Archive for May, 2010

Scenes from Gaza flotilla ship under attack

UPDATE 9:20 EDT: Listening to the BBC, they just reported that at least 19 were killed by the Israelis. As this was from their reporter in Gaza, it wasn’t clear what their source was. But the figure was uncorrected by the main newscaster, so 19 now stands as the upper estimate of deaths. The BBC web sire states that “more than 10″ were killed.

As we wake to word that the Israeli military attacked the Gaza aid flotilla in international waters, killing at least 10 [there are reports of as many as 16 deaths] and wounding dozens, this raw video from one of the ships, the Mavi Marmara, makes it appear that the Israelis shot and killed people before boarding the ships, before there could have been any resistance. The scenes shown are far from those of resistance, as claimed by the Israeli propaganda machine, but are those of civilians calmly trying to help the wounded. The video includes reports from various reporters in several languages, including Aljazeera and Press TV in English:

May 31st, 2010

Grayson: Imagine, no wars

Rep. Alan Grayson imagines the world if the immense resources wasted on the Afghan and Iraq wars had been utilized for human good:

We’ve Always Been at War with Eastasia

By Rep.Alan Grayson

On May 30, 2010, at 10:06 a.m, the direct cost of occupying Iraq and Afghanistan will hit $1 trillion. And in a few weeks, the House of Representatives will be asked to vote for $33 billion of additional “emergency” supplemental spending to continue the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. There will be the pretense of debate — speeches on the floor of both chambers, stern requests for timetables or metrics or benchmarks — but this war money will get tossed in the wood chipper without difficulty, requested by a president who ran on an anti-war platform. Passing this legislation will mark the breaking of another promise to America, the promise that all war spending would be done through the regular budget process. Not through an off-budget swipe of our Chinese credit card.

The war money could be used for schools, bridges, or paying everyone’s mortgage payments for a whole year. It could be used to end federal income taxes on every American’s first $35,000 of income, as my bill, the War Is Making You Poor Act, does. It could be used to close the yawning deficit, supply health care to the unemployed, or for any other human and humane purpose.

Instead, it will be used for war. Because, as Orwell predicted in 1984, we’ve reached the point where everyone thinks that we’ve always been at war with Eastasia. Why?

Not because Al Qaeda was sheltered in Iraq. It wasn’t. And not because Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan. It isn’t. Bush could never explain why we went to war in Iraq, and Obama can’t explain why we are ‘escalating’ in Afghanistan.

So, why? Why spend $1 trillion on a long, bloody nine-year campaign with no justifiable purpose?

Remember 9/11, the day that changed everything? That was almost a decade ago. Bush’s response was to mire us in two bloody wars, wars in which we are still stuck today. Why?

I can’t answer that question. But I do have an alternative vision of how the last 10 years could have played out.

Imagine if we had decided after 9/11 to wean ourselves off oil and other carbon-based fuels. We’d be almost ten years into that project by now.

Imagine if George W. Bush had somehow been able to summon the moral strength of Mahatma Gandhi, Helen Keller, or Martin Luther King Jr, and committed the American people to the pursuit of a common goal of a transformed society, a society which meets our own human needs rather than declaring “war” on an emotion, or, as John Quincy Adams put it, going “abroad, in search of monsters to destroy”.

Imagine.

Imagine that we chose not to enslave ourselves to a massive military state whose stated goal is “stability” in countries that never have been “stable”, and never will be.

Imagine.

“Imagine all the people, living life in peace.”

May 29th, 2010

Project Artichoke, far worse than MKULTRA?

In a recent article H. P. Albarelli, author of  A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA’s Secret Cold War Experiments, and Jeffrey Kaye have reminded us of the sordid past of CIA behavioral science research in the CIA’s Project Artichoke. They make a case that the CIA deliberately exposed their much better known MKULTRA program as a way of distracting attention from the much more pernicious, and operational, Project Artichoke:

Operation Dormouse

Contemporary torture’s earliest, deepest and most influential roots are found in the CIA’s Artichoke Project. Indeed, it is Project Artichoke that encapsulates the CIA’s real traveling road show of horrors and atrocities, not MK/ULTRA which, although responsible for its own acts of mindless cruelty, pales in comparison.

That MK/ULTRA received, and continues to receive, the lion’s share of the media’s attention and public outrage over CIA mind control programs was a deliberately planned outcome on the part of the Agency. This outcome was the central objective of a never before revealed covert operation launched in 1975 and informally code-named Dormouse.

Dormouse, operated out of the CIA’s Security Research branch, had its genesis in the 1975 Rockefeller Commission report and in the subsequent Congressional hearings into CIA illegal activities chaired by Senators Frank Church and Teddy Kennedy. Following the initial revelation of Frank Olson’s alleged “suicide” by the Rockefeller Commission, a number of high-level meetings occurred between President Gerald Ford’s White House and CIA General Counsel Lawrence Houston.

Houston, who had served the Agency as its doyen general counsel for over 25 years, secretly huddled on at least two occasions in June 1975 with Ford’s chief of staff, Donald Rumsfeld, and his chief assistant, Richard Cheney. Houston impressed upon both men that any prolonged and intense media scrutiny of Project Artichoke would lead to opening a Pandora’s box of legal, institutional, international and public relations problems that could destroy the CIA.

Houston explained that the Agency’s MK/ULTRA program was far less problematic for the CIA because it had been a research-based program that initiated 153 contracts to colleges, universities and research institutions nationwide. These contractors, all stalwart and prestigious institutions like Harvard, Columbia, and Tulane Universities, could serve as viable buffers to any harsh outside attacks.

Houston stressed that deliberate exposure of the MK/ULTRA program by essentially offering it to the press would serve to placate the brewing feeding frenzy over so-called mind control projects, and would divert any investigative attempts into the multi-faceted Artichoke Project.

Houston additionally explained to Rumsfeld and Cheney that, along with the release of MK/ULTRA details to the media, the names of a few former CIA employees, such as Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, would also be released to the press. Incredibly, when the subject of possible federal prosecutions of CIA officials for capital crimes and felonies, such as murder and drug trafficking, came up in their discussion, Houston informed Rumsfeld and Cheney that there was little cause for concern.

Explained the Agency’s General Counsel, since early 1954, following the death of Army biochemist Frank Olson, a secret agreement between the CIA and the U.S. Department of Justice had been put in place whereby the violation of “criminal statutes” by CIA personnel would not result in Department of Justice prosecutions, if “highly classified and complex covert operations” were threatened with exposure. The agreement had been struck between Houston and Deputy Attorney General William P. Rogers in February 1954, not long after Frank Olson’s death, and still remained solidly in place.

Lastly, and worth noting here, was a brief adjunct discussion between Houston, Rumsfeld, and Cheney regarding related concerns about records on former Nazi scientists who had been secretly imported into the United States in the early Fifties by the State Department and Army, as part of Project Paperclip. These German scientists performed highly-classified research at the Army’s Fort Detrick and Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland, some of which involved field operations in Europe.

Without doubt, as the extant record clearly reveals, the CIA’s Dormouse Operation, as expressed by Houston, was remarkably effective. Information released on the Agency’s MK/ULTRA program more than sated the media’s curiosity for mind control details, and even a few random Artichoke Program citations in a couple released documents failed to draw any concerted examination by anyone in the press. For example: documents revealing that Dr. Frank Olson had been part of the CIA’s ongoing “Artichoke Conference” were near completely overlooked. Within a few short months, Artichoke was widely believed by the media and public to be but a small, innocuous project that had been replaced by the MK/ULTRA behemoth. Still today, numerous publications state that Artichoke was absorbed and replaced by MK/ULTRA, when actually Artichoke operated independently for nearly 17 years beyond the dawn of MK/ULTRA.

They then go on to discuss Project Artichoke in detail, with evidence that its fanciful plans were frequently implemented in operations. The article is long but it is well worth a careful read.

Jeffrey Kaye then accompanies this article with another at Firedodlake providing additional detail on former APA Research Scientist turned top counterterrorism official Susan Brandon who I mentioned in my recent article on the US-run “black jail” in Afghanistan.

1 comment May 29th, 2010

Avnery: The conspiracy that kept Chomsky out of Israel

Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery tries to understand why Israel kept 81 year old Noam Chomsky from entering the Occupied Territories to, of all things, give a lecture:

Chomsky at the Gate
Hallalujah, the Whole World is Against Us!

By Uri Avnery

A local TV station told us this week about a group of Israelis who adhere to conspiracy theories.They believe that George W. Bush planned the destruction of the Twin Towers in order to further his wicked aims. They believe that the big pharmaceutical corporations spread the swine flue virus in order to sell their worthless vaccines. They believe that Barack Obama is a secret agent of the military-industrial complex. They believe that fluoride is put into drinking water to sterilize men, in order to reduce mankind by exactly two billion. And so on.

I wonder that they have not yet uncovered the most nefarious conspiracy of all: the one perpetrated by the gang of anti-Semites who have taken control of the government of Israel and are using it to destroy the Jewish State.

* * *

PROOF? NOTHING easier. One has only to read the papers.

The Foreign Minister, for example. Who but a diabolic anti-Semite could have appointed Avigdor Lieberman, of all people, to this post? The job of a foreign minister is to make friends and convince world opinion that we are right. Lieberman is working hard and skillfully to get Israel hated by one and all.

Or the Minister of the Interior. He works from morning to night to shock human rights defenders and supply ammunition to the worst enemies of Israel. Recently, he prevented two babies from entering Israel because their father is gay. He prevents women from joining their husbands in Israel. He deports children of foreign workers, who are building the state.

Or the Chief of Staff. He persuaded the government to boycott the UN commission for the investigation of the “Cast Lead” operation, thus abandoning the field to the accusers of the IDF. And since the publication of its report, he has been orchestrating a worldwide defamation campaign against the Jewish Zionist judge, Richard Goldstone.

Now the IDF has announced its determination to block the flotilla that plans to bring symbolic supplies to the besieged Gaza Strip. That will ensure live TV coverage, with the whole world following the small ships and having their attention drawn to the vicious blockade imposed for years upon a million and a half human beings. The dream of every Israel-hater.

The conspiracy reached its climax this week, when Professor Noam Chomsky was denied entry into the West Bank.

* * *

THIS AFFAIR has no credible explanation except a vicious anti-Semitic plot.

In the beginning I thought that it was just the usual mixture of ignorance and folly. But I have come to the conclusion that it can’t be so. Even in our present government, stupidity cannot have reached such proportions.

Briefly, this is what happened: the 81-year old professor arrived at the Allenby Bridge over the Jordan River on his way from Amman to Birzeit University near Ramallah, where he was to deliver two lectures about US policy. The Israeli authorities of course knew well in advance about his coming. A young official asked him some questions, contacted his superiors at the Interior Ministry, returned to ask some more questions, contacted his superiors again, and then stamped his passport with the words: “Entry Denied”.

And what were the questions? Why he does not lecture at an Israeli university. And why he has no Israeli passport.

The professor returned to Amman and delivered his lectures by video link. The incident was widely publicized all over the world, especially in the US. The Interior Ministry apologized half-heartedly, stating that the matter was not under its jurisdiction, that it was the responsibility of the military Coordinator for the (Occupied) Territories.

That is, of course, a mendacious excuse, since the ministry itself has recently denied entry to several personalities who profess sympathy with the Palestinians, including the most popular clown in Spain.

* * *

A PERSONAL memory of mine: a dozen years ago I took part in a heated public debate in London with Edward Said, the late Palestinian professor. He happened to mention that his friend, Noam Chomsky, was about to deliver a lecture at a local university.

I hastened there and saw the building surrounded by a dense crowd of young men and women. With great difficulty I pushed my way to the stairs which led up to the lecture hall, but was stopped by the ushers. I pleaded in vain that I was a friend of the lecturer and that I had come all the way from Israel just to hear him. They told me that even a needle could not be squeezed in. Such was his popularity even then.

Noam Chomsky is, perhaps, the most in-demand intellectual on earth. His reputation goes way beyond his academic specialty – linguistics – where he is considered a genius. He is the guru of millions around the planet. The world media treat him as a cerebral celebrity.

If so, what could have induced the Ministers of the Interior and/or Defense to hold this man for four hours and then send him back where he came from? Abysmal folly? Malice? Vengefulness? All of these? Or perhaps something else?

* * *

THIS AFFAIR has many wide-ranging implications.

First of all: it is a provocation against the Palestinian Authority, with whom Binyamin Netanyahu wants to have direct peace negotiations – or so he says. It’s like spitting in their face.

Chomsky arrived as a guest of Mustafa Barghouti, a Palestinian leader who espouses non-violence and human rights. He came to give lectures at a Palestinian university.

How does that concern Israel? What Chutzpa is it to prevent Palestinian students from hearing a lecturer of their choosing?

And what does it tell us about Netanyahu’s perorations about “Two States for Two Peoples”? What kind of a Palestinian state is this supposed to be, if Israel can decide who is allowed to enter, and who not? Especially in light of the Israeli demand to control all the border crossing of the new state!

* * *

SECOND, ALL over the world a campaign is in full swing to boycott all Israeli universities. Not only the self-styled “University Institute” at the Ariel settlement, and not only Bar-Ilan University, which helped to set it up. All of them.

Several associations of academics in the UK and other countries have adopted resolutions to impose this boycott, and other groups oppose it. It is an ongoing battle.

The opponents of the boycott raise the flag of academic freedom. Where shall we be if we boycott researchers and thinkers because of their country of residence or opinions? The Italian writer Umberto Eco has written his colleagues an emotional letter against the boycott. I, too, oppose it.

And here comes the government of Israel and pulls the rug out from under our feet. No one suggests that Chomsky supports terrorism or is coming to spy. His entry was denied solely because of his views. This means that academic freedom is good only if it serves those who praise Israel, but is worth no more than a garlic’s skin (as we say in Hebrew) when it is used by somebody who objects to the policies of the Israeli government.

That is a direct help for the boycotteers. The more so since not a single Israel university or group of academics has raised its voice in protest.

* * *

THE ASSERTION that Chomsky is an enemy of Israel is ludicrous.

He bears an eminently Hebrew first name, and so does his daughter, Aviva, who accompanied him.

I met him for the first time in the 60s, when I visited him in his cramped quarters at MIT, one of the most respected academic institutions in the US and the world.

He spoke with some nostalgia about the kibbutz (Hazorea, of the leftist Zionist Hashomer Hatzair movement), where he had lived for a year in his youth. We exchanged opinions and agreed that the two-state idea was the only practical solution.

His first name was given to him by his parents, who were born in the Russian empire and emigrated to the US in their youth. The mother tongue of both was Yiddish, but they devoted their home to Hebrew culture, and Noam spoke Hebrew from early childhood. In the mental world of his youth, socialism and anarchism were mixed with Zionism. His doctoral thesis was about the Hebrew language.

I have been following his statements ever since. I never found any opposition to the existence of Israel. What I did find was sharp criticism of the Israeli government’s policies – the same criticism levied by the Israeli peace forces. But he is far more critical of the successive US administrations, whose policies he considers to be the mother of all evils.

When the two professors, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, published their revolutionary exposé supporting the claim that Israel controls US policy through the Israel lobby, Chomsky contradicted them and argued that the reverse was true: that it is the US which exploits Israel for its imperialist designs, contrary to real Israeli interests.

As for myself, I believe that both theses are right. Chomsky’s assertion may be illustrated by the present American veto on a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation, as well as the American intervention that prevents the Gilad Shalit prisoners’ swap.

So why, for God’s sake, was this man denied entry into the country?

* * *

I HAVE a theory which would explain everything.

For many centuries, the Jews were persecuted in Christian Europe. Anti-Semitism turned their life into hell. They fell victim to pogroms, mass expulsions, confinement in ghettos, oppressive edicts and discriminatory laws. In the course of time, they developed mental and practical defense mechanisms, methods of survival and routes of escape.

Since the Holocaust, the situation has changed radically. In the US the Jews now live in a paradise unparalleled since the Golden Age in Muslim Spain. When the State of Israel came into being, it attracted world-wide admiration and sympathy.

That was wonderful, but below the surface of the national consciousness – if one may generalize – a sense of unease, of disorientation, set in. The tried and trusted defense mechanisms, which had given the Jews a feeling of orientation and awareness of lurking dangers, disintegrated. They felt that something was out of order, that the well-known road signs were not working anymore. When the Gentiles laud the Jews or are ready to make alliances with them, that is suspicious. Clearly, something sinister must be behind it. Things are not as we knew them. That’s frightening.

Since then, we have been working feverishly to bring the situation back to normal. Without being conscious of it, we do what we can to be hated again, to feel at home, on familiar ground.

If there is a conspiracy, it is a conspiracy of ourselves against ourselves. We shall not rest until the world is anti-Semitic again, and we know how to behave.

As the jolly song goes: “The entire world is against us, but what the hell … ”

********

Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is a contributor to CounterPunch’s book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.

May 26th, 2010

The memory problems of torturers

Canadian Law professor Audrey Macklin observed the trial of Omar Khadr at Guantanamo and discovered that participation in torture interferes with the memory of torturers:

Memory loss and torture

By Audrey Macklin

I have long known that torture can impair the memory of survivors. What I learned from observing the recent military commission proceedings in the case of Omar Khadr, the Canadian facing trial at Guantanamo for crimes he allegedly committed at age 15, is that it can impair the memory of perpetrators too.

Consider the testimony of Interrogator 1, who appeared at Khadr’s military commission hearings earlier this month. Interrogator 1 was Khadr’s lead military interrogator at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan, where Khadr was detained for three months after he was captured in July 2002. He began interrogating Khadr less than 12 hours after the teenager’s discharge from a hospital, when Khadr was still sedated and on a stretcher.

Skinny and blond with a tattoo on his forearm, Interrogator 1 was one of several interrogators and guards courtmartialed after the death of two Afghans at Bagram. He copped a plea bargain in late 2005, admitting to three incidents of detainee abuse in exchange for a 5 1/2 month sentence. Khadr’s prosecutors requested clemency for Interrogator 1 in the expectation that he would help the prosecution convict Khadr. Interrogator 1 also received immunity from further prosecution in exchange for speaking to Khadr’s prosecutors.

When questioned last week by Khadr’s defence lawyers, however, Interrogator 1 could not recall what Khadr’s prosecutors had done on his behalf. He did remember that he and other interrogators had threatened Khadr by telling him a story about the rape and murder of a fictitious young Afghan by “four big black guys” in a U.S. prison.

But Interrogator 1 couldn’t recall if he had ever shone a bright light into Khadr’s eyes. He couldn’t remember forcing Khadr upright on his stretcher in order to cause him excruciating pain. He couldn’t recall setting barking dogs on Khadr while the teenager was hooded. He didn’t recall making Khadr stand for hours to inflict both physical pain and sleep deprivation, though he did acknowledge that sleep deprivation was a technique used at Bagram, and he had said under oath at his court martial that it was “the practice” to do it to new detainees.

Interrogator 1 didn’t deny using these or many other “non-traditional interrogation techniques” (the prosecution’s euphemism for torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment), he just couldn’t recall one way or the other.

Khadr’s interrogations happened eight years ago. It may well have been difficult for Interrogator 1 to recall specific details of what he did in the course of his “six-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week” interrogations of Khadr.

In fairness to Interrogator 1, if someone asked me whether, between August and October 2002, I sat on the subway next to a skinny blond man with a tattoo on his forearm, I would say that I don’t recall. I certainly rode the subway then, but it was almost eight years ago, and I have sat next to so many people that I just can’t recall sitting next to a skinny blond man with a tattooed forearm.

On the other hand, if someone asked me if I jumped off a bridge between August and October 2002, I would say no. I may not remember what I was doing every minute of every day of those three months, but I know I did not jump off a bridge because I have never jumped off a bridge in my life.

So why is it that Interrogator 1 can’t recall whether he tortured Omar Khadr?

Unless the Prime Minister acts to request repatriation, Khadr faces conviction by a jury of U.S. military officers based on evidence extracted by torture. We may try erase our memory of Canada’s role, just as Interrogator 1 claims no recollection of his actions, but history will not forget. By choosing not to intervene, Canada will be judged by history., and it will be judged harshly.

************

Audrey Macklin is a law professor at the University of Toronto. She attended the hearings at Guantanamo Bay on behalf of Human Rights Watch.

May 26th, 2010

Former South African Chief Justice calls for investigating torture psychologists; denounces APA complicity

the former Chief Justice of the South African Supreme Court discussed psychologist involvement in torture and APA complicity in a London lecture Friday. According to this account, he appears to have advocated British prosecution of the torture psychologists under universal jurisdiction. Here is an account from a Guardian blog post:

Torture inquiry should look beyond role of usual suspects
Apartheid-era South Africa shows inquiry into complicity in torture should extend to those who developed interrogation techniques

By Afua Hirsch

Earlier this year, parliament’s joint committee on human rights described the case for an independent inquiry into allegations of complicity in torture as “irresistible”, based on evidence it had seen about the role of MI6/MI5 and intelligence officials.

The government has indicated its agreement last week, waiting only a week in office before announcing an inquiry into the intelligence services’ role in the torture of terrorist suspects. The promise of new scrutiny has rightly attracted praise. But facilitating torture takes more than the complicity of law enforcement and intelligence officials. It also requires the involvement of others and the institutions that support them.

Much has been said about the role of lawyers in facilitating so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques”, used to extract information from terrorist suspects. The US justice department legal advisers, we now know, rewrote the definition of torture, so that only physical pain equivalent to organ failure or death, and mental pain causing significant psychological harm over long periods, were deemed illegal – a clear departure from international law.

But the professionals who developed the “interrogation techniques” themselves were, in fact, psychologists. And they too need to be held to account.

This was the thrust of a speech last week by Justice Arthur Chaskalson, a former chief justice of South Africa and member of Nelson Mandela’s 1963 defence team, to the Institute of Psychoanalysis in London. “Psychologists developed and recommended what are euphemistically called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ to be used against resistant detainees; a more appropriate name for this would be psychological torture,” he said.

Chaskalson drew on his experience of apartheid-era South Africa to highlight the danger of complicity by professionals in acts that were clearly wrong, citing the doctors responsible for the medical supervision of activist Steve Biko when the activist died in police custody, or the courts which sided systematically with the police when detainees were tortured and held incommunicado in solitary confinement.

Similarly, he argued, the American Psychological Association sanctioned its members’ participation in the design and implementation of torture, and amended its ethical code to allow military psychologists to carry out orders, even if they were contrary to recognised medical ethics. This institutional failure is a serious failing in itself. But the individuals who followed the tide should also be held to account. As Chaskalson pointed out, it was established during the trials of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg that “the question is not whether there was an order, but whether a moral choice was in fact possible”.

There have already been calls from organisations like Physicians for Human Rights for a full investigation into the role of health professionals in torture, opening up the possibility of criminal prosecution if necessary. Although there is no evidence British psychologists took part, others could still be prosecuted here under universal jurisdiction, which allows UK courts to prosecute perpetrators of torture wherever it occurred.

Chaskalson’s view is that the lesson of history in apartheid South Africa and elsewhere is that holding professionals to account is key to deterring future transgressions from legal and moral standards on an institutional scale. So if the illegal acts of the Bush era are really to be consigned to history, then future inquiries may need to go further than simply examining the role of secret service and intelligence officials.

[Irrelevant material deleted.]

May 23rd, 2010

Herbert: More Than Just an Oil Spill

Bob Herbert has a powerful column on the oil spill, it’s natural and human effects, and our corporate-dominated government that is doing far too little about it:

More Than Just an Oil Spill

By Bob Herbert

Hopedale, La.

The warm, soft winds coming in off the gulf have lost their power to soothe. Anxiety is king now — all along the coast.

“You can’t sleep no more; that’s how bad it is,” said John Blanchard, an oyster fisherman whose life has been upended by the monstrous oil spill fouling an enormous swath of the Gulf of Mexico. He shook his head. “My wife and I have got two kids, 2 and 7. We could lose everything we’ve been working all of our lives for.”

I was standing on a gently rocking oyster boat with Mr. Blanchard and several other veteran fishermen who still seemed stunned by the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe. Instead of harvesting oysters, they were out on the water distributing oil retention booms and doing whatever else they could to bolster the coastline’s meager defenses against the oil making its way ominously and relentlessly, like an invading army, toward the area’s delicate and heartbreakingly vulnerable wetlands.

A fisherman named Donny Campo tried to hide his anger with wisecracks, but it didn’t work. “They put us out of work, and now we’re cleaning up their mess,” he said. “Yeah, I’m mad. Some of us have been at this for generations. I’m 46 years old and my son — he’s graduating from high school this week — he was already fishing oysters. There’s a whole way of life at risk here.”

The risks unleashed by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig are profound — the latest to be set in motion by the scandalous, rapacious greed of the oil industry and its powerful allies and enablers in government. America is selling its soul for oil.

The vast, sprawling coastal marshes of Louisiana, where the Mississippi River drains into the gulf, are among the finest natural resources to be found anywhere in the world. And they are a positively crucial resource for America. Think shrimp estuaries and bird rookeries and oyster fishing grounds.

These wetlands are one of the nation’s most abundant sources of seafood. And they are indispensable when it comes to the nation’s bird population. Most of the migratory ducks and geese in the United States spend time in the Louisiana wetlands as they travel to and from Latin America.

Think songbirds. Paul Harrison, a specialist on the Mississippi River and its environs at the Environmental Defense Fund, told me that the wetlands are relied on by all 110 neo-tropical migratory songbird species. The migrating season for these beautiful, delicate creatures is right now — as many as 25 million can pass through the area each day.

Already the oil from the nightmare brought to us by BP is making its way into these wetlands, into this natural paradise that belongs not just to the people of Louisiana but to all Americans. Oil is showing up along dozens of miles of the Louisiana coast, including the beaches of Grand Isle, which were ordered closed to the public.

The response of the Obama administration and the general public to this latest outrage at the hands of a giant, politically connected corporation has been embarrassingly tepid. We take our whippings in stride in this country. We behave as though there is nothing we can do about it.

The fact that 11 human beings were killed in the Deepwater Horizon explosion (their bodies never found) has become, at best, an afterthought. BP counts its profits in the billions, and, therefore, it’s important. The 11 men working on the rig were no more important in the current American scheme of things than the oystermen losing their livelihoods along the gulf, or the wildlife doomed to die in an environment fouled by BP’s oil, or the waters that will be left unfit for ordinary families to swim and boat in.

This is the bitter reality of the American present, a period in which big business has cemented an unholy alliance with big government against the interests of ordinary Americans, who, of course, are the great majority of Americans. The great majority of Americans no longer matter.

No one knows how much of BP’s runaway oil will contaminate the gulf coast’s marshes and lakes and bayous and canals, destroying wildlife and fauna — and ruining the hopes and dreams of countless human families. What is known is that whatever oil gets in will be next to impossible to get out. It gets into the soil and the water and the plant life and can’t be scraped off the way you might be able to scrape the oil off of a beach.

It permeates and undermines the ecosystem in much the same way that big corporations have permeated and undermined our political system, with similarly devastating results.

May 22nd, 2010

Toture investigation at last, in the U.K.

The Obama administration had an opportunity to make a clear break with the previous Bush administration’s torture program. After a promising start, they retreated and have endorsed much of the philosophy behind that program. Plus, their lack of any investigation or accountability will help enshrine torture and abuse as options for future governments.

In contrast, the new Conservative/Liberal-Democrat government in the U.K. is doing a lot to repair the horrible damage to civil liberties by the previous “Labor” government. Now word comes that they are launching an inquiry into the U.K.’s government’s complicity in torture. The Guardian tells more:

A judge will investigate claims that British intelligence agencies were complicit in the torture of terror suspects, William Hague, the foreign secretary, said tonight.

The move was welcomed by civil liberties campaigners and may put pressure on the Labour leadership candidate and former foreign secretary David Miliband, who was accused by Hague, while in opposition, of having something to hide.

Miliband has repeatedly rejected the accusation and broadly indicated that he or his officials may have been misled by foreign intelligence agencies about the degree of British complicity.

Hague’s remarks appear to have caught the Foreign Office by surprise, as no details were yet available on how the inquiry will be conducted, its terms of reference or when it will start work.

Hague will come under pressure to ensure the inquiry is public and comprehensive. He first called last year for an independent judicial inquiry into claims that British officials had colluded in the torture of Binyam Mohamed, the former Guantánamo detainee and a UK resident.

Mohamed claimed that he was tortured by US forces in Pakistan and Morocco, and that MI5 fed the CIA questions that were used by US forces.

Philippe Sands QC, professor of law at University College London, said tonight: “To restore trust in government, both here and abroad, and to get to the truth, the inquiry needs to be deep and broad and as open as possible. It should address, in particular, who authorised what and when and why, what the relevant legal advice said, and how it related to any change in US practice in 2002 and 2003.”

Tayab Ali, a London solicitor who represents a number of men alleging torture, said the inquiry presented “a significant and precious opportunity” for the British public to understand their country’s role in torture.

He Ali added: “It is essential that the inquiry is credible. It should be as open as possible, led by a judge and those affected should be properly represented. Anything less is likely to mean that the inquiry will fail in providing proper answers and holding those responsible to account for their actions.”

Hague’s statement redeems a pledge that both he and his then Liberal Democrat opposite number, Ed Davey, made in opposition. Hague told the BBC: “We have said again in the coalition agreement that we want a judge-led inquiry. So will there be an inquiry of some form? Yes, both parties in the coalition said they wanted that. Now what we’re working on is what form that should take.”

The coalition agreement published today by the government does not explicitly call for a judicial inquiry; it simply states: “We will never condone the use of torture.”

Hague criticised the Labour government last year for failing to provide straightforward answers after the high court upheld one of Mohamed’s claims. This was that the security services had put questions to him, through the US, even during a two-year period when they did not know where Mohamed was being held, according to Hague.

“So far ministers have stuck to the mantra that ‘we never condone, authorise or co-operate in torture’,” Hague wrote. “But this does not dispel any of the accusations. If anything, there is now a direct and irreconcilable conflict between such ministerial assurances and the account given by Mr Mohamed. That must be resolved.”

He added: “We cannot sweep these allegations under the carpet. Until the full facts are known, Britain’s name and reputation will be dragged through the mud – not least by the terrorists and extremists who will exploit these allegations for their own propaganda.’

“It is vital to remember that torture does not help us defeat terrorists; it helps them to try to justify their hostility to us.”

The inquiry to which Hague has now committed himself will need to find a way of offering immunity to anyone who comes forward to give evidence. Although immunity deals are rarely granted to those who are complicit in torture, lawyers who advised Tory shadow ministers in the run-up to the election concluded that it is possible. Such a deal would be of clear benefit to the two MI5 and MI6 officers who are currently at the centre of a Scotland Yard investigation into their alleged criminal wrongdoing.

An inquiry may also help to resolve the many civil cases being brought by victims of torture and rendition. Government lawyers are expected to offer out-of-court settlements worth millions of pounds after the court of appeal this month dismissed an attempt by MI5 and MI6 to suppress evidence of alleged complicity.

May 21st, 2010

Grayson introduces bipartisan bill to return war funding to us

Think Progress reports that Rep. Alan Grayson has introduced a bipartisan War Is Making You Poor Act:

Today, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) introduced bipartisan legislation called the “War Is Making You Poor Act,” which aims to call attention to a) how much money is being spent to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and b) how budget gimmicks are used to pay for them. Grayson’s legislation would slash the $159 billion request for supplemental war funding and use that money to deliver a tax break for all Americans. Grayson demands the Pentagon use its currently existing $549 billion defense budget to fight the wars. Speaking on the House floor today, Grayson underscored that the point of his legislation is to highlight the costs of the wars:

GRAYSON: So I believe that the thing we need to do is to take that $159 billion that the President has set aside – we’re not saying he has to stop the war, we’re not giving a cut-off date for the war – we’re simply saying you need to fund that out of the base budget of $549 billion. And we take 90 percent of that and give it back to the American people.

And I think most people would be surprised to learn that that is so much money that we’ve been spending on the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq that every single taxpayer in America will be get his first or her first $35,000 of income completely tax free.

Watch it:

Grayson’s bill, which is currently being co-sponsored by Reps. Ron Paul (R-TX), Walter Jones (R-NC), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) Barbara Lee (D-CA), John Conyers (D-MI), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), would also cut the federal deficit by $15.9 billion. “There is no longer any need to go beyond the exorbitant base defense budget,” Grayson said. “It is not necessary. Enough is enough.”

I sure wish I could vote for Grayson.

May 21st, 2010

Live video feed of Gulf oil spill

Here is the live a video feed of the BP Gulf oil spill that BP really didn’t want you or I to see. Thnaks to Congressman Ed Markey of Massachusetts: for pressuring BP to release this to the public. [The feed is intermittent due to demand.]:

Live Videos by Ustream

May 20th, 2010

Previous Posts


Pages

Calendar

May 2010
M T W T F S S
« Apr   Jun »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Posts by Month

Posts by Category