Meet the U.S.

Stormig · March 8, 2005

(and I guess that's what Stormy has been saying all this time)

style_images/master/snapback.png

Something along those lines. At any rate, people like the above can squirm all they want.

Cheers, Solaris. I hope I have used and quoted from the right text, the conventions aren't my forte, either.

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of
International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva
from 21 April to 12 August, 1949
entry into force 21 October 1950

Stormig · March 8, 2005

Federal suit charges Rumsfeld authorized detainee torture

By Don Knowland

8 March 2005

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

Four Afghans and four Iraqis have sued US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in federal court in Chicago, the city of his principal residence, for implementing interrogation policies that resulted in their torture at the hands of US military forces. The case was filed on behalf of these plaintiffs on March 1 by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First, until recently known as Lawyers for Human Rights.

According to the complaint, all the plaintiffs “are and were non-combatant civilians who pose no threat to the United States.” They were not engaged in hostilities against the US, were never prosecuted for criminal violations and were released by the military after being brutally tortured. The suit charges that this torture came as a result of a “policy, pattern or practice of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” authorized at the highest levels of the US military.

The eight plaintiffs have provided detailed accounts of their abuse by US torturers, which form the cornerstone of the lawsuit against Rumsfeld. [see accompanying article “Afghan and Iraqi prisoners detail abuse by US torturers”] They are seeking monetary damages to compensate them for their physical, psychological and emotional injuries.

The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights and the four Iraqis recently sought to initiate criminal prosecution of Rumsfeld and former CIA Director George Tenet in Germany, for many of the same acts alleged in the lawsuit, but the German government rejected that request on February 10. [see “US group files war crimes complaint in Germany against Rumsfeld”]

The complaint initiating the civil lawsuit against Rumsfeld pieces together in considerable detail the train of events that led to widespread torture of detainees in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo, Cuba, and reads like pages from the annals of the Nazis’ techniques. The full written complaint can be viewed at http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFre...?ID=17572&c=206 by clicking on “Rumsfeld complaint” under the “Legal Papers” heading.

International law and US law prohibits, without exception, torture and cruel treatment of prisoners. By 2002, illegal interrogation techniques were already widespread in Afghanistan. In January 2002, Amnesty International wrote letters to Rumsfeld complaining of mistreatment of Afghanistan detainees, including sensory deprivation by means such as hooding, restraint in painful positions, death threats, prolonged sleep deprivation, violent shaking, and use of cold air to chill the detainee. Amnesty International wrote a lengthy memorandum to Rumsfeld in April 2002 complaining of abuses both in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo.

Rumseld failed to investigate or punish such acts. Instead, on December 2, 2002, he approved the use of a number of illegal interrogation techniques at Guantanamo. Those techniques included the use of “stress positions,” clothing removal, 20-hour interrogations, isolation for up to 30 days, sensory deprivation, deceptions, such as pretending the interrogator was from a country known for torture (“false flag”), and inducing stress by playing upon detainee phobias (such as fear of dogs).

Following reports by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of abuses at Guantanamo, Rumsfeld on January 15, 2003, purported to rescind some of the illegal techniques. But in an order to the commander of the US Southern Command, Rumsfeld said he could personally continue to authorize such techniques, and wanted to be involved in formulating a plan to employ them.

On January 15, 2003, Rumsfeld also directed William J. Haynes II, the General Counsel for the Defense Department, its highest lawyer, to put together a “Working Group” on interrogation techniques. The group reviewed and did not object to illegal techniques already in wide use in Afghanistan. On April 4, 2003, the group recommended to Rumsfeld that he approve 35 such techniques at Guantanamo.

On April 16, 2003, Rumsfeld approved use of 25 of those techniques, including extended isolation, dietary and environmental manipulation, “sleep adjustment” and “false flag” deception. He also retained the power to personally authorize additional abuses. By the summer of 2003, Rumsfeld was well aware that torture and abuse of detainees in Afghanistan and Guantanamo continued on a broad scale.

In May and July 2003, the International Committee of the Red Cross sent the US government reports of widespread torture and other abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US forces. According to the complaint, Rumsfeld’s response was to take measures “to increase the pressure on interrogators that he knew was highly likely to result in further torture, or cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.”

Rumsfeld and Cambone sent General Geoffrey Miller, US military commander at Guantanamo, to Iraq to “Gitmo-ize” detention facilities, thereby implementing Guantanamo tactics on a widespread basis. Miller used the techniques approved by Rumsfeld in April 2003 as a baseline for recommending even harsher techniques at the Abu Ghraib facility in Iraq.

In July 2003, Captain Carolyn Wood and her 519th Military Intelligence Battalion were assigned to Abu Ghraib. The catalogue of that battalion’s previous abuse of detainees in Afghanistan reads like a medieval torture manual, including slamming prisoners into walls, twisting shackles to induce pain, forcing detainees into painful contorted positions, kneeing them, shackling arms to the ceiling, and forcing water into the mouth until the prisoner could not breath. Two Afghan detainees were murdered by battalion members in December 2002 at the US Air Force base at Bagram. The detainees were shackled with their arms over their shoulders for prolonged periods and were beaten by several soldiers on the legs.

Rumsfeld personally visited Abu Ghraib with General Miller in early September 2003. On September 14, 2003, General Sanchez authorized 29 techniques on a generalized basis at Abu Ghraib, 12 of which were illegal, and 5 of which went beyond those Rumsfeld had authorized at Guantanamo, including the use of dogs. General Miller had recommended the use of dogs in Iraq because of a belief that Arabs have a culturally based fear of dogs.

On November 19, 2003, Sanchez appointed Colonel Thomas Pappas of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade head of Abu Ghraib. While in command at Abu Ghraib, Colonel Pappas authorized sensory deprivation, shackling, and forced stripping of detainees. He instituted use of dogs to instill fear to set “the atmosphere for which, you know, you could get information.” From Rumsfeld down the chain to Sanchez and Pappas, intense pressure was applied for interrogation results. Pappas, in turn, pressured his charges.

Contrary to command structure rules, Pappas was made responsible for Karpinski’s military police soldiers, who were untrained in interrogation techniques. This contributed to an atmosphere permissive of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners. These soldiers were told to “make sure” a detainee “has a bad night” or “make sure he gets the treatment.” Pappas specifically told MP’s to “soften up” detainees, which they took to mean physical and mental abuse.

In October 2003, the International Committee of the Red Cross visited Abu Ghraib. It reported “physical and psychological coercion,” in some cases “tantamount to torture,” including threats, sleep deprivation, tight cuffing to cause lesions, and holding detainees in bare concrete cells devoid of light while naked. It observed psychological symptoms such as suicidal tendencies, memory loss and acute anxiety reactions. In response, Colonel Pappas revoked the Red Cross’s access to the interrogation areas and denied its requests to interview specific detainees. General Sanchez approved these denials of access.

In November 2003, army criminal investigators in Georgia took a soldier’s statement that detainees in Iraq were forced to stay outdoors in extremely hot weather for up to 12 hours “with their hands bound so tightly behind their backs that their hands turned purple.” The soldier also reported driving a Bradley armored vehicle towards detainees to “spook them.” Nothing came of these statements.

In December 2003, a report was made to General Sanchez and his military intelligence commander about a joint CIA-military taskforce beating Iraqi detainees and taking detainee family members hostage. In fact, as in Afghanistan, abuse of prisoners in Iraq spread beyond Abu Ghraib—to “Camp Cropper” near the Baghdad airport, Camp Bucca in the city of Umm Qasr, to Mosul and Tikrit, and to numerous locations in and around Baghdad.

It is now documented that in Iraq US soldiers tore out toenails, administered electrical shocks, beat detainees with hard objects such as rifles, beat them with knees and feet, pressed their faces into the ground by stepping on heads, forced stress positions for hours on end, hooded and otherwise kept detainees in darkness for prolonged periods, paraded them naked in public and kept them naked in isolation for days on end, aimed at them with rifles, sometimes directly to the head, and threatened them with death, family reprisals, imminent execution and transfer to Guantanamo.

In January 2004, a US solider assigned to Abu Ghraib provided Army criminal investigators with a CD containing the now-famous photos of soldiers sexually abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib. In February 2004, the Red Cross issued its exhaustive report on torture and abuse at US detention facilities in Iraq. It was only following the public outcry that Rumsfeld made some statements critical of the abuse, and measures were taken against some of the soldiers at the bottom of the chain of command.

Rumsfeld and General Sanchez ordered investigations into torture in Iraq but then intentionally limited the investigations to preclude finding wrongdoing by higher-level civilian and military commanders, including themselves. Army reports by Generals Fay, Jones and Taguba thus limited their criticism to General Karpinski and Colonel Pappas, for their “failure of leadership.” No senior officers were charged, only the low-level officers who followed the orders of their superiors, such as convicted Spc. Charles Graner.

The legal framework for the lawsuit is not complex. Contrary to US legal officials such as Alberto Gonzalez and John Yoo, who conspired to provide a legal fig leaf for US torturers by claiming that the US president can allow it in time of war, the prohibition on torture is universally recognized and is binding on all persons. It brooks no exceptions. As US courts have recognized, the torturer “like the pirate and slave trader before him,” is “an enemy of all mankind.”

Articles 17 and 32 of the Third Geneva Convention, incorporated into the US Army Field Manual, ban torture of prisoners of war and civilians, respectively. Article 3 common to all four Geneva Conventions prohibits torture, as does the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment, ratified as US law in 1994, confirms that there are no exceptions to the rule against torture. In fact, the US recognized in its 1999 report to the U.N. Committee on Torture that no governmental official, civilian or military, can authorize, instruct another to commit, condone, or tolerate torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in any form. The Fifth and Eight Amendments to the US Constitution also effectively ban torture.

Rumsfeld can be held liable for authorizing torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading acts by his subordinates. Rumsfeld is also liable for failing to stop those acts of his subordinates, of which he was on notice, and thereby ratifying their conduct. This command responsibility theory harks back to the Nuremburg prosecutions and was recognized by the United Sates Supreme Court in 1946 in upholding prosecution of high Japanese military figures.

The plaintiffs also allege that Rumsfeld has not reversed his policies, such that the plaintiffs are in continued danger of mistreatment. They seek a declaration from the court that the policies and acts of Rumsfeld and his subordinates that they complain of violate US and international laws against torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees.

The four Iraqi plaintiffs also filed separate lawsuits last week against General Sanchez, General Karpinski and Colonel Pappas in the federal courts where they reside, in Texas, South Carolina and Connecticut, respectively, seeking to hold them liable for their own actions in promoting or permitting torture.

See Also:

Federal suit charges Rumsfeld authorized detainee torture

[8 March 2005]

New evidence of US torture in Iraq and Afghanistan

[23 February 2005]

More evidence of US government’s torture by proxy

[12 February 2005]

US torture in Iraq, Afghanistan: authorized at the highest levels

[15 June 2004]

Stormig · March 8, 2005

“The Tools of Tyrants” -- Jose Padilla and the 10 Commandments

By Mike Whitney

03/07/05 "Information Clearing House" - - It shouldn’t surprise us that the Supreme Court has decided to take a case about the public displaying of the 10 Commandments, but refused to hear the case of Jose Padilla, the alleged “dirty bomber”. On the one hand, we have a hot-button cultural issue that is bound to divide the country along ideological lines. (good for Bush). On the other, we have the most significant case in the history of the court, casually pushed aside for a later date. Both cases reveal how deeply politicized the high court has become, and how (eventually) some of its members will have to be removed in order to restore confidence in the legitimacy of the institution.

The case of Jose Padilla appeared in the media again this week, when a lower court ruled (as it has twice before) that the administration must either charge Padilla or release him from prison. The Bush team has no intention of doing either. Padilla is the “test case” to establish that the President can jail a US citizen indefinitely without charging him with a crime. This “precedent” is central to the administration’s plans for unlimited power.

Tyranny is built on the foundation of arbitrary imprisonment; a principle that Bush and his colleagues fully understand.

Padilla has already served two and a half years in solitary confinement without ever being formally charged with criminal wrongdoing. The administration has affixed to him the moniker of “unlawful combatant”; the rubric under which all the rights of citizenship are summarily stripped from its victim. The Justice Department has produced no solid evidence of Padilla’s guilt and has repeatedly changed its claims regarding the “alleged” conspiracy. The DOJ’s muddled approach creates the impression that the case against Padilla is weak at best; suggesting that he may be entirely innocent. At this point, however, his innocence or guilt is irrelevant. The larger issue is whether the administration will succeed in its quest to savage the Bill of Rights and 800 years of legal precedent with one swift jolt.

So far, the advantage goes to Bush. By refusing to hear the case, the Supreme Court has reinforced the absolute power of the executive to indefinitely detain citizens without judicial review. Simply put, it marks the end of freedom in America.

It’s clear that the majority of the court knew exactly what they were doing by turning their backs on Padilla. After all, the ultimate purpose of right-wing appointees to the bench is to buttress the power of the president. Scalia’s comments are particularly searing in this regard: "The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive."

Really? Scalia’s remarks belie the fact that he has condemned Padilla to indefinite incarceration by refusing to hear the case. It would be difficult to cite a more stunning example of personal hypocrisy.

Conversely, Judge John Paul Stevens takes the alternate view when he states, concerning the Padilla case, that it poses "a unique and unprecedented threat to the freedom of every American citizen... At stake is nothing less than the essence of a free society... For if this Nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny."

“The tools of tyrants?” Is Stevens overstating his view?

Not at all. What makes the case so extraordinary is that its meaning is completely straightforward. The court is not being asked to quibble over inconsequential aspects of the law. They are being asked, point blank, whether or not American citizens have ANY rights at all. It’s just that simple.

Padilla has been deprived of ALL of his rights, not merely a few. So, we must ask ourselves: Are US citizens entitled to any (definite) legal protections, or are these protections simply granted at the President’s discretion? And, if our personal freedom is dependent on the subjective whims of the President, then why talk about “inalienable” rights?

Why, indeed?

There’s nothing haphazard in the way that the Padilla case has developed. In fact, there are various organizations that operate openly within the country that are determined to change the fundamental principles of American justice. With Padilla’s case. these groups have won a major victory and struck a mortal blow to the very heart of our system. So long as Padilla sits in prison, deprived of all his constitutional rights, there are no guarantees of personal liberty in America.

Mike Whitney Email: fergiewhitney@msn.com

Copyright: Mike Whitney

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

Stormig · March 8, 2005

Halabja disturbing for the Amerikanskis? Use of Napalm bombs by the U.S. in the Gulf War.

Solaris · March 8, 2005

Something along those lines. At any rate, people like the above can squirm all they want.
Cheers, Solaris. I hope I have used and quoted from the right text, the conventions aren't my forte, either.

style_images/master/snapback.png

You've done quite well for an amateur, having quoted that very GC 3

There are four 1949 Geneva Conventions for the protection of war victims and two 1977 Protocols thereto.

GC 1: Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field

GC 2: Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea

GC 3: Prisoners of War

GC 4: Civilial Persons

P 1: Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts

P 2: Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts

They all form the basis of international humanitarian law.

armjan · March 9, 2005

Armjan, international law definitely isn't your element. I just don't quite understand why anyone would be so keen on arguing over a subject if he doesn't have the foggiest notion of it.

The unbiased reader would notice that I haven't written that much so I don't know how one can determine this. ofcourse, given your previous struggles in other threads, this would explain the context in which how you drew this conclusion. try to leave u'r feelings out of it.

given that today is international womens day, i will treat you with more respect that you have shown.

Firstly, what you have quoted is not the "1st provision of GC" (???) but para. 1 of the so-called "common Article 3" of four GCs. It actually applies to non-international armed conflicts, i.e. civil war in the wider sense of the word.

each crime is carried out in 1 location/country, so it falls under the jurisdiction of that country for that particular instance of the crime(Israel for instance). An international conflict involves the declaration of war between more than 1 country, so why would i quote something about international conflict. What other country is the U.S. at war with?

U.S. is not at war with other countries, it's at war with terrorist groups that move from one place to another.

keywords of the day, country vs. group.

official gov vs. group of ppl.

Alqueda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Wahabi are not countries.

If you wanted to show which categories of persons belong to the category of POWs under GCs and Prots, you should have quoted GC 3 Art. 4:

1. c above.

2.the pt is that the GCs don't explicitely grant terrorists those rights, and you don't seem to say anything otherwise, so no pt in continuing.

So while none of the GCs or protocols protects terrorists per se, it not quite so unlikely that a great many persons belonging to the above categories have automatically been branded "terrorists" and locked up in Guantanamo without any consideration or scrutiny. In fact, the bulk of the international criticism leveled at the US for the reported violations of GCs has been exactly for this reason. If so, the violations are not only very serious human rights violations but also amount to "grave breaches" of GCs under GC 3 Art 130, which are crimes under international law:

I am not claiming nor defending that gitmo prisoners are treated humanely. Find that someone who is and tell this to them.

Strictly speaking, GCs and Prots deal with the victims of armed conflicts and POWs and not with the rights of "ordinary" detainees, prisoners, or the accused. These latter categories are protected by international customary law and international human rights law. What is important here is that they are entitled to humane treatment as of absolute right. In other words, the prohibition torture and inhuman treatment is absolute under current international law irrespective of the victim's former conduct. Accordingly your justification of "keeping options open for interrogation methods when it comes to terrorists" totters on the brink of justifying a jus cogens crime.

who's to decide whether certain methods of interrogation are humane or not.

How many hours of LOUD music can u take? Who decides what is LOUD music?

How many hours of daylight is one required to c? Another key word of the day, Who decides?

The International Court of Justice, in its celebrated Barcelona Traction decision, stated that the "rules concerning the basic rights of the human person" are erga omnes obligations, and therefore their violations constitute international crimes that rise to the level of jus cogens. The term "jus cogens" means "the compelling law" and, as such, a jus cogens norm holds the highest hierarchical position among all other legal norms and principles – domestic or international. As a consequence of that standing, jus cogens norms are deemed to be "peremptory" and non-derogable.

so how many hours of sleep is a detanee supposed to get as their basic right. Similarily you can extend this to other interrogation techniques.

Interrogation can occur with no physical harm, so who's to decide whether a given method is depriving one of a basic right or not. moreover, there are various degrees of applying certain methods, and most methods can be conditioned to surpass your idea of "basic rights".

the current US administration doesn't give a rat's arse about international law, or, if comes to that, for the lives of those who can't be possibly be cozened into voting Republican during the next elections.

let me make this clear, I believe that the U.S. can/should pursue it's interests in consideration with international law. All organizations/countries pursue their interests but it's important to be aware/obedient of international law. But there are some cases, like terrorism, where the information must be gathered in a timely fashion to save my/your/others lives, so naturally, some individuals will resort to methods/means that are proclaimed to be unethical. ofcourse there are degrees to everything.

here is a statement that I put in bold earlier that I am certian u missed, maybe next time I'll put dancing primates around it or something...

if i rape someone, i should/expect to be prosecuted no matter if I am U.S citizen or Islamic Fundemental. So it's defined by the course of action you take, and NOT who you are.

Edited March 9, 2005 by armjan

Stormig · March 9, 2005

(...)
each crime is carried out in 1 location/country, so it falls under the jurisdiction of that country for that particular instance of the crime(Israel for instance). An international conflict involves the declaration of war between more than 1 country, so why would i quote something about international conflict. What other country is the U.S. at war with?
U.S. is not at war with other countries, it's at war with terrorist groups that move from one place to another.
keywords of the day, country vs. group.
official gov vs. group of ppl.
Alqueda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Wahabi are not countries.

style_images/master/snapback.png

My word, are you for real?

The U.S. declares war on and invades Afghanistan and Iraq and that is not international? Puh-lease!

The Wahabbites are in control in Saudi Arabia, and the Taleban were in control in Afghanistan! Moreover, Amerikanski administration sucks off the Wahabbites day in and day out! Relish that fact!

(...)
1. c above.
2.the pt is that the GCs don't explicitely grant terrorists those rights, and you don't seem to say anything otherwise, so no pt in continuing.
I am not claiming nor defending that gitmo prisoners are treated humanely. Find that someone who is and tell this to them.
who's to decide whether certain methods of interrogation are humane or not.
How many hours of LOUD music can u take? Who decides what is LOUD music?
How many hours of daylight is one required to c? Another key word of the day, Who decides?
so how many hours of sleep is a detanee supposed to get as their basic right. Similarily you can extend this to other interrogation techniques.
Interrogation can occur with no physical harm, so who's to decide whether a given method is depriving one of a basic right or not. moreover, there are various degrees of applying certain methods, and most methods can be conditioned to surpass your idea of "basic rights".

style_images/master/snapback.png

There are health and safety regulations concerning light, noise, vibration, ambient conditions, etc., for daily life, public spaces, work places, etc. Therefore these can be extended to prison conditions or adapted within reasonable limits, if this hasn't already been done. Let's just not expect "reasonable" from anything remotely Amerikanski at the moment. There's no such thing as "who is to say blah blah blah?" Someone like you would be singing confessions to things you didn't do with the said "interrogation techniques" - which include but are not limited to inflicted pain ("who is to say toggle-dee gook clatter clonk") and the threat of dogs!...

let me make this clear, I believe that the U.S. can/should pursue it's interests in consideration with international law. All organizations/countries pursue their interests but it's important to be aware/obedient of international law. But there are some cases, like terrorism, where the information must be gathered in a timely fashion to save my/your/others lives, so naturally, some individuals will resort to methods/means that are proclaimed to be unethical. ofcourse there are degrees to everything.

here is a statement that I put in bold earlier that I am certian u missed, maybe next time I'll put dancing primates around it or something...

if i rape someone, i should/expect to be prosecuted no matter if I am U.S citizen or Islamic Fundemental. So it's defined by the course of action you take, and NOT who you are.

Yes, the U.S. government, which has taken international law like a joke, has raped Afghanistan and Iraq with the utmost, most disgusting insolence, so hopefully payback time is up. None of my curses this past week have gone unanswered, and I hope this keeps up a while longer.

DominO123 · March 9, 2005

The US should invade Lebanon and kick Syrians out from there, if they do that, I will support them for the first time. Lebanon is invaded by a country, but I guess they do not have petrol.

The latest US attack in Iraq was not justified, Iraq has not threatned any countries, neither invaded them.

What the US is waiting to kick Syrians OUT of Lebanon?

Stormig · March 9, 2005

The Resort to Torture

By Ghali Hassan

03/08/05 "Information Clearing House" - - In his February “diplomatic offensive” tour of Europe, George Bush and his media entourage were more interested in fiction and hypocrisy than reality and respect for the rules of law. The tour was designed to garner support for America’s unending wars and imperial conquest sold as “democracy” and “freedom”. Mr Bush most obedient representative in Europe, PM Tony Blair of Britain urged Europeans to remember “our shared values” with Americans.

A recently released army documents detail ongoing sadistic abuse, torture and murder of Iraqi Prisoners of War (POW) and Iraqi detainees by US and British forces in occupied Iraq. The documents of more than 24,000 pages were released on behalf of the American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU); the Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR), Physician for Human Rights (PHR), Veterans for Common Sense (VCS) and Veterans for Peace (VP) under the Freedom of Information Act in response to a Federal Court Order directed the Pentagon and other agencies to comply with the year old request [1].

The new documents and other documents received by the ACLU revealed that the illegal practice of abuse and torture of Iraqi men, women and children took place immediately after the US-led invasion of Iraq. Iraqi POW and Iraqi detainees not only at Abu Ghraib, the West’s convenient propaganda, but also throughout Iraq were imprisoned, abused, tortured and murdered by British and US soldiers. The practice, which started in Iraq immediately after the invasion, was secret until Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker magazines broke the silence on the complicity of Western media in the crimes against the Iraqi people.

In today’s Iraq, the Occupation forces and their surrogates imprison more than a million Iraqi men, women and children. According to the Occupation mouthpiece, The New York Times, in just two major prisons in Iraq, US military is holding at least 8,900 detainees. At Abu Ghraib there are 3,160 Iraqi prisoners, 660 more than the military's own recommended level of 2,500 prisoners. The largest US prison, Camp Bucca in the south, has at least 5,600 detainees. There are hundreds of other prisons throughout Iraq. The British occupying forces built their own prisons.

The army documents show that Iraqi POW and detainees were/are subjected to systematic interrogation by Occupation forces that included physical, sexual and psychological abuse and torture. The so-called ‘interrogative techniques’ used by Occupation forces in Iraq and in US prisons around the world draw heavily on the internal report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, providing a long list of “sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses” which include: pointing loaded guns at prisoners; pouring cold water on detainees; bashing detainees with chairs and broom handles; threatening male detainees with anal rape; slamming detainees against cell walls; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light; using guard dogs to intimidate detainees and, in one instance, setting a dog onto a detainee; videotaping naked male and female detainees; forcibly arranging detainees into various sexually explicit positions and photographing them; forcing detainees to remain naked for days; forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear; forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate whilst being videotaped and photographed; arranging detainees in piles and then jumping on them; writing ‘I am a rapest [sic]’ on a detainee and then forcing him to rape a 15 year old fellow detainee; and placing a dog collar around the neck of naked detainee and then having a female soldier pose with him for a photograph. This makes a precise fit with the official policy that anything short of killing and decapitating is a legitimate way of breaking people down for interrogation [2].

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) reported on 13 May 2004, that an Australian man who is contracted to rebuild oil pipelines in Iraq witnessed terrible abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers. The man, who identified as ‘Harry’, said recent pictures of American soldiers torturing prisoners are just the ‘tip of the iceberg’. ‘What you're seeing in the photographs now really is tame’, he said. ‘You think about it, these pictures [are ones] that they've published on the net to send to their friends, the real stuff that's going on there is far, far beyond this’. He said that he has ‘seen far worse while working in Tikrit’, Iraq.

In an interview with an Iraqi women prisoner at Abu Ghraib, Giuliana Sgrena, of Il manifesto, the Italian daily Newspaper, reported on 01 July 2004, “Iraqis females are arrested at random by US forces”. One Iraqi female prisoner told Sgrena, ‘without warning, American soldiers broke into [their homes] in the middle of the night abuse them in front of their children, ransacked the place, and then they arrested me. They also took all their papers and keys, and stole their savings’.

At Abu Ghraib women were abused and tortured continuously. ‘One of the prisoners had been forced to walk on all fours and her knees and elbows were in a terrible state. Another woman had been forced to separate faeces from urine, using her own hands. The soldiers frequently forced us to drink water from the toilet bowl. A woman of sixty, who had said she was a virgin, was continually threatened with rape’. Sometimes they made a hundred or more prisoners lie on the ground and then trampled them underfoot’ reported Il manifesto.

In addition to Abu Ghraib where the British are part of the military ‘chain of command’ when the abuse and torture of Iraqi civilians occurred, British forces have been involved at all levels in the abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners and civilians throughout Iraq. In Basra, the British have constructed their own Abu Ghraib, and named it ‘Camp Bread Basket’. Despite the high level of crimes committed against the Iraqi people, the British occupiers managed to conceal their crimes until very recently. British media, which has a history of deception and imperialist propaganda, performed its usual duty in keeping the British people well entertained and poorly informed of their government war crimes. Recent pictures smuggled from inside ‘Camp Bread Basket’ graphically show how Iraqi prisoners are abused tortured and murdered by British soldiers who have “shared values” with US soldiers. The policy of torture is consistent with Britain’s colonial racism in which non-westerners are regarded as ‘unpeople’. It is the British who refined these methods, and who provided the precedent for this “legalised” torture.

This sadistic torture is deeply rooted in Western racism against Muslims, particularly Arabs. Its origin is scholarly invented by hardcore Orientalists (imperialists) who saw the Orient as sexual. “The Middle East is resistant”, wrote the late Edward Said, “as any virgin would be”, whoever conquers her win the prize. Those in power easily adopt this distorted picture of the Middle East, which is artificially constructed by Western scholars and pundits.

As Seymour Hersh writes in his Chain of Command, “The notion that Arabs are particularly vulnerable to sexual humiliation became a talking point among pro-war Washington conservatives in the months before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq”. He continues; “One book that was frequently cited was The Arab Mind ... the book includes a 25-page chapter on Arabs and sex, depicting sex as a taboo vested with shame and repression”. The book as I know it, is a piece of collected old imperial rubbish about the Arab peoples by the racist American anthropologist, Raphael Patai. It is the Bush administration’s bible on the Arab peoples is of great concern. Patai described the Middle East as a “culture area” with no plurality of differences readily available for generalisation of nonsense.

From a piece of rubbish, the book is resurrected to become the textbook for the US military on the Middle East. “None of the academics I contacted thought the book suitable for serious study, although Georgetown University once invited students to analyse it as ‘an example of bad, biased social science’”, writes Brian Whitaker of the Guardian of London. “There is a lot wrong with The Arab Mind apart from its racism: the title, for a start. Although the Arab countries certainly have their distinctive characteristics, the idea that 200 million people, from Morocco to the Gulf, living in rural villages, urban metropolises and (very rarely these days) desert tents, think with some sort of single, collective mind is utterly ridiculous”, he added.

Alfred McCoy, a professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, analysed the CIA practice of torture in over half-century in Vietnam, Latin America and Iran, and marvelled at the recklessness of Western media commentators and pundits. He writes; “In weighing personal liberty versus public safety, all those pro-pain pundits were ignorant of torture’s complexity perverse psychopathology, that leads to both uncontrolled proliferation of the practice [of torture] and long-term damage to the perpetrator society”[3]. The practice is morally repugnant in any civilised society.

The documents released by the ACLU reveal that the practice of abuse and torture, which is now an established process of the US and British administrations, has been facilitated and approved by the White House and Whitehall. It is not an isolated behaviour of a “few bad apples” suddenly appeared in the US-British military in Iraq, as propagandised by the mainstream media. The documents shows that the US administration is guilty of gross violations of human rights and of a “systematic decision to alter the use of methods of coercion and torture that lay outside of accepted and legal norms”.

In April 2003, the Defence Department approved ‘interrogation techniques’ for use at Guantanamo Bay prison, and then passed them to Iraq, The Washington Post reported on May 09, 2004. Further, “[p]erhaps the strongest evidence that the abuse of prisoners in US hands has been systemic, not aberrant, is the simplest: it is the fact that those involved felt it was quite safe to be photographed repeatedly while committing it”, writes Stephen Sedley, a judge of the court of appeal for England and Wales.

Kenneth Roth, executive director of the US-based Human Rights Watch, said these techniques outlined in the US document and approved by the Pentagon amount to cruel and inhumane treatment. “The courts have ruled most of these techniques illegal”, he said. “If it's illegal here under the U.S. Constitution, it's illegal abroad . . . . This isn't even close”. The fact that the Bush administration used fake torture stories to influence public opinion to support the war on Iraq constitutes abuse of public trust. For example, the faked story of Jumana Hanna, a prostitute, of torture and rape was amplified in The Washington Post in July 2003, and used by the war-hungry Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz in his testimony to the US Senate to justify his “moral” war on Iraq.

Alberto Gonzales, the new US Attorney, was the White House Legal Council before the invasion of Iraq. In his memorandum on January 25, 2002, Mr. Gonzales advised the Bush administration, that the Geneva Convention does not cover POW and detainees of America’s “war on terror” or the “new paradigm” as Mr. Gonzales called it. In “my judgement” he writes, “this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions”.

Gonzales’ advice amount to war crimes under Title 18 U.S.C. section 2441 (The War Crimes Act). The War Crimes Act defines as war crimes: grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and violations of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions. Section 130 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Third Geneva Convention) defines as grave breaches of that Convention: “wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment”, and “wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health”. Those who followed Mr Gonzales advice are equally guilty of war crimes against the Iraqi people. A detailed case against Mr Gonzales provides by Marjorie Cohn, professor of Law at Thomas Jefferson School of Law [4].

“It’s difficult for me to understand why nobody was held accountable for the abuse of detainees here. There's no justification for kicking an enemy [POW] when he’s wounded on the ground in front of you and about to die”, said Jamil Jaffer, one of the ACLU lawyers.

Furthermore, in early June 2004, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva condemned the “willful killing, torture and inhuman treatment” of Iraqis, calling it a “grave breach” of international law that “might be designated as war crimes by a competent tribunal.” The scandal was, the Commissioner added, recognised by even ‘Coalition leaders’ as “a stain upon the effort to bring freedom to Iraq.”

The West “shared values” have never stood lower in the eyes of Arabs and Muslims in general. Americans and British at home should know that their governments are isolated in their old-style adventure of colonialism, and that the resort to torture is a criminal practice. They can join the international community in repudiating a practice that constitute gross violation of human rights and dignity.

The systematic policy of abuse, torture and murder of Iraqi POW and Iraqi civilians by the US and British forces has exposed the lie that the war was to “liberate” the Iraqi people and to spread “freedom” and “democracy”. The new tyranny is an old tyranny in every aspect of life. The only way to end the abuse, torture and murder of the Iraqi people is the end of the Occupation of Iraq.

Ghali Hassan lives in Perth, Western Australia. He can be contacted by: G.Hassan@exchange.curtin.edu.au

armjan · March 9, 2005

Moreover, Amerikanski administration sucks off the Wahabbites day in and day out! Relish that fact!

they have a resource of interest to the rest of the world not only U.S., and so other countries like the U.S. make arragements to buy it from them. do u know how much saudi investment there is in American & foreign corps? it's a 2 way mutual relationship.

There are health and safety regulations concerning light, noise, vibration, ambient conditions, etc., for daily life, public spaces, work places, etc. Therefore these can be extended to prison conditions or adapted within reasonable limits, if this hasn't already been done. Let's just not expect "reasonable" from anything remotely Amerikanski at the moment. There's no such thing as "who is to say blah blah blah?" Someone like you would be singing confessions to things you didn't do with the said "interrogation techniques" - which include but are not limited to inflicted pain ("who is to say toggle-dee gook clatter clonk") and the threat of dogs!...

interrogation by defn is meant to threaten & promise certain undesirable consequences often invovling personal safety (whether U.S. or not).

here is a defn: a transmission that will trigger an answering transmission from a transponder

there is no such thing as NICE INTERROGATION when it comes to national security issues.

consider case studies of interrogation techniques, those pertaining to national security as that of U.S. Russia, China or any other country.

your comments imply that you should be against interrogation no matter which country performs it if it surpasses rights?

right?

well there are a lot of countries that perform interrogation techniques just as bad but these types of issues are held behind close doors. but i do agree that defining limits/degrees to techniques is important but not easy to do.

Edited March 9, 2005 by armjan

Stormig · March 10, 2005

they have a resource of interest to the rest of the world not only U.S., and so other countries like the U.S. make arragements to buy it from them. do u know how much saudi investment there is in American & foreign corps? it's a 2 way mutual relationship.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Why do you forget the mutual relationship when quoting them alongside Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc.? It's not OK to remind a party to straighten up where integrity is in question yet it is OK to make excuses for them because they have material gains/interests?

interrogation by defn is meant to threaten & promise certain undesirable consequences often invovling personal safety (whether U.S. or not).
here is a defn: a transmission that will trigger an answering transmission from a transponder
there is no such thing as NICE INTERROGATION when it comes to national security issues.
consider case studies of interrogation techniques, those pertaining to national security as that of U.S. Russia, China or any other country.

your comments imply that you should be against interrogation no matter which country performs it if it surpasses rights?
right?
well there are a lot of countries that perform interrogation techniques just as bad but these types of issues are held behind close doors. but i do agree that defining limits/degrees to techniques is important but not easy to do.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Being party to a convention means you agree to abide by it and that you are open to critique if you do not abide by it. I don't for a moment doubt that I'd do something really rash if I had the right person in my hands and time was running out or something - but there is nothing condonable about the abandon with which "interrogations" are directed indiscriminately where Amerikanskis are concerned, leaving nothing to the judgement. It's wrong, pure and simple.

And don't give us cheap talk about "closed doors" as if everyone can walk in and watch - most of these abuses require whistle-blowers.

armjan · March 10, 2005

Why do you forget the mutual relationship when quoting them alongside Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc.? It's not OK to remind a party to straighten up where integrity is in question yet it is OK to make excuses for them because they have material gains/interests?

there is a mutual relationship between those organizations and their interest is to kill us/me. so i will support any efforts that are making sure that their relationship/goals don't succeed. it's actually the acceptance/realization of the danger in Hamas/Al Qaeda relationship and this is why i think that they need to be stopped.

I believe that Hamas/Al Qaeda etc... are waging jihad against us, they have made it quite clear what their intentions are. these ppl according to their ideology don't belong in the civilized world. do u want to live under islamic law? i sure don't.

And don't give us cheap talk about "closed doors" as if everyone can walk in and watch - most of these abuses require whistle-blowers.

my intention behind "closed doors" was to note that these things are kept secret and away from public attention.

Stormig · March 12, 2005

You are dismissed. Don't contaminate my thread with apologetics for the Amerikanski government. Your destiny is with theirs.

armjan · March 12, 2005

You are dismissed. Don't contaminate my thread with apologetics for the Amerikanski government. Your destiny is with theirs.

style_images/master/snapback.png

anyone who claims hold of a thread to satisfy their Napoleonic Complex that never got profilled in high school has bigger problems than those i can solve.

Edited March 12, 2005 by armjan

Stormig · March 16, 2005

anyone who claims hold of a thread to satisfy their Napoleonic Complex that never got profilled in high school has bigger problems than those i can solve.

style_images/master/snapback.png

"Blatter blatter, Napoleonic, blatter, gleep, snort!"

You can't even pull up your own pants, who asked you to solve anyone else's problems as perceived by none other than your apologetic self?? :rolleyes:

Stormig · March 16, 2005

My word - just when I had Maher (and not Marer - my bad above) Arar on my mind...

Pentagon plans rendition of Guantánamo prisoners

Detainees face torture in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Yemen

By Kate Randall

14 March 2005

Back to screen version | Send this link by email | Email the author

The Pentagon has requested that the US State Department and other

government agencies assist in the transfer of many of the detainees at

Guantánamo Bay, Cuba to prisons in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Yemen,

senior Bush administration officials told the New York Times.

The plan calls for cutting the population at the facility in half by

sending some detainees to other countries and releasing others outright.

Those remaining would be left to languish indefinitely at the US-run

prison.

The proposed transfers would be modeled on the “extraordinary

renditions” carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency in the period

since September 11, 2001. Former US intelligence officials have

estimated that the CIA has carried out 100 to 150 such renditions since

9/11, snatching up individuals and flying them to countries where they

can face indefinite detention, torture or death. [see “More evidence of

US government’s torture by proxy”]

The rendition program was authorized under the Clinton administration

and received bipartisan Congressional approval. After the 9/11 attacks,

President Bush empowered the CIA to transfer prisoners from one foreign

country to another without case-by-base approval by other government

agencies. The proposed Pentagon transfers from Guantánamo, on the other

hand, would require interagency authorization.

In a February 5 memo, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called for

support from other government agencies for the rendition of the

Guantánamo prisoners, beginning with the transfer of “significant

numbers” of detainees to Afghanistan, according to the March 11 Times

article.

There are presently approximately 540 prisoners at the US-run detention

facility, down from a peak of around 750. Of these, 146 have been

released and 65 have been transferred to other countries, including to

Pakistan, Britain, France, Russia, Morocco and Saudi Arabia.

Since 9/11, the Bush administration has asserted that it has the right

to indefinitely detain individuals it has labeled “enemy

combatants”—without charges and without access to legal counsel. The

administration claims these detainees are not prisoners of war and

therefore are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. Government

officials have further contended that US laws—including those

guaranteeing access to US courts—do not apply at Guantánamo because it

is not on US soil.

However, a series of recent judicial decisions have posed a dilemma for

the Bush administration. Last June, the US Supreme Court ruled that US

courts have jurisdiction to decide habeas corpus petitions filed on

behalf of Guantánamo prisoners. In August, a federal district judge

ruled that the special military tribunals devised by the Pentagon and

the White House to try the detainees were unconstitutional and that the

Geneva Conventions apply to the prisoners. The government’s appeal of

that ruling is expected to be heard next month.

Then, in a ruling at the end of January, a federal district judge in

Washington, DC ruled that the US cannot deny the Guantánamo detainees

the right to due process under the US Constitution, and that those

captured while fighting for the Taliban are entitled to prisoner of war

status under the Third Geneva Convention. In a direct rebuke of Bush

administration policy, Senior District Judge Joyce Hens Green rebuffed

the Pentagon’s classification of “enemy combatants,” which authorized

“the indefinite detention of individuals who never committed a

belligerent act or who never directly supported hostilities against the

US or its allies.”

The Pentagon’s plan to conduct renditions from Guantánamo is a response

to these legal setbacks as well as to growing opposition, both

internationally and within the US, to the Bush administration’s illegal

detention of detainees at the prison facility. This opposition has been

additionally fueled by a growing body of evidence documenting abuse and

torture at the camp in Cuba. [see “Guantánamo videotapes expose

brutality against detainees”]

The Pentagon’s proposed solution is to transfer many of these prisoners

to their native countries, where they could face prosecution, torture or

indefinite detention. Bush officials claim that these transfers would

not qualify as “extraordinary renditions” such as those carried out by

the CIA, because the governments accepting the prisoners would not be

expected to carry out the will of the United States.

What is clear, however, is that a number of the countries where the

detainees could be sent are known to employ torture. The Bush

administration states that its policy prohibits the rendition of

prisoners to nations where they are likely to be tortured. But of the 65

transfers approved to date from Guantánamo, 29 were to Pakistan and 4 to

Saudi Arabia, both of which have been identified in the State

Department’s own human rights reports as countries where torture is

common.

The Guantánamo population includes more than 100 prisoners each from

Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Under the new Pentagon plan, those

prisoners who are released would be sent to their home countries.

Statements of those involved with the CIA’s rendition policy in the past

make clear that these prisoners face the danger of falling victim to an

operation that amounts to torture by proxy.

Mike Scheuer, the former head of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit set up

under the Clinton administration, discussed the rendition policy in an

interview on the CBS News program “60 Minutes.” He described the program

as “finding someone else to do your dirty work” and said, in his

opinion, it was “OK” if torture had been used to extract “useful

information” from suspects.

“60 Minutes” also tracked the secret jet the CIA has reportedly used to

transport suspects to countries known for torturing people. The plane

made at least 600 flights to 40 countries, all after 9/11, including 30

trips to Jordan, 19 to Afghanistan, 17 to Morocco and 16 to Iraq.

The jet also made 10 trips to Uzbekistan. Craig Murray, the former

British ambassador to Uzbekistan, told CBS that the owner of the jet,

Premier Executive Transport Services, kept a small staff at the airport

in Tashkent.

Murray described some of the methods used by Uzbek interrogators:

“Techniques of drowning and suffocation, rape was used ... and also the

insertion of limbs in boiling liquid.... It’s quite common.”

Government authorities in Italy, Germany and Sweden have begun probes

into three cases of abduction of suspects on European soil, where those

kidnapped may have been transported to countries where they faced abuse.

The circumstances surrounding these renditions were examined in a March

13 article in the Washington Post.

In Italy, Egyptian cleric Abu Omar was grabbed on the sidewalk on the

way to a Milan mosque in February 2003 by two men, sprayed in the face

with chemicals, and stuffed into a van. After examining airplane

records, Italian officials now suspect Abu Omar was the target of a

CIA-sponsored rendition. His whereabouts remains unknown.

Now back in Germany, Khaled Masri, 41, says he was locked up during a

vacation in the Balkans in January 2004 and flown to Kabul, Afghanistan,

where he was held for four months by captors who spoke English with an

American accent. He said he was dropped off on a hillside along the

Albanian border after his captors realized he was not the Al Qaeda

suspect they were hunting.

A parliamentary investigation in Sweden has determined that the CIA

seized two Egyptian nationals from that country in December 2001. The

two men were grabbed by CIA agents wearing hoods and flown on a

US-registered airplane to Cairo, where the two claimed they were held in

prison and tortured.

The transfer of prisoners from Guantánamo requested by the Pentagon

would be based on this model, and there is every reason to believe that

detainees would face similar fates in their destination countries. The

Bush administration has indicated that those who are not either released

or transferred—possibly up to 200 prisoners—will be held indefinitely at

the prison camp.

armjan · March 16, 2005

"Blatter blatter, Napoleonic, blatter, gleep, snort!"
You can't even pull up your own pants, who asked you to solve anyone else's problems as perceived by none other than your apologetic self??

style_images/master/snapback.png

i can tell that comeback took you a whole 2 seconds.

get lost.

if you didn't find truth in what i said, you wouldn't be so defensive about it. mr/mrs oh i just let things go.

you took the word anybody and felt enough similarity with yourself and commented on it.

Edited March 16, 2005 by armjan

Stormig · March 16, 2005

if you didn't find truth in what i said
style_images/master/snapback.png

TRUTH!!?????? :lol2: ROFLMAO

Stormig · March 23, 2005

1250 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 1C, Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: 202-223-4975 Fax: 202-223-4979

Email: coha@coha.org Website: www.coha.org

Council On Hemispheric Affairs

Monitoring Political, Economic and Diplomatic Issues Affecting the Western Hemisphere

Memorandum to the Press 05.32

Word Count: 1250

Thursday, 17 March 2005

Washington Sees Iran as a

Major Security Threat,

but Not Nuclear Brazil

• Washington, intent on wooing Brasilia, is prepared to look the other way on the nuclear front.

• The Bush administration has offered Iran economic incentives to abandon nuclear technology and development, (a right that Iran legally has under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), threatening that a failure to accept this arrangement will result in sanctions by the UN Security Council.

• Brazil, with a history of covert nuclear experimentation and construction, has refused IAEA total inspection of its Resende Plant nuclear centrifuge.

• Washington adamantly denies that Brasilia has plans to join the nuclear club—perhaps due to Brazil’s peacemaking efforts in Haiti.

In recent weeks, Washington has stepped up its aggressive stance toward Iran, threatening it with harsh UN Security Council-mandated sanctions if it does not abandon its alleged nuclear activities. But last Friday, President Bush offered to drop U.S. objections to Iranian membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO) in exchange for a freeze on Tehran’s nuclear energy program. Iran continues to defend its right to pursue nuclear technology under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). U.S. officials have been claiming that Iran’s civilian program is merely a cover to develop nuclear weapons, but Tehran has denied the accusation, saying that its efforts are solely aimed at generating atomic energy.

Ironically, despite the Bush administration’s bellicose demands that Iran give up its uranium enrichment program, Washington has dismissed any cause for alarm over a somewhat similar nuclear program in Brazil. Washington’s willingness to suspend disbelief over the more arcane aspects of Brazil’s uranium enrichment perhaps can be attributed to Brasilia’s present peacemaking efforts in Haiti—which has been a godsend for the U.S.—and the Bush administration’s eagerness to achieve closer relations with the Latin-American powerhouse.

A Questionable History

Throughout the 1980s, Brazil remained on the UN’s watch list for its covert dealings with West Germany to acquire nuclear technology; meanwhile, it increased its conventional weapons trade with “rogue” nations and evaded international nuclear processing inspections. Brasilia’s allegedly questionable activities have continued since President Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva refused to allow a comprehensive inspection of his nation’s nuclear facilities last fall. He recently finalized the $170 million sale of 24 Super Tucano training and light combat aircraft to Washington’s Latin American nemesis, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Ordinarily Washington would not hesitate to express its strong rancor over such a move, but this proved not to be the case in this instance.

In October 2004, after several months of evasive negotiations, Brazilian officials finally allowed the IAEA to inspect all of its nuclear facilities, except the Resende Plant’s centrifuge. According to Brazil’s Ministry of Science and Technology, the Resende facility enriches uranium that fuels the nation’s two nuclear power plants, which together provide only 4.3 percent of the nation’s total electricity. Due to the fact that Brazil is not heavily endowed with oil and natural reserves, its quest for nuclear energy is understandable. But Brazil's experience with its persistently troubled first nuclear plant, Angra I, has witnessed frequent failures resulting in a number of power outages.

Despite the questionable function of Brazil’s Resende centrifuge, the IAEA agreed to President Lula’s terms to allow inspectors to examine the pipes leading into and out of the centrifuge, but not the facility itself, ostensibly for proprietary reasons. The IAEA’s refusal to release its findings also has intensified some observers’ suspicions. While the IAEA was expected to announce its conclusions by the end of November 2004, such a report has yet to be made public. Mark Gwozdecky, director of public information for the IAEA, told COHA, “there has been no announcement about Brazil . . . [but the IAEA and Brazilian officials] have agreed on an arrangement for verifying that the Resende plant is devoted exclusively to peaceful purposes.”

A Faulty NPT

Although reluctantly cooperative with IAEA inspectors, Brazil remains in full compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which it ratified in 1998. While the treaty prohibits any country outside the five acknowledged nuclear states (the U.S., the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, France and China) from acquiring or producing nuclear weapons, according to IAEA Director-General Muhammad ElBaradei in a February 2 op-ed published in the Financial Times, “Any country can have full control over enrichment [and] reprocessing activities.” Yet he deems that production of highly enriched uranium and reprocessed plutonium, which are used to make nuclear weapons as well as for nonmilitary purposes and are possessed by Brazil, as “just too close for comfort.”

Under the latitude provided by the NPT, Brazil’s denial of a thorough inspection of all nuclear sites may be reason enough to suspect that it was interested in developing nuclear weapons technology, but the Bush Administration does not seem particularly worried as of now. After a fall 2004 visit, former Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that, “the United States has absolutely no concerns about Brazil doing anything with its nuclear program except developing power in a most controlled, responsible manner.” He confidently stifled critics’ concerns of nuclear weapons development, maintaining, “We know for sure that Brazil is not thinking about nuclear weapons in any sense.”

Although Powell’s determination that Lula is not manufacturing nuclear weapons components as of now is most likely correct, Henry Sokolski, director of the Non-Proliferation Policy Education Center, a Washington-based non-profit organization, told COHA that we can “expect Brazil to share its enrichment technology with nations that do harbor nuclear weapons aspirations.” The Brazilian military, in turn, will have to “reassess the need for nuclear weapons if other nations do go nuclear.” Given the availability of uranium, skilled personnel and enrichment technology, the country is a prime candidate to process and ultimately possess nuclear devices, if it is so intentioned. How, then, has such a potential danger avoided the intense scrutiny it deserves and most likely would have normally gotten from the international non-proliferation community and certainly by the U.S.?

Coddling Hemispheric Relations

In reality, there seems to be little cause to worry that Brazil has covert plans to join the nuclear club. Lula’s priority is more likely for Brazil to aspire to become the Latin American hegemon as well as attain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. While the recent arms sale to Venezuela has probably hurt Lula’s otherwise beatific status with Washington, he did not mean to compromise his entente with the U.S., which he most recently earned by agreeing to have the Brazilian military lead the UN peacekeeping mission to Haiti. Lula’s commitment rescued the U.S. from having its embarrassingly contradictory policy of ignoring the legitimacy of then-President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and ousting him by a de facto coup on February 29, 2004.

The U.S. decision to overlook Brazil’s nuclear potential while strictly scrutinizing Iran’s nuclear efforts further exemplifies Washington’s inconsistent foreign policy—particularly its capacity for selective indignation. In his campaign to make Brazil a more formidable regional player—with its nuclear efforts serving as a viable tool—Lula will try to demonstrate, among other things, that his country is capable of economic growth independent of Washington’s predilections for the region. For its part, Brazil will continue to forge trade agreements, such as the recent arms sale to Venezuela, regardless of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s portrayal of President Hugo Chávez as a negative factor in the hemisphere. For now however, it seems the Bush Administration is willing to forgive and forget as it plays along with Lula’s agenda in the name of trying to service an important Latin American relationship.

This analysis was prepared by Sarah Schaffer, COHA Research Associate.

Additional research provided by Claudia Patterson, COHA Research Associate

March 17, 2005

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being “one of the nation’s most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers.” For more information, please see our web page at www.coha.org; or contact our Washington offices by phone (202) 223-4975, fax (202) 223-4979, or email coha@coha.org.

Edited March 23, 2005 by Stormig

Stormig · March 23, 2005

Not really related, but about Iraq and Halabja anyway.

Dutchman in Iraq weapons hearing

Saturday 19 March 2005, 5:04 Makka Time, 2:04 GMT

More than 5000 people were killed in Halabja

Tools:

Email Article

Print Article

Send Your Feedback

A Dutch businessman accused of complicity in genocide for selling chemicals to Iraq in the 1980s knew that Saddam Hussein might use them as weapons, prosecutors have said at his first public hearing.

The case is seen as a landmark because it will be the first time a businessman has been prosecuted for war crimes by a national court.

Frans van Anraat, 62, was not required to enter a plea or make a statement at the pre-trial hearing on Friday. His trial starts in November. He has acknowledged in the past that he sold chemicals to Saddam's government, but said his actions were neither wrong nor illegal.

The chemicals dealer is said to have exported tons of chemicals between 1984 and 1988 that were turned into mustard and nerve gas, some of which was allegedly used in the 1988 attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja where more than 5000 people died.

Strong evidence

Prosecutor Fred Teeven said investigators had strong evidence that Van Anraat calmly went ahead with delivering base materials even after the alleged gas attack, the Dutch broadcaster NOS reported.

Several dozen expatriate Iraqi Kurds came to watch the proceedings, some carrying photographs of family members killed in the attacks.

Prosecutors say evidence against Van Anraat includes "official Iraqi documents" - material which may also be used against Saddam when he goes before the Iraqi Special Tribunal on war crimes charges.

Van Anraat fled to Iraq in 1989 to avoid an extradition request by the United States, which wanted to prosecute him for export violations in the same chemicals sale. He returned to the Netherlands after the start of the US-led invasion in 2003, and has been under arrest here since December 2004.

kumkap · March 23, 2005

this is from a few months back, but still very relevant:

The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target:

The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker

by William Clark

www.globalresearch.ca 27 October 2004

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Iranians are about to commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro of Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming euro-based oil Bourse.

In 2005-2006, The Tehran government has a developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

- James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

Madison’s words of wisdom should be carefully considered by the American people and world community. The rapidly deteriorating situation on the ground in Iraq portends an even direr situation for American soldiers and the People of the world community - should the Bush administration pursue their strategy regarding Iran. Current geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran extend beyond the publicly stated concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear intentions, and likely include a proposed Iranian "petroeuro system" for oil trade. Similar to the Iraq war, upcoming operations against Iran relate to the macroeconomics of the `petrodollar recycling’ and the unpublicized but real challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.

It is now obvious the invasion of Iraq had less to do with any threat from Saddam’s long-gone WMD program and certainly less to do to do with fighting International terrorism than it has to do with gaining control over Iraq’s hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintaining the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market. Throughout 2004 statements by former administration insiders revealed that the Bush/Cheney administration entered into office with the intention of toppling Saddam Hussein. Indeed, the neoconservative strategy of installing a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad along with multiple U.S. military bases was partly designed to thwart further momentum within OPEC towards a "petroeuro." However, subsequent events show this strategy to be fundamentally flawed, with Iran moving forward towards a petroeuro system for international oil trades, while Russia discusses this option.

Candidly stated, ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ was a war designed to install a pro-U.S. puppet in Iraq, establish multiple U.S military bases before the onset of Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. [1] In 2003 the global community witnessed a combination of petrodollar warfare and oil depletion warfare. The majority of the world’s governments – especially the E.U., Russia and China - were not amused – and neither are the U.S. soldiers who are currently stationed in Iraq.

Indeed, the author’s original pre-war hypothesis was validated shortly after the war in a Financial Times article dated June 5th, 2003, which confirmed Iraqi oil sales returning to the international markets were once again denominated in US dollars, not euros. Not surprisingly, this detail was never mentioned in the five US major media conglomerates who appear to censor this type of information, but confirmation of this vital fact provides insight into one of the crucial - yet overlooked - rationales for 2003 the Iraq war.

"The tender, for which bids are due by June 10, switches the transaction back to dollars -- the international currency of oil sales - despite the greenback's recent fall in value. Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq's oil be sold for euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq's recent earnings thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar." [2]

Unfortunately, it has become clear that yet another manufactured war, or some type of ill-advised covert operation is inevitable under President George W. Bush, should he win the 2004 Presidential Election. Numerous news reports over the past several months have revealed that the neoconservatives are quietly - but actively - planning for the second petrodollar war, this time against Iran.

"Deep in the Pentagon, admirals and generals are updating plans for possible U.S. military action in Syria and Iran. The Defense Department unit responsible for military planning for the two troublesome countries is "busier than ever," an administration official says. Some Bush advisers characterize the work as merely an effort to revise routine plans the Pentagon maintains for all contingencies in light of the Iraq war. More skittish bureaucrats say the updates are accompanied by a revived campaign by administration conservatives and neocons for more hard-line U.S. policies toward the countries"…"Even hard-liners acknowledge that given the U.S. military commitment in Iraq, a U.S. attack on either country would be an unlikely last resort; covert action of some kind is the favored route for Washington hard-liners who want regime change in Damascus and Tehran."

"…administration hawks are pinning their hopes on regime change in Tehran - by covert means, preferably, but by force of arms if necessary. Papers on the idea have circulated inside the administration, mostly labeled "draft" or "working draft" to evade congressional subpoena powers and the Freedom of Information Act. Informed sources say the memos echo the administration's abortive Iraq strategy: oust the existing regime, swiftly install a pro-U.S. government in its place (extracting the new regime's promise to renounce any nuclear ambitions) and get out. This daredevil scheme horrifies U.S. military leaders, and there's no evidence that it has won any backers at the cabinet level." [3]

To date, one of the more difficult technical obstacles concerning a euro-based oil transaction trading system is the lack of a euro-denominated oil pricing standard, or oil ‘marker’ as it is referred to in the industry. The three current oil markers are U.S. dollar denominated, which include the West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI), Norway Brent crude, and the UAE Dubai crude. However, since the spring of 2003, Iran has required payments in the euro currency for its European and Asian/ACU exports - although the oil pricing for trades are still denominated in the dollar. [4]

Therefore, a potentially significant news development was reported in June 2004 announcing Iran’s intentions to create of an Iranian oil Bourse. (The word "bourse" refers to a stock exchange for securities trading, and is derived from the French stock exchange in Paris, the Federation Internationale des Bourses de Valeurs.) This announcement portended competition would arise between the Iranian oil bourse and London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), as well as the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). It should be noted that both the IPE and NYMEX are owned by U.S. corporations.

The macroeconomic implications of a successful Iranian Bourse are noteworthy. Considering that Iran has switched to the euro for its oil payments from E.U. and ACU customers, it would be logical to assume the proposed Iranian Bourse will usher in a fourth crude oil marker – denominated in the euro currency. Such a development would remove the main technical obstacle for a broad-based petroeuro system for international oil trades. From a purely economic and monetary perspective, a petroeuro system is a logical development given that the European Union imports more oil from OPEC producers than does the U.S., and the E.U. accounts for 45% of imports into the Middle East (2002 data).

Acknowledging that many of the oil contracts for Iran and Saudi Arabia are linked to the United Kingdom’s Brent crude marker, the Iranian bourse could create a significant shift in the flow of international commerce into the Middle East. If Iran’s bourse becomes a successful alternative for oil trades, it would challenge the hegemony currently enjoyed by the financial centers in both London (IPE) and New York (NYMEX), a factor not overlooked in the following article:

"Iran is to launch an oil trading market for Middle East and OPEC producers that could threaten the supremacy of London's International Petroleum Exchange."

"…He [Mr. Asemipour] played down the dangers that the new exchange could eventually pose for the IPE or Nymex, saying he hoped they might be able to cooperate in some way."

"…Some industry experts have warned the Iranians and other OPEC producers that western exchanges are controlled by big financial and oil corporations, which have a vested interest in market volatility.

The IPE, bought in 2001 by a consortium that includes BP, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, was unwilling to discuss the Iranian move yesterday. "We would not have any comment to make on it at this stage," said an IPE spokeswoman. "[5]

It is unclear at the time of writing, if this project will be successful, or could it prompt overt or covert U.S. interventions - thereby signaling the second phase of petrodollar warfare in the Middle East. News articles in June 2004 revealed the discredited neoconservative sycophant Ahmed Chalabi may have revealed his knowledge to Iran regarding U.S. military planning for operations against that nation.

"The reason for the US breakup with Ahmed Chalabi, the Shiite Iraqi politician, could be his leak of Pentagon plans to invade Iran before Christmas 2005, but the American government has not changed its objective, and the attack could happen earlier if president George W. Bush is re-elected, or later if John Kerry is sworn in."

"….Diplomats said Chalabi was alerted to the Pentagon plans and in the process of trying to learn more to tell the Iranians, he invited suspicions of US officials, who subsequently got the Iraqi police to raid the compound of his Iraqi National Congress on 20 May 2004, leading to a final break up of relations."

"While the US is uncertain how much of the attack plans were leaked to Iran, it could change some of the invasion tactics, but the broad parameters would be kept intact." [6]

Regardless of the potential U.S. response to an Iranian petroeuro system, the emergence of an oil exchange market in the Middle East is not entirely surprising given the domestic peaking and decline of oil exports in the U.S. and U.K, in comparison to the remaining oil reserves in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. According to Mohammad Javad Asemipour, an advisor to Iran’s oil ministry and the individual responsible for this project, this new oil exchange is scheduled to begin oil trading in March 2005.

"Asemipour said the platform should be trading crude, natural gas and petrochemicals by the start of the new Iranian year, which falls on March 21, 2005.

He said other members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries - Iran is the producer group's second-largest producer behind Saudi Arabia - as well as oil producers from the Caspian region would eventually participate in the exchange." [7]

(Note: the most recent Iranian news report from October 5, 2004 stated: "Iran's oil bourse will start trading by early 2006" which suggests a delay from the original March 21, 2005 target date). [8] Additionally, according to the following report, Saudi investors may be interested in participating in the Iranian oil exchange market, further illustrating why petrodollar hegemony is becoming unsustainable.

"Chris Cook, who previously worked for the IPE and now offers consultancy services to markets through Partnerships Consulting LLP in London, commented: "Post-9/11, there has also been an interest in the project from the Saudis, who weren't interested in participating before."

"Others familiar with Iran's economy said since 9/11, Saudi Arabian investors are opting to invest in Iran rather than traditional western markets as the kingdom's relations with the U.S. have weakened Iran's oil ministry has made no secret of its eagerness to attract much needed foreign investment in its energy sector and broaden its choice of oil buyers."

"…Along with several other members of OPEC, Iranian oil officials believe crude trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange and the IPE is controlled by the oil majors and big financial companies, who benefit from market volatility."[9]

One of the Federal Reserve’s nightmares may begin to unfold in 2005 or 2006, when it appears international buyers will have a choice of buying a barrel of oil for $50 dollars on the NYMEX and IPE - or purchase a barrel of oil for €37 - €40 euros via the Iranian Bourse. This assumes the euro maintains its current 20-25% appreciated value relative to the dollar - and assumes that some sort of "intervention" is not undertaken against Iran. The upcoming bourse will introduce petrodollar versus petroeuro currency hedging, and fundamentally new dynamics to the biggest market in the world - global oil and gas trades

During an important speech in April 2002, Mr. Javad Yarjani, an OPEC executive, described three pivotal events that would facilitate an OPEC transition to euros. [10] He stated this would be based on (1) if and when Norway's Brent crude is re-dominated in euros, (2) if and when the U.K. adopts the euro, and (3) whether or not the euro gains parity valuation relative to the dollar, and the EU’s proposed expansion plans were successful. (Note: Both of the later two criteria have transpired: the euro’s valuation has been above the dollar since late 2002, and the euro-based E.U. enlarged in May 2004 from 12 to 22 countries). In the meantime, the United Kingdom remains uncomfortably juxtaposed between the financial interests of the U.S. banking nexus (New York/Washington) and the E.U. financial centers (Paris/Frankfurt).

The implementation of the proposed Iranian oil Bourse (exchange) in 2005/2006 – if successful in utilizing the euro as its oil transaction currency standard – essentially negates the necessity of the previous two criteria as described by Mr. Yarjani regarding the solidification of a "petroeuro" system for international oil trades. [10] It should also be noted that during 2003-2004 Russia and China have both increased their central bank holdings of the euro currency, which appears to be a coordinated move to facilitate the anticipated ascendance of the euro as a second World Reserve currency. [11] [12] In the meantime, the United Kingdom is uncomfortable juxtaposed between the financial interests of the U.S. (New York/Washington) banking nexus and that of the E.U. financial center (Paris/Frankfurt).

The immediate question for Americans? Will the neoconservatives attempt to intervene covertly and/or overtly in Iran during 2005 in an effort to prevent the formation of a euro-denominated crude oil pricing mechanism? Commentators in India are quite correct in their assessment that a U.S. intervention in Iran is likely to prove disastrous for the United States, making matters much worse regarding international terrorism, not to the mention potential effects on the U.S. economy.

"The giving up on the terror war while Iran invasion plans are drawn up makes no sense, especially since the previous invasion and current occupation of Iraq has further fuelled Al-Qaeda terrorism after 9/11."

"…It is obvious that sucked into Iraq, the US has limited military manpower left to combat the Al-Qaeda elsewhere in the Middle East and South Central Asia,"…"and NATO is so seriously cross with America that it hesitates to provides troops in Iraq, and no other country is willing to bail out America outside its immediate allies like Britain, Italy, Australia and Japan."

"….If it [u.S.] intervenes again, it is absolutely certain it will not be able to improve the situation – Iraq shows America has not the depth or patience to create a new civil society – and will only make matters worse."

"There is a better way, as the constructive engagement of Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has shown…."Iran is obviously a more complex case than Libya, because power resides in the clergy, and Iran has not been entirely transparent about its nuclear programme, but the sensible way is to take it gently, and nudge it to moderation. Regime change will only worsen global Islamist terror, and in any case, Saudi Arabia is a fitter case for democratic intervention, if at all." [13]

It is abundantly clear that a 2nd Bush term will bring a confrontation and possible war with Iran during 2005. Colin Powell as the Secretary of the State, has moderated neoconservative military designs regarding Iran, but Powell has stated that he will be leaving at the end of Bush’s first term. Of course if John Kerry wins in November, he might pursue a similar military strategy. However, it is my opinion that Kerry is more likely to pursue multilateral negotiations regarding the Iranian issues.

Clearly, there are numerous risks regarding neoconservative strategy towards Iran. First, unlike Iraq, Iran has a robust military capability. Secondly, a repeat of any "Shock and Awe" tactics is not advisable given that Iran has installed sophisticated anti-ship missiles on the Island of Abu Musa, and therefore controls the critical Strait of Hormuz. [14] In the case of a U.S. attack, a shut down of the Strait of Hormuz – where all of the Persian Gulf bound oil tankers must pass – could easily trigger a market panic with oil prices skyrocketing to $100 per barrel or more. World oil production is now flat out, and a major interruption would escalate oil prices to a level that would set off a global Depression. Why are the neoconservatives willing to takes such risks? Simply stated - their goal is U.S. global domination.

A successful Iranian bourse would solidify the petroeuro as an alternative oil transaction currency, and thereby end the petrodollar's hegemonic status as the monopoly oil currency. Therefore, a graduated approach is needed to avoid precipitous U.S. economic dislocations. Multilateral compromise with the EU and OPEC regarding oil currency is certainly preferable to an ‘Operation Iranian Freedom,’ or perhaps an attempted CIA-sponsored repeat of the 1953 Iranian coup – operation "Ajax" part II. [15] Indeed, there are very good reasons for U.S. military leaders to be "horrified" at the thought of a second Bush term in which Cheney and the neoconservatives would be unrestrained in their tragic pursuit of U.S. global domination.

"NEWSWEEK has learned that the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, "The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating." [16]

Despite the impressive power of the U.S. military and the ability of our intelligence agencies to facilitate "interventions," it would be perilous and possibly ruinous for the U.S to intervene in Iran given the dire situation in Iraq. The Monterey Institute of International Studies provided an extensive analysis of the possible consequences of a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and warned of the following:

"Considering the extensive financial and national policy investment Iran has committed to its nuclear projects, it is almost certain that an attack by Israel or the United States would result in immediate retaliation. A likely scenario includes an immediate Iranian missile counterattack on Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, followed by a very serious effort to destabilize Iraq and foment all-out confrontation between the United States and Iraq's Shi'i majority. Iran could also opt to destabilize Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states with a significant Shi'i population, and induce Lebanese Hizbullah to launch a series of rocket attacks on Northern Israel."

"…An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities…could have various adverse effects on U.S. interests in the Middle East and the world. Most important, in the absence of evidence of an Iranian illegal nuclear program, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by the U.S. or Israel would be likely to strengthen Iran's international stature and reduce the threat of international sanctions against Iran. Such an event is more likely to embolden and expand Iran's nuclear aspirations and capabilities in the long term"…"one thing is for certain, it would not be just another Osirak. " [17]

Synopsis

Regardless of whatever choice the U.S. electorate makes in the upcoming Presidential Election a military expedition may still go ahead.

This essay was written out of my own patriotic duty in an effort to inform Americans of the challenges that lie ahead. On November 25, 2004, the issues involving Iran's nuclear program will be addressed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and possibly referred to the U.N. Security Council if the results are unsatisfactory. Regardless of the IAEA findings, it appears increasingly likely the U.S. will use the specter of nuclear weapon proliferation as a pretext for an intervention, similar to the fears invoked in the previous WMD campaign regarding Iraq.

Pentagon sources confirm the Bush administration could undertake a desperate military strategy to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions while simultaneously attempting to prevent the Iranian oil Bourse from initiating a euro-based system for oil trades. The later would require forced "regime change" and the U.S. occupation of Iran. Obviously this would require a military draft. Objectively speaking, the post-war debacle in Iraq has clearly shown that such Imperial policies will be a catastrophic failure. Alternatively, perhaps a more enlightened U.S. administration could undertake multilateral negotiations with the EU and OPEC regarding a dual oil-currency system, in conjunction with global monetary reform. Either way, U.S. policy makers will soon face two difficult choices: monetary compromise or continued petrodollar warfare.

"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts."

- Abraham Lincoln

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."

- Thomas Jefferson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References:

[1] "Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth," January 2003 (updated January 2004) http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

[2] Hoyos, Carol & Morrison, Kevin, "Iraq returns to the international oil market," Financial Times, June 5, 2003 http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/Web%2...il%20market.htm

[3] "War-Gaming the Mullahs: The U.S. weighs the price of a pre-emptive strike," Newsweek, September 27 issue, 2004. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6039135/site/newsweek/

[4] Shivkumar, C., "Iran offers oil to Asian union on easier terms," The Hindu Business Line (June 16, 2003). http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/bline/...61702380500.htm

[5] Macalister, Terry, "Iran takes on west's control of oil trading," The [uK] Guardian, June 16, 2004 http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0...1239644,00.html

[6] "US to invade Iran before 2005 Christmas," News Insight: Public Affairs Magazine, June 9, 2004 http://www.newsinsight.net/nati2.asp?recno=2789

[7] "Iran Eyes Deal on Oil Bourse; IPE Chairman Visits Tehran," Rigzone.com (July 8, 2004) http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=14588

[8] "Iran's oil bourse expects to start by early 2006," Reuters, October 5, 2004 http://www.iranoilgas.com

[9] "Iran Eyes Deal on Oil Bourse, IPE Chairman Visits Tehran," ibid.

[10] "The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill," Speech given by Javad Yarjani, Head of OPEC's Petroleum Market Analysis Dept, on The International Role of the Euro (Invited by the Spanish Minister of Economic Affairs during Spain's Presidency of the EU) (April 14, 2002, Oviedo, Spain)

http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp20...eSpainApr14.htm

[11] Russia shifts to euro as foreign currency reserves soar," AFP, June 9, 2003

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7214-3.cfm

[12] "China to diversify foreign exchange reserves," China Business Weekly, May 8, 2004 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2...tent_328744.htm

[13] "Terror & regime change: Any US invasion of Iran will have terrible consequences," News Insight: Public Affairs Magazine, June 11, 2004 http://www.indiareacts.com/archivedebates/...o=908&ctg=World

[14] Analysis of Abu Musa Island, www.globalsecurity.org http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/abu-musa.htm

[15] J.W. Smith, "Destabilizing a Newly-Free Iran," The Institute for Economic Democracy, 2003 http://www.ied.info/books/why/control.html

[16] "War-Gaming the Mullahs: The U.S. weighs the price of a pre-emptive strike," ibid.

[17] Salama, Sammy and Ruster, Karen,"A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences," Monterry Institute of International Studies, August 12, 2004 (updated September 9, 2004) http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm

[18] Philips, Peter, "Censored 2004," Project Censored, Seven Stories Press, (2003) http://www.projectcensored.org/

Story #19: U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro: Another Reason for the Invasion of Iraq http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/19.html

William Clark is the author of an award-winning essay published online in early 2003 entitled: 'The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth.’

Stormig · May 4, 2005

Regarding a key ally:

Ministers 'back' Saudis in £2.5m torture battle

By Duncan Gardham

(Filed: 02/05/2005)

A former City tax adviser who was tortured in Saudi Arabia has been told the Government will side with the Saudis against him in his fight for justice.

Ron Jones said he had a reassuring meeting with Foreign Office minister Lady Symons earlier this year at which she promised she would raise the issue at a top level meeting with Saudi ministers in February.

Ron Jones: ‘disgusted’

Lady Symons said the case would be raised again in March and wrote to Mr Jones to say she was hopeful that they could make "real progress".

But the 52-year-old has now received a letter telling him that the Government will intervene on behalf of the Saudis when the case is heard in the House of Lords.

Mr Jones, from West Sussex, is pursuing a £2.5 million claim for damages for wrongful arrest, torture, personal injury and loss of earnings.

His claim, which is seen as a test case for others, seeks to argue that the 1978 State Immunity Act is incompatible with the Human Rights Act and gives foreign states the right to shelter torturers.

His torture claims were bolstered by physical evidence found by doctors after his release following two months captivity in Saudi Arabia.

The Foreign Office consular division confirmed at the time: "[Mr Jones's] story was substantiated by evidence. Officials were in no doubt he was telling the truth."

Yesterday Mr Jones told The Telegraph: "I was assured that the British Government was doing everything it possibly could to resolve the issue.

"I am absolutely disgusted. Lady Symons led me to believe they were in the final stage of negotiations before the matter was resolved.

"I have made it perfectly clear that there is no way I am going to let them get away with torturing me."

The case has already been heard in the Court of Appeal, where Mr Jones was given the right to sue the individual torturer, whom he has identified as Lt Col Abdul Aziz.

But he was denied the right to seek compensation from the Saudi state and, since Mr Aziz has no assets here, the victory was hollow.

Mr Jones, who worked in Hong Kong for eight years followed by a 15-year spell in the City, now has to survive on £170 a week in income support, incapacity benefit and child benefit for his 15-year-old son, Grant, and wife, Sandra, 56.

He had been in Saudi Arabia for four months working for a petro-chemical company when he was injured by shrapnel in a bomb blast and taken to hospital where security forces dragged him from his bed and arrested him on suspicion of causing the explosion.

He said: "They ruined my life. I think about what they did every single day. My hands are painful, my hip is bad and I can't walk very far. I can't work and I feel like I'm sinking fast."

The Foreign Office said last night: "It is important to make clear that Her Majesty's Government is not expressing any view on the substance of the case which Mr Jones wishes to purse against Saudi Arabia.

"This intervention is not about the attitude of HM Government to torture which is an abhorrent practice. It is about the entitlement in international law of foreign states to immunity from proceedings before the courts of other states."

The Government's stance could be bad news for another seven men who say they were also tortured until they confessed to a series of bombings which have since been blamed on al-Qa'eda.

The men, who lived in constant fear of execution, spent two and a half years in Saudi jails - a year of which was in solitary confinement. They were released in August 2003.

http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/global/main..../02/ntort02.xml

Nakharar · May 4, 2005

Stormy, what do you think about this quote?

America is the greatest, freest and most decent society in existence. It is an oasis of goodness in a desert of cynicism and barbarism. This country, once an experiment unique in the world, is now the last best hope for the world.

Dinesh D'Souza

An experiment gone very wrong I might add.

Is this what they call Bushspeak?

armjan · May 5, 2005

Stormy, what do you think about this quote?

America is the greatest, freest and most decent society in existence. It is an oasis of goodness in a desert of cynicism and barbarism. This country, once an experiment unique in the world, is now the last best hope for the world.
Dinesh D'Souza
An experiment gone very wrong I might add.
Is this what they call Bushspeak?

style_images/master/snapback.png

I am not storming but I can't help comment. And moreover, this thread seems to be one sided(as if america operates in a vacume) and so it would be democratic to introduce other schools of thought.

America is the greatest, freest society in existence. It has very healthy democratic processes and our institutions of education, health, law are a reflection of this. I think the ppl that really appreicate america are those that have lived under the other side (dictatorship). I love it here man and when ever i hear someone saying, "oh where i came from blah blah blah", well u know what, let me be serious with u for a second. If you like it that much, drop your $425 BMW payment, give me your Sprint PCS cell phone with 320x320 Pix,65,000 Colors, and go back and appreciate what you love so much.

Decent? What is decent? Some relate decency to a degree of acceptance and conformity towards ethical and moral standards, but often those are labeled as religious bigots by the same ppl who pose the question. So no matter what we say, we can't win. It's a lose-lose scenario. Moreover, decency is subjective, good possibility that 2 ppl may not agree on what may/may not be considered decent due to their differences.

Nakharar, we often dream that there may exists a country with flawless attributes. I don't think this state can ever be achieved.

It's not about borders, countries and regions. I think all societies are a reflection of man/woman and their adoption to certain ideologies. There are some things that can't be achieved only b/c human wants/needs something someone else has. This has nothing to do with the inefficiencies of America. The problem is humans.

Finite resources + somewhat infinite human need/want = conflict

This state of conflict produces rather some unfortunate but NECESSARY EVIL to be perpetrated against others who's interest is against that of ours. So we take them out !

The need for survival supercedes most other needs. You need to survive first, then you can do whatever else. And I know, this is probably where someone is going to quote BF about what he said about liberty/security, but even BF would have signed paperwork if/when an external force threatened his survival/interests.

The theme of that quote should serve as a metric for our internal institutions/processes, but is not relevant when an external force is threatening to destroy those same institutions. Who cares about liberty when there are no people to practice it.

"best hope for the world", this is just poetry. It can't occur that any one country is looking for the interests of other countries as much as it's own. If so then that country will soon be invaded by another who was looking for it's own interests

we can all benefit from a 15 minute video of how primates engage in politics and resolve differences, often resulting in conflict. Isn't it interesting how they form packs based on loyalty and beat the sh!t out of each other.

Edited May 5, 2005 by armjan

Sign In

Meet the U.S.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation