Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Stripping Rumsfeld and Bush of Impunity

By Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive. Posted May 31, 2005.


Two respected human rights groups say there is prima facie evidence against Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush for war crimes and torture -- and they're asking foreign governments to do something about it.
Advertisement

When Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee last year, he was asked whether he "ordered or approved the use of sleep deprivation, intimidation by guard dogs, excessive noise, and inducing fear as an interrogation method for a prisoner in Abu Ghraib prison."

Sanchez, who was head of the Pentagon's Combined Joint Task Force-7 in Iraq, swore the answer was no. Under oath, he told the Senators he "never approved any of those measures to be used."

But a document the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) obtained from the Pentagon flat out contradicts Sanchez's testimony. It's a memorandum entitled "CJTF-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy," dated September 14, 2003. In it, Sanchez approved several methods designed for "significantly increasing the fear level in a detainee." These included "sleep management"; "yelling, loud music, and light control: used to create fear, disorient detainee, and prolong capture shock"; and "presence of military working dogs: exploits Arab fear of dogs."

On March 30, the ACLU wrote a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, urging him "to open an investigation into whether General Ricardo A. Sanchez committed perjury in his sworn testimony."

The problem is, Gonzales may himself have committed perjury in his Congressional testimony this January.

According to a March 6 article in The New York Times, Gonzales submitted written testimony that said: "The policy of the United States is not to transfer individuals to countries where we believe they likely will be tortured, whether those individuals are being transferred from inside or outside the United States." He added that he was "not aware of anyone in the executive branch authorizing any transfer of a detainee in violation of that policy."

"That's a clear, absolute lie," says Michael Ratner, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, who is suing Administration officials for their involvement in the torture scandal. "The Administration has a policy of sending people to countries where there is a likelihood that they will be tortured."

The New York Times article backs up Ratner's claim. It says "a still-classified directive signed by President Bush within days of the September 11 attacks" gave the CIA broad authority to transfer suspected terrorists to foreign countries for interrogations. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International estimate that the United States has transferred between 100 and 150 detainees to countries notorious for torture.

So Gonzales may not be the best person to evaluate the allegation of perjury against Sanchez.

But going after Sanchez or Gonzales for perjury is the least of it. Sanchez may be personally culpable for war crimes and torture, according to Human Rights Watch. And Gonzales himself was one of the legal architects of the torture policies. As such, he may have been involved in "a conspiracy to immunize U.S. agents from criminal liability for torture and war crimes under U.S. law," according to Amnesty International's recent report: "Guantánamo and Beyond: The Continuing Pursuit of Unchecked Executive Power."

As White House Counsel, Gonzales advised President Bush to not apply Geneva Convention protections to detainees captured in Afghanistan, in part because this "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act," Gonzales wrote in his January 25, 2002, memo to the President.

Gonzales's press office refused to provide comment after several requests from The Progressive. In his Senate confirmation testimony, Gonzales said, "I want to make very clear that I am deeply committed to the rule of law. I have a deep and abiding commitment to the fundamental American principle that we are a nation of laws, and not of men."

Pentagon spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel John Skinner says the ACLU's suggestion that Sanchez committed perjury is "absolutely ridiculous." In addition, Skinner pointed to a recent Army inspector general report that looked into Sanchez's role. "Every senior-officer allegation was formally investigated," the Army said in a May 5 summary. Sanchez was investigated, it said, for "dereliction in the performance of duties pertaining to detention and interrogation operations" and for "improperly communicating interrogation policies." The inspector general "found each of the allegations unsubstantiated."

The Bush Administration's legal troubles don't end with Sanchez or Gonzales. They go right to the top: to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush himself. Both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International USA say there is "prima facie" evidence against Rumsfeld for war crimes and torture. And Amnesty International USA says there is also "prima facie" evidence against Bush for war crimes and torture. (According to Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, "prima facie evidence" is "evidence sufficient to establish a fact or to raise a presumption of fact unless rebutted.")


Digg!

Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
An accountability moment
Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net on May 31, 2005 1:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I couldn't agree more that these gangsters deserve to be prosecuted. Also that the chances of that happening are remote, to say the least.

What we need to do is take advantage of the midterm election lull, as follows:

Activate the non-voting majority with a radical program for re-installing Constitutional government, enabling all the promises in the Preamble, not just "defence", as these hoods claim to be the only legitimate use of government (I highly reccommend reading this document. It shows what liars Scalia & Co are).

Get them motivated to register and vote. Run Independent candidates against all 435 Representatives and 33 (or 34) Seators running for re-election in 2006.

With a large majority in the House and also in the Senate with the remaining Democrats, we can impeach co-fuhrers Bush and Cheney, as well as the Gang of Five who subverted the rights of Florida's voters.

This will make a newly elected Speaker of the House President, with majorities in both houses of congress. Then we can arrest and prosecute all of these thugs and send them to Guantanamo as enemy combatants.

At which point we will be free to address issues important to Americans, such as making sure everyone has enough to eat, shelter, health care, and so on.

Sounds pretty ambitious, doesn't it? What the dickens do we have to lose?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: An accountability moment Posted by: brasilaron
» RE: An accountability moment Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net
» RE: An accountability moment Posted by: Farbanti
» RE: An accountability moment Posted by: markitup137
» RE: An accountability moment Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net
War crimes
Posted by: kgs1947 on May 31, 2005 4:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can I help to get this information before the public? How can an individual, like me, make a difference.? How will these men ever get to the the court of justice?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: War crimes Posted by: Sandra
» RE: War crimes Posted by: royrogers
» RE: War crimes Posted by: royrogers
» RE: War crimes Posted by: royrogers
» RE: War crimes Posted by: monkeywrench
» RE: War crimes; "How can I help?" Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net
Enemy combatants?
Posted by: WhatNow? on May 31, 2005 5:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The term enemy combatants worried me the first time I heard it. Everywhere Bush proclaimed a War on Terror and these prisoners were considered to be terrorists. In my mind this leeds me to the logical deduction that they are POWs. They should be provided with all the rights entailed within the Geneva Convention.

Sadly I believe our "leaders" (term used loosely) are war criminals. The world had to US to fight against and later try the german war criminals of the last century. What happens now when the righteous and mighty are now the villians?

At this point it appears unlikely these lunatics will ever be held responsible for their actions but you never know. I am very proud and very glad somebody is trying to stop these cruel bastards from continuing their practices.

The worst thing of all is the two countries that could possibly hold these people (Russia and China - I don't think there's many in the US that would really want to tangle with them.) do not have a good record of human rights either.

This country may have to sink so low ,whereas something akin to the French Revolution occurs, to ever get rid of this imperialist regime we now have in Washington.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The French Revolution? Posted by: Lloyd Drako
» RE: The French Revolution? Posted by: WhatNow?
» Is the Glass Half Full? Posted by: BriMan
» RE: Is the Glass Half Full? Posted by: mendomama
» RE: Is the Glass Half Full? Posted by: BriMan
The 9-11 Terrorists are Winning
Posted by: zoza on May 31, 2005 5:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The 9-11 terrorists set out to disrupt our world. They have been successful. This is not the same country. Our leaders have used that terrible day as a means to impose their insanity on the rest of the world. The world was at our feet on 9-12 and now they look at us with disgust.
The only means of gaining back any respect in the world is to show the rest of the world that the American people will not stand for this type of behavior and throw these right wing zealots into the gutter where they belong. They do not represent the majority of our country and the time for revolution is now. It's time to take to the streets. That is the only way the main-stream media will ever bring this to the attention of those who are not paying attention.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The 9-11 Terrorists are Winning Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net
» RE: The 9-11 Terrorists are Winning Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net
Michel Boucher
Posted by: alsandor on May 31, 2005 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Deny as they might, it has now been clearly established that at the very least Colin Powell knew that a Canadian citizen, Maher Arar, had been arrested in transit through the US and deported to Syria where it was known he would be tortured.

Powell maintained the decision to deport Arar was taken in Canada. However it is fairly clear that it was the US government that decided to deport Arar without benefit of a hearing.

Requests for information from our minister were treated with scorn. It appears now that others were deported to Syria for torture and that these people are coming forth to testify.

Interested parties may wish to peruse the transcripts of the inquiry with which neither the US nor the Syrian governments will be collaborating.

http://www.ararcommission.ca/eng/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BubbaTJ
Posted by: BubbaTJ on May 31, 2005 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure any of these people (Bush, Rumsfield, etc.) even know what the Constitution or the Bill of Rights are. I wish someone, at a news conference or at one of these debates, would ask Bush a question (like, name all the rights in the Bill of Rights). I mean, they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and I wonder if they even know what it is they have sworn to uphold?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: BubbaTJ Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net
» RE: BubbaTJ Posted by: windy
» RE: BubbaTJ Posted by: WomanforPeace/Sanity
» RE: BubbaTJ - Sleazy Coyotes Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net
» RE: BubbaTJ Posted by: brasilaron
Now or Never
Posted by: Free_Soul on May 31, 2005 10:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the time where American History gets defined. We are at a dangerous crossroads where changes that this regime is trying to implement can effect this country indefinitly. Enough damage has already been done.

Perhaps it's time for a 3rd party to emerge such as i.e: 'Union of Working Class Families Party.' We the people need to show our government that we are part of our governing system and any person that tries to turn a Presidency into an abitrary power needs to be removed from office, as we did to Nixon. Our Founding Fathers are surely spinning in their graves.

What George Bush and Co.(horts) have done has been out in the open, permeated by their sheer, smug arrogance that they can do whatever they please because they are the government. Only slightly more than half of Americans bought into their system so the rest of us who do care to know and understand what is really going on just have to get with his program in a 'like it or lump it' mode. Not so different when he announced to the world that "whoever is not for him is against him". Only we did not realize that he was also addressing you and I as well.
Bush does not think that the American people have it in them to stand in against him. We have allowed highly questionable voting processes the past 2 Presidential elections. He has been allowed to trample on our civil rights. He was allowed to get us into a highly questionable war with no accountability when Bush & Gang all publicly lied to us when they were all quoted as saying, "The reason why we going to invade Iraq is because we know they have WMD. He was allowed to get away with the blatant conflict of interest when Halliburton & Co. was handed a no-bid open ended contract by Cheney in a sheer act nepotism. Cheney is on their payroll collecting severance pay. The richest people have received the largest tax breaks, while he thumbs his nose at the working class families. Rising healthcare costs. Bush continues to erode the boundaries of separation of Church and State laws. We receive cenosored/filtered mainstream news. Failing economy, cuts in education & the continuance of the outsourcing of jobs. Now we face government mandated I.D. cards.

History will be changed and altered by everyday people like you and me. Time to take stand, now or never. Either we fight for a true democracy or fall prey to the autocrats of a tolitarian government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Now or Never: A new party Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net
spread the net wider
Posted by: galbi on May 31, 2005 11:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We do not want to envision Pres. Cheney or even Pres. Hastert. A wider net should fill in all the planners and facilitators, most of them were involved in the 70's work on into the 80's and 90's
in Central America: starting with Kissinger, and including Abrams,
Wolfewitz, etc. all involved in one
grand reaching plot to control other countries and their resources.
This all can be done by using the
government's favorite strategy:
CONSPIRACY. There is no statute
of limitations on that either, if you
can get them on the other points.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New "Teflon King"
Posted by: mrsmagoo on May 31, 2005 12:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Heck, Dubya should be crowned our new "Teflon King"! Nothing sticks to him. Ronald "Raygun" has nothing on this guy. This administration has managed to get out of every controversy they created. We, the drones, will continue to get dumber and dumber while the King and his empire will continue to exploit and use us for their rich reward (which will definately NOT be in heaven)! God help us all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mississippi@earthlink.net
Posted by: Anna on May 31, 2005 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In our San Francisco Çhronicle News Paper this Sunday, May 29th and article appeared in the 'world' section on an inquiry into a 'Canadian citizen that the U.S. sent to Syria. The man was an Arab, Maher Arara, arrested as he changed planes in New York accused of terrorist connections, even though there was no proof of this. He was sent to Syria where torture is commonplace. The article states, "The reason the U.S. sent Mr. Arar to Syria and not Canada is that Syria torures people and Canada does not." In his native Syria he was tortured,beaten with cables and detained and held for 10 months in a tiny cell. Since this case has become a central example for human rights advocates, I realize you are probably aware of this but what can we do to make our FBI, CIA, and other security official, not to mention our president and Mr. Ashcroft who said he received assurances from the Syrian Govt that there would be no torture.....yeah right......Ashcroft knew that Syria is notorious for prisoner abuse and torture. This has got to stop!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who Would Jesus Torture?
Posted by: surfreality on May 31, 2005 12:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We live in Orwellian times. We are told Bush won reelection because religious conservatives agreed with the republican view of morality. This same view on morality allowed republicans to parlay a lie about oral sex into an impeachment trial of a sitting President. Their point at the time was "He lied." The "Blaire memo" story now reveals that Bush and his ilk cooked the intelligance on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify a war that the public otherwise would not have supported. We also now learn that senior members of the administration have lied under oath about our policies towards prisonors in Afganistan, Iraq and Cuba. We have learned that these moral republicans tried to redefine "torture" to exclude any treatment that isn't fatal or life threatening. They said we are not bound by the Geneva convention. The Pentagon knew about Abu Ghraib for over a year before the guards e-mails and photos were leaked to the press. To date no one has been held accountable for the policies that led to those abuses. The only people taking the fall are overworked, undertrained and undermanned young national guardsmen. Where is the right wing evangelical call to arms to defend morality against torture and lies? Their silence on this makes their view on morality highly suspect. The democrats in congress are worse than useless. Someone in the loyal opposition needs to step up to the plate and start demanding accountability. When will a politician with a back bone finally show up? Who out there has the balls to take on "the power"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Accountability is a "Four-Letter Word" to Bush
Posted by: Jammer2 on May 31, 2005 12:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are talking about a man that has never been held accountable for anything in his life. He has the smile, he has the charm, he has the best public relations people working for him; and the people of America will always vote the best looking candidate into office including those with the intelligence of a grapefruit.

He has abused everybody and everything within his purview all of his life! And why shouldn't he? Daddy was the "King of the CIA" and had the dirt on every politician in the country. So Dad's coked-out alcoholic sonny boy comes along and carries on the tradition by aligning himself with all of Daddy's old cronies. He and this pack of wealthy street thugs has taken America hostage, and nobody has had the balls to stand up to him until just recently.

When the history of the former Unites States of America is written, we can all look back and say, 'Damn, I just can't believe this happened!' It's a sick world that we live in, and these are the kind of people that make it fatal for the average citizen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

shebear
Posted by: shebear on May 31, 2005 12:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is now coming out that Aspartame is causing blindness and death in the mainstream. This was known back before it got FDA approval. Donald Rumsfeld was the CEO of the company that made nutri-sweet and pulled his political strings to get it approved. Ronald Reagan, the day after he took office, fired the head of the FDA and put in their puppet, who went over the head of the scientist who knew that aspartame caused 92 serious side effects, and approved a known neuotoxin. Now it is in the food supply, in at least 6000 products. This is torture to those who are affected by it. Why does the ACLU or Amnesty International, not go after him for this CRIME? People all over the world are effected by this poison. http://dorway.com has all the documentation to put him in jail forever, but they need people with a voice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: shebear Posted by: markitup137
Defeated War Criminals
Posted by: pjrsullivan on May 31, 2005 1:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Usually, only those defeated nations in war, send their leaders up on War Crimes charges. Pinochet was captured by time.
Our current crop of long term war criminals have survived in the immunity of the apparently non-defeated nation of America. This is absolutely false! America, the home of the Star Spangled bomb droppers, has, believe it or not, been soundly defeated.

The victors in this instance are the group that we call the Extraterrestrials. You see, the plan from the beginning was to immolate the human race with nuclear weapons, ET stepped in, and in the strangest defeat ever recorded in history, has soundly defeated the Wall Street War Criminals, and their partners in atrocity, the upstanding International Members of the Merchant Murder class

Our war crime committing leadership has repeatedly tried to pull the pin, and always some technical reason has intervened. US Airforce General Grant, who was in the loop during the Reagan administration said that we would of all been destroyed in a nuclear war already except for acts of "Divine Intervention." You may recall that the war criminal Reagan placed pershing missiles in Europe, to trigger World War III. ET says no, and the war criminals can't get it up, even with such a stud on board as Rumsfeld.

Once the mass of the population becomes aware that this band of baby killers have alrwady sttempted to destroy them, and that ET has defeated them, dum dum de dum, dum de dum de dum de dum.

You won't find it with a google search, yet if you use the yahoo search engine, put this in, Disaster at Silo 7 Revisited.

This was but one attempt to launch a nuclear triggering device on our heads that happened in September 1980.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why does Israel spy against America?
Posted by: apodapa on May 31, 2005 2:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If anyone besides those of us who applaud Matthew Rothchild for writing a great piece think that there's a snow balls chance in the Occupied Palestinian Territories for the Bush Mafia going down for war crimes, please, get your head examined. Yeah, what I'm saying is that American consciousness barely gives notice to U.S. support of it's 51st state comitting atrocities and war crimes with all of the billions of dollars of free money and military suppies provided to them by John and Jane Taxpayer. With every U.S. politicians blessing (and with AIPAC's gun at their back) Israel has been doing for years in brutal offense of it's much over simplified claim of "it's right to exist" what the U.S. is doing in the name of spreading democracy. Maybe when Americans figure out that the Israeli oppression of Palestine is the same as the Iraq war, and vice versa, and that we are essentially warring in Iraq because Saddam was a sworn enemy of Israel, well, maybe then things will change. Until then expect more freedom to march hand in hand with Israel expansion into the territories.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush Openly Condoned Murder
Posted by: time4change on May 31, 2005 3:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"More than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Put it this way, they're no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies."

– George W. Bush, State of the Union address, February 4, 2003

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bush Openly Condoned Murder Posted by: markitup137
» RE: Bush Openly Condoned Murder Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net
» RE: Bush Openly Condoned Murder Posted by: markitup137
» RE: Bush Openly Condoned Murder Posted by: gopbarfbag
Fat Chance
Posted by: paschn@comcast.net on May 31, 2005 3:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That Simpering, whining, murderous swine will be protected to the last fool waving the American [ swastika ] Flag until people like you can unite the world to rid us of not only him and all his cabinet, but that foul little nation we've been bred to protect like a mindless attack dog, Isreal. I REFUSE to follow the mindless drivel of the American Sheeple's "my country right or wrong" mantra. they allowed that pig to steal the first election,...they gave him another 4 years to torture and murder. they now must share in the consequences for their idiocy and sheep like mentality. The murderous pig and all others responsible for the MURDER of innocent people MUST be made to answer by ANY means the world deems neccessary. And then to assure big business will never again suffer itself upon the world, there MUST be international laws put in place to control those evil mongrels as well. Of the 50 states in this Evil Empire, there must be SOME with leaders disgusted and horrified enough to put a stop to it with out civil war! If, as a whole it's deemed too powerful to control, then let these states with a conscience leave the union. Maybe it's time this Evil Empire is dismantled?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» great idea, civil war! Posted by: markitup137
» RE: why would we support the palestinians Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net
» RE: great idea, civil war! Posted by: apodapa
» RE: great idea, civil war! Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net
» RE: great idea, civil war! Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net
HEADS UP
Posted by: rudyaub on May 31, 2005 4:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd just like everyone to know that in the face of a Republic that does not represent ME, I am left with no choice but to represent myself.
I plan on running for president in 2008 and am currently organizing a new political party, called the American Party.
Please go to www.rudyshomepage.com/topten.htm and bookmark it, as I will be posting news and information there regularly. There's already tons of information there, enjoy.
If you'd like to know more about where I stand, please pick up a copy of my book, Dear America, which is for sale exclusively on www.bidrevolution.com
It details pretty much everything I have to say about every single issue we face, especially REAL issues that you'll never hear a corporate politician talk about, since it's his job to distract you from the real issues.
There's enough of us now to make a change. It can be done. It doesn't cost money, we just have to start focusing on what unites us rather than divides us, like obscenely high taxes, lack of representation, propaganda in the media, etc.

Let's do it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Investigation of Bush & Rumsfeld
Posted by: marrieah on May 31, 2005 5:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When has a fox ever investigated a fox about the terrible things done to the chickens in the henhouse. And since there is no longer a special investgater, one can't help but wonder if that was the whole reason behind the 'find anything you can on Clinton, even if you have to go into his toilet to find it' scandal. We no longer have a special prosecutor, even though Bush and Rumsfeld and their group of merry men have been wreaking havoc everywhere. Even the news media in certain sectors have been have had their credibility put in check, not because the story was wrong, but because someone didn't dot an 'i' or forgot to cross a 't'
however, Bush and company can lie like a tordado during it's worst and no one challange them. Go figure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

back to the article...
Posted by: markitup137 on May 31, 2005 7:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
one pretext of this article is sleep deprivation, intimidation by guard dogs, excessive noise, and inducing fear as an interrogation method is toture and is therefor prohibited. while each of these methods is very unpleasant, none of them do any real damage to the prisoner (maybe some bad dreams, i don't know). there's a no shit life or death battle out there and many of these people have info that can be used to save lives (not just american lives, but the lives of iraqi's and even insurgents in some cases). so if it's not really hurting them, why not do those things? ive personally had to go through interrogations involving each of the techniques listed above (as well as others such as waterboard which is a way to simulate the feeling of drowning) and im here to tell you it's not fun, but it ends and life goes on. the army has actually banned these techniques because of so many people crying foul play. personally i don't think it will have a huge affect on interrogations because the best methods involve breaking down a persons belief system which can be accompished with just talking. it's just the fact that they're taking away these tools (which do have a place) for no reason that makes me interested in the whole scenario. another intersting tip: when we first came to iraq, the iraqis that were captured were completely convinced that the men would be killed and the women and children (and cattle i presume) would be raped and then killed as simple as that. saddam told them they were dead if we came. what do you think those people thought about being taken to abu ghraib where, despite being uncomfortable, their basic physical and spiritual needs were met? not to gloss over the abuse, which is inexcusable. i would not, however, call sleep deprivation and using guard dogs to scare the detainees during an interrogation an abuse of power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: back to the article... Posted by: apodapa
» RE: 10-year-old? Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net
» RE: back to the article... Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net
» RE: back to the article... Posted by: apodapa
» RE: back to the article... Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net
» RE: back to the article... Posted by: markitup137
» RE: back to the article... Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net
» and by the way dennyduke... Posted by: markitup137
» RE: and by the way dennyduke... Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net
» RE: back to the article... Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» RE: back to the article... Posted by: markitup137
» RE: back to the article... Posted by: markitup137
» RE: back to the article... Posted by: brasilaron
» RE: back to the article... Posted by: markitup137
» RE: back to the article... Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net
» RE: back to the article... Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net
re: Stripping Rumsfeld and Bush of Impunity
Posted by: bobolsen on May 31, 2005 8:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Should Canada indict Bush?

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/

cs/ContentServer?

pagename=thestar/Layout/

Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=

1100517502971&call_pageid=

970599109774&col=Columnist

969907626796&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7

ChAX&tacodalogin=yes


Toronto Star, Nov. 16, 2004

Should Canada indict Bush?

THOMAS WALKOM twalkom@thestar.ca

When U.S. President George W. Bush arrives in Ottawa ó probably later this year ó should he be welcomed? Or should he be charged with war crimes?

It's an interesting question. On the face of it, Bush seems a perfect candidate for prosecution under Canada's Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act.

..... snip ,,,,

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

o snap...
Posted by: markitup137 on May 31, 2005 11:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
didn't see the whole quote, my fault.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

re: civil war
Posted by: markitup137 on May 31, 2005 11:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
first off, the civil war comment... i was talking about, "If, as a whole it's deemed too powerful to control, then let these states with a conscience leave the union." maybe that wasn't clear, the last time a group of states tried that there was a civil war. i don't necessarily agree that what happened after wwII was the best choice, but whatever the reasoning was (it was random, but... tough situation) it was over fifty years ago. i wasn't alive then, were you? they've been fighting ever since, yet after arrafat dies, suddenly peace is an option. people 2 generations ago made a decision that started a long fight, and it was stated from the beginning whose side we were on. you're talking about a state that sponsored suicide bombers. im not saying the israelis are angels, but compared to that ill take the lesser of 2 evils. and the antisemitism... i have never met an arab that doesn't hate israel with ever muscle in his body. it's all the same to them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: re: civil war Posted by: Jamesberry
» RE: re: civil war Posted by: markitup137
» RE: re: civil war Posted by: Halaby
Gitmo a diversion of sorts
Posted by: Jamesberry on Jun 1, 2005 12:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Talking about a trail of paperwork showing these or that person is a war crimnal for torture is a diversion from an important thruth that is largely ignored. Simply put the whole war in Iraq is a War crime in and of itself. It is the crime of agression pure and simple and Bush and the other US leaders are war criminals just like the Germans where.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

connecting the dots
Posted by: abena on Jun 1, 2005 2:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i concur that this prosecution is hopeful, if unrealistic. but strength in numbers, if we support the effort.

recall ramsey clark's ongoing attempt to impeach bush and i believe that has to include cheny and rumsfield et al.

yes there are war crimes galore, and unless we use one rulebook there will always be recourse to might. Where does the world court come in? oh, no surprise the US does not support it.

as an aside to the article, and in support of some earlier comments, i believe that

instead of the vatican controlling our policies, we have a paranoid, fearful zionism, exploiting (the neoconns) and being exploited (americans fearful for israel), and this is the sacred cow in american [middle eastern] policy which must be addressed.

this may be unpleasant but it is true, and we humans are all in this together. there are heros and villans on all sides, and the truth cannot choose sides. Remember Vanumu, a true hero and victim of "national interests", "state secrets", i.e. nuclear bomb development, by the US and Israel neoconn interests.

refs:
Impending War on Iraq an American Jihad
by George Bisharat
http://www.commondreams.org
/views03/0213-07.htm

Tom Barry, In These Times The Pentagon neocons who brought you the war in Iraq have a
new target.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20046/

p.s you guys are great - its great to hear those with info and ideas on the same wavelength, sometimes saying the unsayable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MARKITUP137 - a special message just for you....
Posted by: mendomama on Jun 1, 2005 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, we all drink from the same water, huh? Well, every once in a while, we get someone like you in here blabbing on about how we hate America, how we make something out of nothing, and how we should just leave. Did it ever occur to you that the reasons many of us feel so passionately about the issues facing us, is BECAUSE we love America? Because we'd like the principles She was founded on to be honored and respected? Personally, I love it when people like you post here. It just makes it easier for us all to accept that our fellow countrymen/women are immersed in ignorance. You think that you are posing intelligent arguments, when really, you might as well be a tape recorded collective of everything idiotic that Bush and his cronies have tried to pass off as the truth. You are a prime example of the propaganda machine that is poisoning the minds of the masses. You have essentially proven, in my opinion, that Bush supporters are of the slightly challenged - mentally. Otherwise, you would have included in your many statements some kind of intelligent information to support your ludicrous claims. I suppose there are many more out there like you, that dismiss the atrocities committed by this administration with a sort of "War is Hell" kind of mentality. I am thankful for the clarity I have. It's better to live consciously, with full knowledge of the bullshit that our government is dishing out, than to be one of the fools licking their chops begging for more, as if the spoons full of shit were a steak and lobster special.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» try try again Posted by: brasilaron
nukes vs suicide bombers
Posted by: brasilaron on Jun 1, 2005 8:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's not a pretty choice, but which one would you consider more dangerous, a country that possesses nuclear weapons (multiple) and regularly gives the middle finger to international concensus and international law, assassinates people it considers enemies without giving them a trial, occupies land illegally and continually encourages it's citizens to further occupy that land, AND does not let nearly 1/2 of the people living within its borders to vote (strangely enough i'm not describing the USA)? Or a few (admittedly increasing in #s) desparate people strapped with explosives that blow themselves seemingly at random? The permanent threat of eternal destruction and desecration of this world that we are not owners of through nuclear irradiation or the remediable threat of desperate people driven to get their homes back? I'm gonna have to say that the Israelis lose this argument over who is more dangerous to the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comme