latin America, and his awesome capacity for denial, the demonstrably, poorly-informed president will undoubtedly be shocked by the angry anti-Bush demonstrations likely to occur in some of countries which he will be visiting. Bush and his White House handlers have become painfully aware that he is running out of time for substantive initiatives in Latin America to be conjured up, sent to Congress and then implemented. There may be just too much of a handicap to engage in much heavy lifting in order to rehabilitate his administration’s flawed reputation when it comes to inter-American affairs. This trip is a reflection of a frantic attempt to save a foundering Latin American foreign policy and the subsequent reputation which history may not treat all that kindly.In particular, “Bush hopes to sign trade agreements and other economic measures before his window of opportunity for fast track policy expires on June 30, when the trade decision-making authority will then revert to Congress.”
WSWS also highlights the economic motivation of the trip. Bush will “meet with Brazil’s President Luis Ignacio Lula da Silva on the morning of March 9,” WSWS notes, “when the two will visit the Transpetro terminal in Guarulhos, a town outside of the industrial and financial center of São Paulo.”
This bit of presidential tourism is no accident. Transpetro is the largest shipping company in Latin America and Brazil’s main logistical organizer in the transport of fuel, a central theme of the agenda set by Bush and Lula for this visit. A subsidiary of Petrobrás, Brazil’s national oil company, Transpetro handles the transport and storage of petroleum and its derivatives as well as of alcohol and natural gas, operating a fleet of 51 ships, a network consisting of 10,000 kilometers of pipeline and 44 land and water terminals.
Bush’s visit to Brazil, which will be reciprocated with a trip by Lula to Camp David at the end of the month, is expected to put the seal on a plan for a gigantic expansion in the world production of ethanol fuel, based on sugarcane, a technology that is clearly dominated by Brazil. Bush’s visit, thus, could be the beginning of a true revolution in the production of renewable biofuel. Biofuel production has been developing for some time in a number of countries, utilizing wood, animal fat, soybeans, corn and other raw materials.
Regardless of the ultimate goals of his trip however, there’s a good chance Bush will be surprised by the level of resistance to his agenda, both in the streets and in the offices of Latin American leaders that he visits. U.S. influence in the region is steadily eroding, as exemplified by the rising popularity of populists like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia. His visit might best be seen as a last-ditch attempt to salvage what is left of the Monroe Doctrine, or America’s historical influence over what it has long considered its “backyard.”
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Why Cheney Lashed Out at Wilson
By Ray McGovern
March 8, 2007
Testimony at the Libby trial showed a Vice President obsessed with retaliating against former ambassador Joseph Wilson for writing, in the New York Times op-ed section on July 6, 2003, that intelligence had been "twisted" to justify attacking Iraq. How to explain why the normally stoic, phlegmatic Cheney went off the deep end?
Vice President Dick Cheney can be forgiven for feeling provoked. The Times, having been led by Cheney and others down a garden path littered with weapons of mass destruction that were not really there, did some retaliation of its own with the snide title it gave Wilson's op-ed: "What I Did Not Find in Africa."
Read on.
March 8, 2007
Testimony at the Libby trial showed a Vice President obsessed with retaliating against former ambassador Joseph Wilson for writing, in the New York Times op-ed section on July 6, 2003, that intelligence had been "twisted" to justify attacking Iraq. How to explain why the normally stoic, phlegmatic Cheney went off the deep end?
Vice President Dick Cheney can be forgiven for feeling provoked. The Times, having been led by Cheney and others down a garden path littered with weapons of mass destruction that were not really there, did some retaliation of its own with the snide title it gave Wilson's op-ed: "What I Did Not Find in Africa."
Read on.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Time to Admit Defeat in Iraq?
By Ivan Eland
March 8, 2007
The bulk of expert opinion predicts that the Bush administration’s escalation strategy in Iraq will fail. The void created by the administration’s lack of a back–up plan for that outcome has been filled with proposals from pundits, academics, and think–tank analysts, who recommend containing Iraq’s civil war.
Most of these analysts suggest removing U.S. troops from harm’s way, pulling them back from major Iraqi population centers and moving them to outlying areas safer from the raging civil war—for example, the Iraqi borders, more remote regions of Iraq, or neighboring countries—while using those forces to try to prevent the civil conflict from turning into a regional war.
Read on.
March 8, 2007
The bulk of expert opinion predicts that the Bush administration’s escalation strategy in Iraq will fail. The void created by the administration’s lack of a back–up plan for that outcome has been filled with proposals from pundits, academics, and think–tank analysts, who recommend containing Iraq’s civil war.
Most of these analysts suggest removing U.S. troops from harm’s way, pulling them back from major Iraqi population centers and moving them to outlying areas safer from the raging civil war—for example, the Iraqi borders, more remote regions of Iraq, or neighboring countries—while using those forces to try to prevent the civil conflict from turning into a regional war.
Read on.
WPost Editorial Fantasyland
By Robert Parry
March 8, 2007
Fred Hiatt’s Washington Post editorial page and George W. Bush’s presidency have a lot in common – most notably an arrogance of power so extreme that they believe their very words can alter reality.
With Bush, that record has been well established, from asserting that Saddam Hussein never let the U.N. inspectors in to hyping progress in the Iraq War. But editorial page editor Hiatt – in league with Post publisher Donald Graham – is not far behind.
Read on.
March 8, 2007
Fred Hiatt’s Washington Post editorial page and George W. Bush’s presidency have a lot in common – most notably an arrogance of power so extreme that they believe their very words can alter reality.
With Bush, that record has been well established, from asserting that Saddam Hussein never let the U.N. inspectors in to hyping progress in the Iraq War. But editorial page editor Hiatt – in league with Post publisher Donald Graham – is not far behind.
Read on.
Zeroing in on Cheney-Bush
By Robert Parry
March 7, 2007
Criminal trials – especially relating to national security scandals – are an imperfect way of learning the larger truth. As with the four-count conviction of former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the charges are often structured narrowly to avoid long battles over classified secrets or inherent presidential powers.
But even limited trials can offer important glimpses into the inner workings of an administration, especially one as secretive as George W. Bush’s. Though Libby was convicted only on perjury and obstruction charges, there should be little doubt what the full picture looks like.
Read on.
March 7, 2007
Criminal trials – especially relating to national security scandals – are an imperfect way of learning the larger truth. As with the four-count conviction of former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the charges are often structured narrowly to avoid long battles over classified secrets or inherent presidential powers.
But even limited trials can offer important glimpses into the inner workings of an administration, especially one as secretive as George W. Bush’s. Though Libby was convicted only on perjury and obstruction charges, there should be little doubt what the full picture looks like.
Read on.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Reagan-Bush Drug Legacy in CentAm
By Robert Parry
March 6, 2007
Two grisly mass executions in Guatemala – one involving three Salvadoran legislators and the second the four policemen who confessed to killing them – suggest that the Reagan era’s ideological tolerance of right-wing drug traffickers remains a corrupting legacy in the region.
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush saw Central America as a Cold War battleground and thus downplayed evidence that right-wing paramilitary operatives in El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Guatemala and the Nicaraguan contra movement were deeply implicated in cocaine trafficking.
Read on.
March 6, 2007
Two grisly mass executions in Guatemala – one involving three Salvadoran legislators and the second the four policemen who confessed to killing them – suggest that the Reagan era’s ideological tolerance of right-wing drug traffickers remains a corrupting legacy in the region.
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush saw Central America as a Cold War battleground and thus downplayed evidence that right-wing paramilitary operatives in El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Guatemala and the Nicaraguan contra movement were deeply implicated in cocaine trafficking.
Read on.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Reader Commentaries
March 5, 2007
Readers comment on the right of U.S. soldiers to debate the Iraq War, on the disgraceful mistreatment of wounded veterans, on the news media's long-time abuse of Al Gore, on the prospects for a U.S. attack on Iran, and on the Japanese government's refusal to accept blame for the World War II sexual exploitation of women in occupied countries.
Read on.
Readers comment on the right of U.S. soldiers to debate the Iraq War, on the disgraceful mistreatment of wounded veterans, on the news media's long-time abuse of Al Gore, on the prospects for a U.S. attack on Iran, and on the Japanese government's refusal to accept blame for the World War II sexual exploitation of women in occupied countries.
Read on.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Bush Family's Prosecutor Games
By Robert Parry
March 4, 2007
George W. Bush learned at least one lesson from his father: You want your federal prosecutors to be team players who will throw a political elbow or two when the White House needs some help.
When George H.W. Bush faced a tough reelection battle in 1992, his administration tried to destroy Bill Clinton by implicating him in criminal investigations. But those plans collapsed when federal law enforcement officials, including a U.S. Attorney in Arkansas, resisted what they saw as improper White House political pressure.
Read on.
March 4, 2007
George W. Bush learned at least one lesson from his father: You want your federal prosecutors to be team players who will throw a political elbow or two when the White House needs some help.
When George H.W. Bush faced a tough reelection battle in 1992, his administration tried to destroy Bill Clinton by implicating him in criminal investigations. But those plans collapsed when federal law enforcement officials, including a U.S. Attorney in Arkansas, resisted what they saw as improper White House political pressure.
Read on.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
The Big, Unanswered Iran Question
By Ray McGovern
March 2, 2007
Iran: How far from the Bomb?
That was one of the key questions asked of newly confirmed Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell at a Senate Armed Forces Committee hearing on Tuesday.
Why had McConnell avoided this front-burner issue in his prepared remarks? Because an honest answer would have been: “Beats the hell out of us. Despite the billions that American taxpayers have sunk into improving U.S. intelligence, we can only guess.”
Read on.
March 2, 2007
Iran: How far from the Bomb?
That was one of the key questions asked of newly confirmed Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell at a Senate Armed Forces Committee hearing on Tuesday.
Why had McConnell avoided this front-burner issue in his prepared remarks? Because an honest answer would have been: “Beats the hell out of us. Despite the billions that American taxpayers have sunk into improving U.S. intelligence, we can only guess.”
Read on.
Is It High Treason Or Just A Simple Case Of Dereliction Of Duty?
One of our readers, Maher Osseiran, has brought one of his recent articles to our attention, and we feel its worth sharing with others. At the Lone Star Iconoclast, Osseiran writes,
Read on.
It really is astounding (or perhaps that's an understatement) that the one man that should have been brought to justice for the murder of 3,000 American citizens is still on the loose. Instead of focusing on capturing the alleged mastermind of 9/11, George W. Bush essentially declared war on the world (or at least those who are deemed not "with us" in the "war on terror") and threw international law out the window. The US adopted a new policy of torture, "extraordinary rendition," and set up a network of secret prisons around the world.
Beyond that, we invaded Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and unleashed an unprecedented level of chaos in the Middle East. The absurdity of this policy is only now coming fully into light. As Sy Hersh reports in his recent New Yorker piece, the US is now (indirectly) funneling money to Sunni groups that have ties to al Qaeda, in order to counter the growing Shiite influence that the US enabled by overthrowing the government of Saddam Hussein.
The policy has truly come full circle, and meanwhile the man allegedly responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans is still unaccounted for.
I was living in Denmark on 9/11, and I remember a few days after the attack, I had a conversation with a Muslim immigrant. I mentioned how I don't want to see the US go to war, but how I really wanted to see bin Laden brought to justice. In a thick Arabic accent, the man said, "Let me tell you something! You will never ever catch bin Laden. Bush does not want to catch bin Laden, because you need bin Laden to justify your wars!"
I think he may have been on to something.
On Dec. 13, 2001, the Pentagon released a tape of Bin Laden in which he confessed to his visitor, Khaled Al-Harbi, of prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
The tape was billed as the smoking gun that proves Bin Laden’s guilt and in order to remove all suspicion of fowl play; the Pentagon released the tape in its entirety.
If Bin Laden, through his own words, implicated himself in the planning of the 9/11 operations that took 3,000 innocent lives, the rest of the tape, which is a Bin Laden family home video of a downed Special Forces helicopter, implicates the Bush administration in a premeditated act that resulted in the loss of thousands of innocent lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other corners of the world. ...
The Bush administration was the closest ever to Bin Laden and could have captured him on Sept. 26, 2001, the date of the taping; intelligence operatives were feet from him, had four days advance notice of the date of the meeting, 24 hours advance notice of the exact location, and knew that Bin Laden would be there for at least three hours if not longer since his family and his favorite son Hamza lived in that village and Bin Laden was very likely to stay overnight.
Read on.
It really is astounding (or perhaps that's an understatement) that the one man that should have been brought to justice for the murder of 3,000 American citizens is still on the loose. Instead of focusing on capturing the alleged mastermind of 9/11, George W. Bush essentially declared war on the world (or at least those who are deemed not "with us" in the "war on terror") and threw international law out the window. The US adopted a new policy of torture, "extraordinary rendition," and set up a network of secret prisons around the world.
Beyond that, we invaded Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and unleashed an unprecedented level of chaos in the Middle East. The absurdity of this policy is only now coming fully into light. As Sy Hersh reports in his recent New Yorker piece, the US is now (indirectly) funneling money to Sunni groups that have ties to al Qaeda, in order to counter the growing Shiite influence that the US enabled by overthrowing the government of Saddam Hussein.
The policy has truly come full circle, and meanwhile the man allegedly responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans is still unaccounted for.
I was living in Denmark on 9/11, and I remember a few days after the attack, I had a conversation with a Muslim immigrant. I mentioned how I don't want to see the US go to war, but how I really wanted to see bin Laden brought to justice. In a thick Arabic accent, the man said, "Let me tell you something! You will never ever catch bin Laden. Bush does not want to catch bin Laden, because you need bin Laden to justify your wars!"
I think he may have been on to something.
Does Cheney 'Validate' al-Qaeda?
By Robert Parry
March 1, 2007
Vice President Dick Cheney says he stands by his accusation that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s plan for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq would “validate the al-Qaeda strategy.” And he apparently thinks he got the better of this latest war of words.
However, if Pelosi ever goes beyond complaining that Cheney is impugning her “patriotism” – while Cheney counters that he is only questioning her “judgment” – she might point out that it is the Bush administration that has “validated” al-Qaeda’s 9/11 strategy over the past five years.
Read on.
March 1, 2007
Vice President Dick Cheney says he stands by his accusation that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s plan for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq would “validate the al-Qaeda strategy.” And he apparently thinks he got the better of this latest war of words.
However, if Pelosi ever goes beyond complaining that Cheney is impugning her “patriotism” – while Cheney counters that he is only questioning her “judgment” – she might point out that it is the Bush administration that has “validated” al-Qaeda’s 9/11 strategy over the past five years.
Read on.
Major Free Speech Victory in DC
On Sept. 27, 2002, over 600 people were arrested at Pershing Park in Washington, DC, and then were held over night in jail with their hands tied to their ankles. Those arrested were protesting the fall meetings of the IMF and World Bank, as well as threats of war against Iraq. As WSWS reported the next day,
A lawsuit was subsequently brought by the Partnership for Civil Justice, and in a major victory for the First Amendment, the city has now agreed to pay four of the plaintiffs $50,000 each and to expunge their arrest records. Perhaps more importantly for principles of free speech, the settlement also mandates that DC police must undergo training in crowd control – which will include new prohibitions on certain police tactics that have become common in recent years.
As an email sent out by the Partnership for Civil Justice on Wednesday explains,
There is also a class action lawsuit still pending for 400 others arrested that day.
Over 600 demonstrators were arrested Friday in Washington DC during the first day of protests against the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, which are holding their annual meetings beginning this Sunday in the nation’s capital. The local authorities, egged on by the Bush administration and backed by the media, effectively suspended constitutional rights for those seeking to express their opposition to globalization and to the impending US military attack on Iraq.
District of Columbia police chief Charles Ramsey mobilized an unprecedented number of cops, more than 3,000 in all, heavily outnumbering the nonviolent demonstrators. Of the 649 people reported arrested by early evening, only five were charged with destruction of property, while all the others were charged with parading without a permit or failing to obey police orders to disperse.
A lawsuit was subsequently brought by the Partnership for Civil Justice, and in a major victory for the First Amendment, the city has now agreed to pay four of the plaintiffs $50,000 each and to expunge their arrest records. Perhaps more importantly for principles of free speech, the settlement also mandates that DC police must undergo training in crowd control – which will include new prohibitions on certain police tactics that have become common in recent years.
As an email sent out by the Partnership for Civil Justice on Wednesday explains,
The settlement obligates the District of Columbia to provide, and document, training to all officers employed within the Special Operations Division, the specialized unit within the MPD which is assigned to protest activity. The training and documentation required to be provided to SOD officers will include warnings that no officer may arrest any protestor for parading or demonstrating without a permit, detailed descriptions of new restrictions on the use of police lines, new rules that prohibit the SOD from requiring protestors to have a permit and from sending protest organizers to other agencies for secondary permits (a tactic the SOD has routinely used to prevent or frustrate protest), as well as the rights of protestors to engage in free speech without unlawful police interference.
In order to ensure accountability and responsibility, each SOD officer must sign a written statement attesting that he or she has received written notice of the provisions of the First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act which sets forth restrictions and obligations upon the police in the context of free speech activities. The documentation will be required to be maintained at the SOD. The First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act was enacted by the D.C. Council in response to this and other cases detailing widespread violations of the constitutional rights of protestors in Washington, D.C.
There is also a class action lawsuit still pending for 400 others arrested that day.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Sy Hersh Discusses Iran Plans on 'Democracy Now'
Appearing on "Democracy Now" this morning, Seymour Hersh discussed details of his recent article the New Yorker magazine, in which he reports that the Bush administration has drawn up contingency plans to attack Iran. In addition, the article alleges that the administration, without Congressional approval, has been indirectly funneling money to Sunni groups that have ties to al Qaeda, in an effort to counter Hezbollah and undermine the influence of the Shiite Iranian government.
As Hersh explains in the interview,
Click here to watch or listen to the whole segment on "Democracy Now."
As Hersh explains in the interview,
In Lebanon, once Hariri fell and there was a crisis there, we immediately moved to support any group that was against Nasrallah and Hezbollah. And so, we’ve poured a lot of money, illicit money. It was not authorized by Congress. Money went pouring in there. Former retired CIA guys were put in there. Retired people went in there, other agencies. The funds came, nobody is quite sure where. There’s a lot of pools of black money around, a lot of money. Undoubtedly, some was, I’m told, came from Iraq. That is, as you know, there were hearings the other week that showed $9 billion in Iraqi oil money mysteriously disappeared and was unaccounted for. Some of that money was washed around. There was also a lot of money found after Saddam fell. We found several caches of huge amounts, you know, hundreds of millions, and billions of dollars in some cases, of cash. We also found money in various ministries. There’s no, really, accountability, and a lot of it could have ended up in black pools. It’s just not clear where the money came from, and it’s not supposed to be clear. What you do is you wash the money in. You get it to certain people. The government of Lebanon underwrites its internal security people.
And what we do know is, in the last few years, or less than that, the last year or so, three jihadist groups, three Sunni Salafi or Wahhabi -- these are the religious sects out of Saudi Arabia, and don’t forget, fifteen of the nineteen guys who went into the building in New York, the two towers, were Saudis and from the extreme religious -- they were jihadists from -- either Salafis or Wahhabis. And we know that the groups now -- there are three groups, similar in character -- according to reports I’ve read, some of the people in these groups were trained in Afghanistan, closely associated with al-Qaeda, not everybody. It’s a loose network. What you have around the world is these terror groups operating independently of Osama bin Laden, although it’s not clear they don’t have some ways of communicating. Through the web or what, we’re not sure. But these three groups, two years ago, we would have done everything we could in the United States to arrest them and sent them to Gitmo, Guantanamo, or some other place. Instead, we’re throwing money into the country, into the government, into the internal security apparatus, and the internal security facilities or mechanisms inside Lebanon are underwriting these groups. They, as soon as one group came across the border from Syria, were immediately giving material, a place to live, arms, and resupplied. There are three such groups that are operating.
Click here to watch or listen to the whole segment on "Democracy Now."
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
The Lost Mystery of 'Iraq-gate'
By Peter Dyer
February 28, 2007
Now that Saddam Hussein has been executed for the 1982 massacre at Dujail, the trial for a larger-scale slaughter involving poison gas in 1988 has all but disappeared from public view.
With Saddam’s death the opportunity for a full account of the tens of thousands of deaths in the so-called Anfal case appears to be lost, along with the opportunity for a frank public discussion of its historical context.
Read on.
February 28, 2007
Now that Saddam Hussein has been executed for the 1982 massacre at Dujail, the trial for a larger-scale slaughter involving poison gas in 1988 has all but disappeared from public view.
With Saddam’s death the opportunity for a full account of the tens of thousands of deaths in the so-called Anfal case appears to be lost, along with the opportunity for a frank public discussion of its historical context.
Read on.
Losing the War in Afghanistan
By Ivan Eland
February 28, 2007
While media attention has been focused on the U.S. quagmire in Iraq, an equally failed war in Afghanistan has received little coverage. As in countless militaristic U.S. nation–building fiascos, “mission creep” in Afghanistan is leading to another foreign policy disaster.
Although the escalation in Afghanistan has not been announced publicly, a reliable source with connections at the Pentagon tells me that the Joint Staff has been ordered to plan for a surge in that country, and the Department of Defense Comptroller has been asked to budget the money for it.
Read on.
February 28, 2007
While media attention has been focused on the U.S. quagmire in Iraq, an equally failed war in Afghanistan has received little coverage. As in countless militaristic U.S. nation–building fiascos, “mission creep” in Afghanistan is leading to another foreign policy disaster.
Although the escalation in Afghanistan has not been announced publicly, a reliable source with connections at the Pentagon tells me that the Joint Staff has been ordered to plan for a surge in that country, and the Department of Defense Comptroller has been asked to budget the money for it.
Read on.
Bush Faces Opposition on Iran War
By Robert Parry
February 27, 2007
A number of U.S. military leaders, reportedly including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have waged an extraordinary behind-the-scenes resistance to what they fear is a secret plan by George W. Bush to wage war against Iran.
One intelligence source told me that Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Peter Pace, has explored the possibility of resigning if Bush presses forward with air attacks against Iran, a war strategy that might be done in coordination with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
Read on.
February 27, 2007
A number of U.S. military leaders, reportedly including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have waged an extraordinary behind-the-scenes resistance to what they fear is a secret plan by George W. Bush to wage war against Iran.
One intelligence source told me that Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Peter Pace, has explored the possibility of resigning if Bush presses forward with air attacks against Iran, a war strategy that might be done in coordination with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
Read on.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Gore's Other Global Warning: Iraq War
By Robert Parry
February 25, 2007
As Al Gore steps into the national spotlight because of the Academy Awards and his global-warming documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” it’s worth remembering that in fall 2002 Gore sought to warn the American people about another “inconvenient truth,” the folly of invading Iraq.
The former Vice President did so at a time when it was considered madness or almost treason to object to George W. Bush’s war plans. But Gore was one of a small number of national political figures who took that risk and paid a price, subjected to widespread ridicule and disdain from the Washington news media.
Read on.
February 25, 2007
As Al Gore steps into the national spotlight because of the Academy Awards and his global-warming documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” it’s worth remembering that in fall 2002 Gore sought to warn the American people about another “inconvenient truth,” the folly of invading Iraq.
The former Vice President did so at a time when it was considered madness or almost treason to object to George W. Bush’s war plans. But Gore was one of a small number of national political figures who took that risk and paid a price, subjected to widespread ridicule and disdain from the Washington news media.
Read on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)