Casey J Porter

October 17, 2008 at 2:23 pm (9/11. War on Terror, Baghdad, Casey J Porter, IVAW, Iraq War, Peace)
Tags: , , , , , ,

“We have an entire generation of people in their twenties and thirties who have never gone through a war…the media and government have gotten so good at the creation of messages, people don’t know the reality” – Casey J. Porter

Army Sergeant Casey J. Porter has many battles to fight, and unlike the dramatizations of politicians and media commentators, his battles are concrete, real, and hard fought. During his time as an enlisted soldier deployed in Iraq, Casey has undergone an evolutionary process, one that has taken him from warrior to peace activist. His talent and passion for filmmaking have given him the perfect medium for his personal expression. Utilizing his current circumstances and natural talent as a filmmaker to speak out against the war, Casey’s films have turned the heads of people like Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! and filmmaker Michael Moore.

Read more…

Leave a Comment

“Strategic Alliance” ~ US and Iraq

July 5, 2008 at 7:07 pm (9/11. War on Terror, George Bush, Iraq War, Peace)
Tags: , , ,

In spite of the Bush Administrations attempts to keep up the appearance that the Iraqi Government welcomes the continued presence of US troops indefinitely, members of the Iraqi Parliament have made numerous attempts to assert the independence of Iraq. Never has this been more obvious than in recent months where Iraqi leaders have made both public and written statements opposing the continued US presence in their country.

Iraqi’s themselves have long been opposed the presence of US troops, largely because they are seen as a destabilizing factor. According to a recent BBC/ABC poll, 69% of Iraqis believe that the security situation in Baghdad will improve or at least stay the same with the withdraw of US troops.

After the discovery of a secret plan to continue the US military presence in Iraq indefinitely, numerous Iraqi lawmakers have attempted with little success to make their wishes known to American lawmakers and the American public. Although the majority of corporate media sources refuse to give voice to the Iraqi’s themselves, the information can be found through alternative sources. For example, “On Tuesday, Democracy Now! spoke to visiting Iraqi lawmakers…in New York. Iraqi parliament member Khalaf Al-Ulayyan criticized the US proposals” stating,

“I believe the parliament will not ratify the treaty in its current form, because it harms Iraqi sovereignty. Based on the details that have been leaked to the media, it seems that the deal will make Iraq not just an occupied country but an actual part of the US.”

And, in a recent letter to the American Congress and Senate, Iraqi lawmakers pointed out that any deal signed solely by the Executive branch, would be both “unconstitutional and illegal” under the current rulings and laws of the Iraqi Republic. According to the Iraqi Constitution Article 61 Section Four, the Iraqi government’s legislative power retains exclusive rights to ratify international treaties and agreements.

Representing the majority of the two-hundred and seventy five members of the Iraqi Parliament, the letter goes on to state,

Likewise, we wish to inform you that the majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment, or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanism that obligate the occupying military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq, in accordance with a declared timetable and with leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters.

The Iraqi Council of Representatives is looking to ratify agreements that end every form of American intervention in Iraq’s internal affairs and restore Iraq’s independence and sovereignty over its land.

According to The Independent, in response to the resistance met by Iraqi lawmakers, United States negotiators “are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal…The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York…” These funds continue to grow as the price of oil climbs, furthering the pressure on Iraqi Lawmakers to accept the deal. This hold on these funds also inhibits the ability of Iraq’s rebuilding efforts as these funds, which under the UN mandate, are specifically for the reconstruction of Iraq including “the wheat purchase program, the currency exchange program, the electricity and oil infrastructure programs, equipment for Iraqis security forces, and for Iraqi civil service salaries and ministry budget operations.”

As Americans continue to debate the continued military presence in Iraq, what seems to elude them is the absolute hypocrisy of claims made by the Bush Administration both in regards to Iraq’s sovereignty and “The War on Terror.” in which he claims, “The rise of a free and self-governing Iraq will deny terrorists a base of operation, discredit their narrow ideology, and give momentum to reformers across the region. This will be a decisive blow to terrorism at the heart of its power, and a victory for the security of America and the civilized world.” Considering that Bush’s solution to terrorism is the establishment of a “free and self-governing Iraq” one would think this issue would be moot. Iraqi leaders and the Iraqi people have shown with little doubt they wish us to leave.

It leaves one to wonder, when will we listen?

Leave a Comment

The Constitution, John Yoo, and You

April 4, 2008 at 3:23 pm (9/11. War on Terror, ACLU, Democracy Now, George Bush, The Constitution, Torture, War Crimes)
Tags: , , , ,

The manner in which we seek justice against those accused of harming us will determine whether the United States will be seen at home and abroad as a nation of laws.  We must decide whether we live the values of justice that make us proud to be Americans, or whether we will forsake those values and continue down a path of arbitrary rules and procedures more befitting those who are our enemies.  Because we are a great nation, true to our founders’ vision, we must uphold our core values even in the toughest of times.  The right to a speedy trial in a court of law before an objective arbiter; the right to due process; the right to rebut the evidence against you; the right not to be tortured or waterboarded, or convicted on the basis of hearsay evidence are what truly define America and our commitment to the rule of law and our founders’ aspirations.

 

Anthony D. Romero~

 

John Yoo, the former Bush Administration lawyer and legal advisor, along with Alberto Gonzales have become infamous in the American psyche as the legal team who deliberately argued the support of torture as well as various Constitutional violations. Shortly after the events of September 11, Americans were told that this was a new kind of war that would require changes in the way America conducted itself.

For most legal scholars, constitutionalists, and human rights activists the ideas of having to redefine or to defend current definitions of torture, cruel and unusual punishment, and whether or not constitutional law applied during wartime became a kind of surreal nightmare that few understood. According to Mark Danner, once Alberto Gonzales had written that “this new paradigm renders obsolete the Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions,” arguments among government officials broke out. The Department of Defense expressed grave concern stating that such a decision “will reverse over a century of US policy and practice in supporting the Geneva conventions and undermine protections of the law for our troops.”

As evidenced by photographs coming from Abu Ghraib and the “Torture Memo’s”, it has become apparent to any Americans listening that the torture that took place there as well as Gitmo was deliberate, and certainly conducted with the full permission of higher ups in the military and the White House.

In an interview with Phillepe Sands on Democracy Now! Juan Gonzales reported that, “The Bush administration’s treatment of prisoners and interrogation methods is coming under increased scrutiny this week following the declassification of a 2003 memo. The memo shows the Justice Department told the Pentagon that presidential authority overrode numerous laws banning torture or cruel treatment of prisoners in US custody. The memo endorsed assault, maiming and even administering mind-altering drugs on prisoners. The memo was written on March 14, 2003 by attorney John Yoo. At the time, Yoo was a deputy in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. Today, Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

Meanwhile, the British attorney Philippe Sands has just published an article in Vanity Fair exposing new details about how Yoo and other high-ranking administration attorneys helped design and implement the interrogation policies seen at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and secret CIA prisons.

According to Vanity Fair, then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales personally visited Guantanamo in 2002, discussed interrogation techniques and witnessed interrogations. Also on the trip was David Addington, then Dick Cheney’s chief counsel, and William Haynes, the general counsel of the Department of Defense.

 

Remarkably and under reported, disdain for the rule of law does not end on the soil of Iraq and Cuba, according to a recently released memo obtained by the ACLU, through a Freedom of Information Act request, evidence of White House officials contempt for the Constitution becomes more evident. In documents citing the Fourth Amendment (protections against unreasonable search and seizure), titled “Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States.” authors point out, “our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations,”

 

            Even more alarming however, is that this President and Vice President continue to hold their positions in office. It leaves this law-abiding citizen to stare in shock and awe as to how it is possible that United States citizens continue to allow this to happen.

1 Comment

Four More Years

February 9, 2008 at 7:08 am (9/11. War on Terror, Hillary Clinton, Iran, Peace, Politics, The Constitution, War Crimes)
Tags: , ,

The illegality, immorality, and blunderings of the Bush Administration has, for the past seven years, angered a nation, shocked the world, and trumped the rules of law and justice like no other presidency in US history.

 

One of many illegal actions, the detention of “enemy combatants” including US citizens without legal representation, the denial of Habeas Corpus, the use of evidence obtained through torture and the denial of transparency during Military Tribunals where the defendant is not allowed to see evidence against him and in some cases not made aware of the charges brought against him. These trials have become reminiscent of the Salem Witchcraft Trials of 1692, where one more time a sentence of death can be handed down with little or no means to defend oneself. These practices violate international law and numerous treaties of which we are signatory to. Violation of these treaties denigrates the Constitution itself as it states in Article VI, Clause 2, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…”

 

Further violations of the constitution have come in the form of illegal wiretapping, the illegal monitoring of US citizen calls both within and out of the United States (all with no burden of proof for probable cause), and in the collection of personal data by private corporations, which is then used for domestic spying.

 

Remarkable to this administration is its continued references to the ideals of democracy, freedom, and justice, when these ideals are hardly promoted in US foreign policies. For instance, the claims of stability, freedom, and democracy for the Iraqi people while systematically displacing millions and killing innocent civilians by the hundreds of thousands brings new depth to the meaning of the word hypocrisy.

 

Even more alarming during the next few months the Bush administration will continue to thumb its nose at the rule of law, the balance of power, and the Constitution, while the world watches in an almost helpless stupor. Included in this power grab will likely be another preemptive attack on a nation accused of coveting WMD’s, Iran. Which, if carried out with the intent of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities and any facility that may have nuclear knowledge (including universities), will lead to a “collateral damage” figure of 2.8 million deaths. This is of course, if the administration chooses the course of restrain, as these figures are for the bombing of only half of the suspected sites.

 

If one were to examine the Bush Administration closely, one could easily make the connection that the fundamental problem lies with its continued abuse of The Constitution. In fact, every illegal, immoral, and thoughtless action this administration has perpetrated on its citizens and the world can be traced back to its contempt for this document.

 

As Americans look forward to 2009, hopes of a collective sigh of relief are everywhere. The Democratic Party and Progressive Politics are swooning Independent and Republican voters with a sweet songs filled with change. Hopes for the restoration of Constitutional Law, elevated status in world opinion, and a time when we can enjoy freedom from corporate control are driving Americans to the polls this year.

 

Yet in spite of this passion and renewed hope, a close primary race, and calls for a change to the status quo, Americans continue to follow corporate media, never giving themselves enough time to digest what is happening in political arenas. Recently, The Nation reported, “Illinois Senator Barack Obama has finally signed the American Freedom Pledge, joining his fellow Democratic presidential candidates in encouraging the restoration of basic Constitutional principles after the battering they have taken during the Bush-Cheney era.

All the Democrats, that is, except New York Senator Hillary Clinton.”

One can only wonder, how with the experience of a tramped upon constitutional document, the one Democratic presidential hopeful who will not make a commitment to its restoration is even close to taking the White house. Perhaps, after four more years of the shredding of this document Americans will finally wake up to the powers at be, and realize our country’s two party system is preparing, one more time, to sell us, the world, and our freedom to the highest bidder.

1 Comment

We Must Remain Vigilant

February 4, 2008 at 5:10 pm (9/11. War on Terror, Chile, Democrats, George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Iran, Iraq, Iraq War, Peace, Politics, Republicans, War Crimes)
Tags: , , , , ,

I, like so many other Americans, was sadly lulled into a state of complacency during the eighties and early nineties. All seemed well in America, the economy was “strong”, the civil rights movement was fizzling out, the women’s rights movement appeared to have been appeased, and the deaths of millions around the globe due to our foreign policy was shielded from out eyes by a complicit media, eager to place it’s corporate agenda before its responsibilities to journalism and democracy. Yes, those were the good old days, when Americans had no clue how little our government actually represented us and how much it represented the desires of big corporations. The Cold War was over, and now the world was safe from Communism and tyranny.

 

I remember being at an event called Sol-Fest about six months before the 2004 election. I was deeply concerned that Kerry might loose because I was certain he would change the direction of this country. At such a progressive event, I assumed many Kerry supporters would be there. This was perhaps the beginning of my awakening, looking back now, I see how truly complacent I was.

 

I overheard a woman speaking to some workers at a Democratic booth. “Quite frankly, I am not sure who I am voting for, John Kerry is just as bad as Bush. I am not happy about the prospects of either one.” My ear perked up and I wondered what she meant. Before I could discover more, she had moved on to the next booth, but I kept her statement filed away in my brain.

The 2004 election came and went, and despite serious voting discrepancies, John Kerry and the Democratic Party rolled over like a beaten dog. Considering the mess that Iraq was and the photos coming out of Abu Ghraib, I was astonished that the election was stolen and subsequently given away one more time. However, more troubling to me was the very real fact that after the release of these photos, the re-election of George Bush would let the Iraqi people themselves know that we, as Americans, cared little for democracy, the rights of humans, and least of all, them.

 

The more involved in politics I became, the more I was able to research and uncover the very real fact that the invasion of Iraq, the rise of the Taliban, and the funding and support of bin Laden did not occur in a vacuum, but rather with the assistance of my very own government. Even more alarming was the knowledge that this was not the first, nor would it be the last time, that members of my government would sell people around the globe and me down the river in order to pursue an agenda that usually led to the deaths, torture, imprisonment, and suffering of millions. From Iran to Chile US foreign policies have been the bane of modern man’s existence. In fact, after September 11, 2001 many historians and scholars surmised that the terrorists might have been from South America rather than the Middle East. The date September 11, 1973 the date the US backed coup put Pinochet in power was the main factor turning eyes to the south.

 

With the primary elections underway, my ability to write and participate has diminished greatly. What is it that we, as Americans, do not understand about our government? For all the voices, expressing discontent with the status quo support does not waive for those who will simply continue our horrid policies. Furthering anti-American sentiment around the globe, continuing to oppress and exploit those too poor to fight, we continually sell our democratic ideals and ourselves down the river by settling for a candidate rather than picking someone who actually represents the democratic ideals we claim to love and care for so much. We condemn the likes of Ralph Nader for “splitting the democratic vote” or support Hillary Clinton “because she is a woman.” While we never really acknowledge the fact that our past is catching up with us in the form of 9/11, the mortgage crisis, the loss of independent media, the huge influx of immigrants (Mexican economic refugees due to NAFTA), sky rocketing health care, and the stagnant wages of the Middle Class.

 

Sadly and the main reason for my silence, is that for all the facts presented, Americans will lazily continue to assume this is a partisan problem. When in reality it is the fact that our democracy has been lost to us and in its place, we are now seeing a fascist corporate agenda shaping our foreign and domestic policies, and due to our lack of vigilance, it will simply get worse.

 

Sometimes I cannot help but wonder if this is exactly what we need in America, a taste of reality and some humility. Perhaps if we learn what it feels like to be them, we will learn what it is like to fight for democracy. As evidenced by the support I have been witness to for candidates the media continues to tell us to vote for, we have a long way to go.

 

For more blogs on the state of politics, please visit

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

and HERE…

 

Leave a Comment

The Torture Question

December 27, 2007 at 4:36 pm (9/11. War on Terror, ACLU, George Bush, Mark Twain, Peace, Torture, War Crimes, Waterboarding)
Tags: , , , ,

“Funston’s example has bred many imitators, and many ghastly additions to our history: the torturing of Filipinos by the awful ‘water- cure,’ for instance, to make them confess — what? Truth? Or lies? How can one know which it is they are telling? For under unendurable pain a man confesses anything that is required of him, true or false, and his evidence is worthless.”

~Mark Twain

“The Army exists, not just to win America’s wars, but to defend America’s values. The policy and practice of torture without accountability has jeopardized both.”

~David R. Irvine
Brig. Gen. (Ret.) USA

Defined by Theodore Roosevelt as “an old Filipino method of mild torture” the debate about the use of waterboarding continues in this modern age. Seen by most as a brutal form of torture and intimidation the question of its use and legality is now an issue that is openly debated in American politics. It should be noted however, that the current debate shares its roots in a long and shameful history of US policies based in imperial desires and blatant racism dating back as far as 1898.

As Americans approach the 110 the anniversary of the “water cure” being used by US interrogators, a glance at 18 U.S.C 2340 2(a) which clearly defines torture as, the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering, shows us that the use of waterboarding is indeed considered torture. Notably, in a letter written by a US soldier deployed in the Philippines, he had used the water cure on 160 people and only 26 had survived. In a report released by Human Rights First, documentation of over 100 murders of detainees in US custody have occurred. However, these numbers alone cannot be entirely trusted because most autopsy reports of detainees are kept classified by the CIA where any agents may be implicated in the murder investigation. Regardless of this secrecy, investigations into the murders of several detainees reveal the role of water in the victims death. In light of these deaths, both present and past, the argument that waterboarding is not torture looses significant ground.

 

As recently as 2002 the Department of Justice stated that physical pain had to be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death to constitute torture. By this logic, forced digit removal, broken limbs, and beatings would not be considered torture. The DOJ itself has since denounced this memo, yet the debate surrounding the use of torture and waterboarding continues.

One would think that a look at recent US history could settle this question for us as well. Remarkably, the United States convicted Axis officers of war crimes for organizing and participating in military tribunals that relied on evidence obtained by torture.

As noted by the ACLU, fifty years later, it ill-suits this country to conduct war crimes trials of Guantanamo detainees under rules structured to allow admission of the same type of evidence.

Leave a Comment

Losing the “War on Terror”

November 14, 2007 at 7:53 pm (9/11. War on Terror, George Bush, Iraq War, Peace)

“This is not for that purposes of killing Americans…this is for the purpose of driving them crazy. They are cowboys and will react without thinking”.

 

~ Abu Mus’ab al Zawahiri

 

Immediately following the events on 9/11, Americans were asking the question of ‘Why?’ Like so many who watched the twin towers fall, I found myself asking the same question. In response to this question, media talking heads and political pundits gladly and simply answered this question by telling us, “They hate us because we are free”. In combination with the use of the word they, this statement fails to address the complexities of US history and the Arab world. Little did the American people understand the implications of what this talking point meant at the time, it was imperative that the Bush Administration dehumanize the entire Arab world so rather than discuss bin Laden or al Zawahiri and give us the entire history of al Qadea, the people who committed the crimes of September eleventh became people without families, lives, names, faces, or real complaints against US policies…the people who committed these crimes became They.

 

In most societies, dropping bombs on and dismembering innocent little girls whose mothers take them to preschool everyday, love their daddies, like to eat bananas, and dream of becoming a doctor or teacher someday is unacceptable. If the American people were told the truth about the military engagement we were about to embark on, they never would have supported it. For example, during the bombing campaign that started in October of 2001, over twenty thousand civilians were killed in Tora Bora. Out of this bombing just one Taliban leader was killed (The Secret History of al Qaeda 2006). While conducting “The War on Terror”, it is imperative Americans only think of Them or They rather than to think of the hundreds of thousands of people brutally murdered by cruel and ruthless weaponry, including little girls like the one described above.

 

Also important to note (and what the Bush Administration does not want you to think about) is exactly how, the use of our military has allowed bin Laden to successfully take on the most powerful and wealthy nation in the world, and all while living in the mountains of Afghanistan, with little to no financial means, primitive use of technology, and pathetic amounts of weaponry compared to the military arsenal the US possesses. It appears that bin Laden understands the reality of human nature far better than we. He understands that if we brutally and repeatedly murder, maim, and dismember civilians in the Arab world, especially the most vulnerable, women and children, people will rise up against us and resist. Bin Laden can continue his successful war of attrition without ever lifting another finger, issuing another fatwa, or releasing one more video tape. As evidenced by intelligence reports released from the United States itself, the occupation of Arab lands and continued bombing of innocent civilians is recruiting jihad fighters faster than we can kill them.

 

According to journalist and author Abdel Bari Atwan, “The insurgents are not only winning this bloody war, but winning it spectacularly .No matter how many insurgents coalition forces kill, the are always faced with a new wave of young men longing to be martyred and take as many of their enemies with them as they can…The popularity of the insurgency among ordinary Iraqi civilians is another sign of US failure.” And it continues to grow; anti-American sentiment among Muslim populations and sentiment around the entire world have continued to deteriorate. In a paper released in July of 2005 by Chatam House, International security experts noted that the situation in Iraq has provided ‘a boost to the al Qaeda network’s propaganda, recruitment and fundraising, caused a major split in the coalition, and provided an ideal targeting and training area for al Qaeda-linked terrorists’.

 

Included with American intelligence reports connecting the US Occupation with an increase in terrorism and radicalism around the globe are two studies  released by the Saudi government and an Israeli think tank, both show that the majority of foreign fighters were not jihadis before the Iraq war, but were ‘radicalized by the war itself’ (Abdel Bari Atwan 2006). The radicalization of the Arab world is not successful because of the ideology of radical Islam or al Qaeda, it is so successful due to the needless death, economic hardships, and continued marginalization of an entire group of people that is being imposed by US policy and the “War on Terror”.

 

The American Government calls them They, as Americans, it is time for us to start recognizing Them for who They actually are. Human beings, with hopes, love, and dreams. In fact, They are just like Us.

Leave a Comment

Invisible People of the Middle East

September 26, 2007 at 1:15 am (9/11. War on Terror, Blogroll, George Bush, Iran, John Bolton, Nuclear Weapons, Peace)

“We’re talking about a clear message to Iran — Israel has the right to self-defense — and that includes offensive operations against WMD facilities that pose a threat to Israel. The United States would justify such attacks.”

~John Bolton

de∙fense 1 the act or power of defending, or guarding against attack, harm, or danger 2 the fact or state of being defended 3 a) something that defends: means of or resources for protection b) a plan or system of defending 4 justification or support speech or writing; vindication 5 self-protection as by boxing 6 the side that is defending in any contest 7 a)the arguments in behalf of the defendant in a law case b) the defendant and his or her lawyer or lawyers, collectively

of∙fen∙sive 1 attacking; aggressive 2 of or for attack 3 designating or of the side that is seeking to score in any contest 4 unpleasant, as to the senses; disgusting; repugnant 5 causing resentment, anger, etc.; insulting

It appears Mr. John Bolton has either mastered the art of doubletalk or has confused the simple definitions of these words. Perhaps the words themselves have taken on new meaning. One can only wonder how the argument of “self-defense,” when no attack ever took place, would hold up in a court of law. Only the savviest of jurists could ever defend the argument successfully, yet we hear no questioning of the Israeli/US policy when these terms distort the discussion of an attack on Iran.

Dr. Dan Plesch and Martin Butcher recently released a discussion paper exploring the realities of an attack on Iran. The document discusses the prospect of the possible attempted destruction of the Iranian regime and state by the United States and its allies. The report definitively concludes the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus, and economic infrastructure within days, if not hours, of President George Bush giving the order.

Remarkably, the Democratic Congress who was given a directive to end the Iraq Occupation by the American voters in the 2006 election recently refused to insist on being consulted before any attacks on Iran. As Senator and presidential hopeful Ron Paul has rightfully argued, “Congress is the only US entity that can declare war.” Despite this obvious constitutional authority and the abuse of power that President George Bush has exercised with the pre-emptive attack on Iraq, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are prepared to attack Iran if necessary.

Notable in the paper is a quote from Philip Giraldi in the American Conservative who notes, The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked…STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan in response to another 9/11 type terrorist attack on the United States…As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

Much like US policy in Iraq, the post-war planning in Iran does not exist. As John Pike of the indispensable global policy forum puts it, “They think they can just bow up want they want to blow up and let the ant heap sort itself our afterwards.”

The discussion explores the possibilities of varied military strikes, ranging from limited strikes to target suspected nuclear facilities to the escalation of targeting all areas needed for the Iranian government and civilian populace to function listed above. The Administration as well as the Israeli government both understand the importance of preventing any possible retaliation from Iran. The paper states, There would be provisions for assaults to prevent Iran striking back in any significant manner. These would involve US forces in Iraq and Iran, protection for the Straights of Hormuz and oil facilities in the Gulf States, disruption of Revolutionary Guard, and other elite forces loyal to the current government.

The discussion of possible Iranian retaliation in the case of a pre-emptive strike concludes that the only way to avoid escalation is to completely destroy Iran’s capacity to retaliate. This includes the bombing of all suspected WMD sites, civilian and military infrastructure, military bases, economic infrastructure and state apparatus.

The plans to launch a pre-emptive military strike on Iran have been in the making since March of 2003. British Military sources stated on condition of anonymity that “the US military switched its whole focus to Iran” from March 2003…and continues…this focus even though it had infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq. As one anonymous Iraq veteran wrote while serving in Iraq, I sat in a meeting in Baghdad when I was last there over a week ago to discuss this very matter before Ambassador Bremer left for Washington and the U.N., and it was apparent that everyone is really grasping at straws when it comes to understanding Sistani. More importantly, none of the real differences of opinion about what kind of influence and control a fetwah in his name condemning the process would mean in terms of popular reaction is based on more than conjecture.

In any case, what don’t seem to register right now are the real reasons why we don’t want to have direct elections in the near future. Yes, certainly we’re concerned about the mechanics (though the Green Zone notion that ration cards won’t work appears to have been based on completely flawed information provided by so-called “experts”), and our fear that imperfect elections might yield catastrophic results is genuine. But the catastrophic result we’re worried about isn’t women being disenfranchised or election results being contested — it’s that, in the short term, the best organized party and thus the most likely winner is the Iranian-backed SCIRI. We’ve got big fears about the Iranians projecting power all the way through the southern region of Iraq to the border with Saudi Arabia, and so we should, because that’s exactly what they’re aggressively seeking to do. People who speculate about whether we’ll take on Iran in the next round don’t realize that the battle is already more or less underway here in Iraq.

The paper discusses at great length not only potential targets in Iran but the varied weapons of choice, which includes the use of nuclear weapons. The paper points out, It is not responsible to argue that they will never be used and that there is not need for public debate. The weapons exist. The military personnel trained in their use exist. The political policy describing their possible use exists. What is lacking is a public discussion amongst those who support present policies of the realities of putting these policies into practice.

Perhaps the most alarming analysis of the paper is the discussion of civilian casualties. Using Department of Defense methodology for attacks of 3×10kt ground burst weapons per location, the paper concludes that approximately 2,816,000 civilian casualties will occur. However, this number is only inclusive of attacks of less than half of the suspected WMD sites. This number of casualties also does not include the effects of the inevitable fallout from the use of nuclear weapons, of which it is certain, radiation from these explosions would reach the upper atmosphere and be carried across much of the earth. In the early 1960’s public concern over detected concentrations of radioactivity in cow’s milk produced the public pressure that led to a US, UK, Russian ban on testing in the atmosphere.

After reading this blog and the contents of this discussion paper, I have only one small favor to ask of you. Please, for the love of humanity, your country, and God, call your representatives today and demand and end to this madness.

Tell them to vote NO on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment (No. 3017), a provocative measure that will only undermine efforts to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy. Talking points: No more blank checks for this administration. Rather than escalating tensions, the U.S. should pursue smart, tough-minded dialogue and diplomacy, which are far more likely than force to produce a satisfactory resolution in the case of Iran. Iran’s gains in Iraq are largely due to the Bush invasion and subsequent mishandling of Iraq. By rushing to war without a strategy for winning the peace, we opened the door for Iran to connect with the Iraqi Shiites in power to engender discord. Let’s stop a war with Iran
before it begins. Call your senators at the Capitol Switchboard 202-224-3121, and please call them today.

 

 

 

Leave a Comment

A Test of Iraq’s “Democracy”

September 23, 2007 at 9:34 am (9/11. War on Terror, Blogroll, Iraq War, Peace)
Tags: , , , , , ,

“We fight for the possibility that decent men and women across the broader Middle East can realize their destiny — and raise up societies based on freedom and justice and personal dignity. And as long as I’m Commander-in-Chief we will fight to win.”

~ George Bush

de.moc.ra.cy 1. government in which supreme power is exercised directly by their people or their elected agents. 2. a state having such government 3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

The continued denial by this President that the US presence in Iraq is liberating continues to astonish even the most hardened followers of politics. In June of 2007 the democratically elected Parliament of Iraq voted to have the US set a timeline for troop withdraw. This resolution has been ignored.

Recently, the focus of US attention has been drawn to the alleged crimes of Blackwater. However, what is more remarkable is that once again US leadership continues to undermine the democracy that Bush continues to proudly speak of.

In regards to Blackwater and its operations in Iraq, immediately after the 2003 invasion, new laws were drafted to protect members of any private contractor working in Iraq from any investigation or judicial system, both in Iraq and in the US. Despite numerous complaints among the civilian population and Iraqi officials, the company continued to operate without any means for justice.

According to the Washington Post, Senior Iraqi officials repeatedly complained to U.S. officials about Blackwater USA’s alleged involvement in the deaths of numerous Iraqis, but the Americans took little action to regulate the private security firm until 11 Iraqis were shot dead last Sunday, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials. Until recently, alleged random killings and abuses by Blackwater have gone unnoticed by the media and the American populace. The article goes on to state; the lack of a U.S. response underscores the powerlessness of Iraqi officials to control the tens of thousands of security contractors…

Despite the current investigations under way and the repeated attempts by the Iraqi government to regulate Blackwater’s activities (including attempting to revoke Blackwater’s license), the company began operations this past week.

The actions of Blackwater and the US’s reluctance to allow Iraqis justice under these circumstances continue to demean the authority of this fledgling democracy. If the Bush administration is genuine in its efforts to assist Iraq with the establishment of a democracy, it must respect the legislative acts of that government. However, if the administration continues to undermine the Iraqi governments authority, our goal of a democratic Iraq will never appear. The only outcome from this type of cold arrogance will be a further deterioration of the circumstances there.

 

Leave a Comment

September the 11th and the Voices You Will Never Hear

September 10, 2007 at 10:58 pm (9/11. War on Terror, Iraq War, Peace)

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate only multiplies hate, violence only multiplies violence, and toughness is a descending spiral of destruction…The chain reaction of evil – hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars – must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.”

~Dr, Martin Luther King Jr.

“I have yet to have anyone explain to me the moral superiority of someone who drops bombs on the heads of innocent school children to people that cut off the heads of others.”

~George Carlin

 

 

Shortly after the events of September the 11th, the calls for vengeance and retribution bombarded the American public and citizens around the world through corporate media outlets. Repeatedly viewers found themselves exposed to images of planes crashing into Buildings One and Two at the World Trade Center always followed by grief stricken citizens whose look of horror showed us only a fraction of the true feelings that engulfed people that day.

 

The Bush Administration who loudly demanded greater death, destruction, and murder of innocents quickly shadowed the same demands made through the actions of the few who flew those planes. In the course of events that have taken place since September the Eleventh, it appears these demands have been met with great success. Of course, we cannot blame the Administration alone, a compliant and submissive media whose message was swallowed with little or no questioning by a fearful population who stood idly by, with mouths agape stunned into silent acquiescence by the events was also necessary.

 

This series of circumstances easily allowed the Bush Administration to implement its plan “to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off Iran.” (General Wesley Clark)

Seven countries, untold numbers of dead, maimed, disabled, and damaged in exchange for the deaths of 3,000 Americans. “Collateral Damage,” the sterile name we are given for our justified vengeance that according to Bruce Wallace (September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows), does not include “the parts about the people who are damaged by the horrors of political violence, but do not die from it. They live through it, and are changed forever.”

Mr. Wallace, like many others hear the voices of “collateral damage,” unbeknownst to war supporters and those seeking revenge, they can speak, read, write, and feel. He writes of an Iraqi who he has had contact, “H may be ‘collateral damage’ to the minds-without-compassion behind the war, but he is a brother to me.”

 

Numerous members of the organization who lost loved ones visited Afghanistan shortly after the US led military campaign and in a letter dated February 14th, 2002, implored the President to assist in the establishment the Afghan Victims Fund. However, of more importance to note, is what can be found in the text of the letter,

 

Several of us recently traveled to Afghanistan and met with Afghan families that were accidentally affected by the US military campaign. We talked with widows who were forced to send their children to beg, families who could not afford to rebuild their homes destroyed by US bombs, children who lost limbs to cluster bombs, and visited children so traumatized by the bombing of their neighborhoods that they had stopped talking…We would like to extend the spirit of compassion and understanding to those families of Afghanistan. We believe this an important way that we can illustrate to the people of Afghanistan and the people of the world that Americans are a caring and generous people. We are eager to help in the fight against terrorism by promoting this spirit of compassion and understanding.

To this day, they have yet to receive a reply.

 

Sadly, a day that should be remembered for what it had to teach us will simply be used by those in office to further the agenda of a few murderers who happen to sit in the White House.

 

 

Leave a Comment