Errant missile a setback for 12 Afghans

NATO spokesmen are preempting accusations of insensitivity concerning two US rockets which killed twelve Afghan civilians in Marjah, the latest operation against the Taliban. Six of the unintended victims were children. Military brass are expressing worry that such collateral damage will prove a setback to winning the hearts and minds over the latest US antipersonnel maneuvers.

US Marines are complaining that new rules of engagements are making the fighting more arduous and protracted. The stricter rules dictate that US soldiers cannot fire at people unless they commit a hostile act or show intent. This new policy abides by Geneva Conventions, meaning the earlier rules did not.

Before its resurged insurgence, Fallujah was not considered a setback. In other headlines, Secretary of State Clinton declared that Iran is heading toward being a military-led regime, the potential of nuclear weapons posing a terrifying threat. I don’t know about Iran, can we say that about the USA?

Name, rank, serial number, pantie size

When you’re an al-Qaeda brand POW, you’re expected to give more than the Geneva Conventions’ name, rank and serial number. From Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, US interrogators want to know the who, what and where about the explosives party in his pants but forget HOW the Christmas concoction was supposed to formulate itself into a terrorist attack. Should Americans be assured with the news today that “Abdulmutallab is cooperating with US intelligence?” His captors going back and forth about whether a pantie bomber is entitled to US civil rights sound like coercion of an American citizen to me. On top of the torture.

By all means tell them how you came to wrap yourself in C-4 plastique, more than likely you had a point to make, you might as well express it now. How sad that the American public has forgotten it is entitled to the freedom not to explain.

I went to a baby shower once where guests has to smell diapers filled with melted candy bars, the object being to differentiate one from the other, the gag being that the scenario looked like we were sniffing poo. It’s not a task I would entrust with the TSA. The American public should make their media talking heads do this when another diaper bomber comes up the gangway. Ants in the pants do not constitute an ant army invasion. Loose gunpowder does not a firecracker make. Explosives with no means of detonation do not make a bomber, a bullet in the hand is not worth a gunman.

Did you know John Yoo is not in jail?

john-woo-daily-showThis is the kind of civility that I just can’t stomach. Berkeley Law Professor John Yoo, author of the Torture Memos which Bushco’s blimpnecks took for their greenlight to water-board, was a guest yesterday on the Daily Show. Short of Jon Stewart orchestrating a citizen’s arrest, or reality television setting Gitmo alumni upon Woo like bears on honey, I don’t want to see the John Yoo walking free.

I could see that Stewart had planned some zingers which Yoo was able to dodge, and afterward Stewart behaved like Hannibal Lecter had just passed through, but on the whole I think hosting criminals like Yoo is ill advised. For one, you have to shake his hand. Then of course the nature of television entertainment –unless you are Mike Wallace who’s just strode into the mark’s office– has you trying to make light of the interview, the whole of which has been choreographed for laughs. Worst of all I believe, are the too-many times a host finds himself asking the audience to give it up for the guest.

When Stewart first announced the night’s guest was to be John Yoo, the audience appropriately enough did not cheer. Of course when it came time for the cretin’s entrance, the applause was obligatory. And so it followed, each subsequent punctuation. How else are the audience members supposed to show their enthusiasm? It’s true, their energy is critical to the stage energy.

Stephen Colbert solves the applaud-the-bad-guy paradox by taking a victory lap himself when the audience applauds the introduction of the guest. But usually Colbert’s show specializes in leftist guests with whom the audience is sympathetic, so the maneuver is more for bringing the studio audience unto Colbert’s role-playing for the Right. Integral to his act is an audience that mimics O’Reilly-Limbaugh ditto-heads. A veritable right wing audience could never be brought to even show civility to a guest they’re told is hostile.

And I guess I long for a little more of that genuine sentiment. It began for me when I saw Sarah Palin treated with effusive cordiality on Saturday Night Live. Again the audience was expected to applaud Palin, if in fact they were really just excited to see her roasted.

John Yoo and ilk, the whole Bush troops, must be prosecuted and jailed. That they walk about at large, free to second guess President Obama’s terrorism strategies are nothing to laugh at. I’ll cop to being humorless on this point.

NOTES:
Excerpt, March 13, 2002 Memorandum

“… neither the GPW (Third Geneva Convention) nor the Torture Convention restrict the President’s legal authority to transfer prisoners captured in the Afghanistan conflict to third countries. Although the GPW places conditions on the transfer of POWs, neither al-Qaeda nor Taliban prisoners are legally entitled to POW status, and hence there are no GPW conditions placed on their transfer. While the Torture Convention arguably might govern transfer of these prisoners, it does not apply extraterritorially.”

Excerpt, August 1, 2002 Memo

“Under international law, therefore, the United States thus is bound only by the text of the Torture Conventions as modified by the first Bush administration’s understanding.”

Jesus Killed Mohammed, every last one

Bradley Fighting VehicleWith attention now drawn on the evangelical skinheads running amok with the US military’s Big Stick, reporter Jeff Sharlet relates a story in this month’s Harpers, which showcases the fundamental irreligiosity of the capital “C” Crusaders.

The episode Jesus Killed Mohammed takes place in Samarra, Iraq, in 2004, where rascally US Christ fans succeed in goading their crosstown rivals into taking a shot at them, the sooner to be dispatched to the Islamic hereafter by the Christ Gang’s overwhelming firepower. The operation involved painting “Jesus Killed Mohammed” across the side of their Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and having their translator poke his megaphone out the top, giving Arabic voice to the insolent taunt, shouting it up and down the neighborhood until no one was left to speak up for Mohammed.

???? ??? ?????

The affair reminded me of the Monty Phython skit about the world’s deadliest joke being appropriated for military use across the WWI trenches, which was, if you remember, immediately fatal, combined with the sacrilegious 2005 GWOT strategy which drew so much flak to US special forces in Afghanistan when soldiers burned Taliban corpses to draw enemy ire. The Intelligence Service calls it “tickling:” provoking your opponent into an emotional response to reveal his position. In the Afghan case, the US team violated Geneva Conventions against mutilating the dead. In Sammara the only code protecting the sensitivities of the indignant Muslims was probably the boxing rule forbidding blows below the belt. Perhaps it was the very indecency of the concept which most elicited snickers from the American perps.

In operation JESUS KILLED MOHAMMED, the 1/26 Infantry of the 1st Infantry Division led by Lieutenant John D. DeGiulio, under instructions from the 10th Special Forces Group who called themselves “the Faith element,” drove their Bradleys along the streets drawing fire, one shot at a time, from virtually every door. After each shot rang out, the Bradley would summarily aerate each residence and its inhabitants until “Jesus Killed Mohammed” did not offend anymore.

As Sharlet noted, every Iraqi home is permitted one AK-47 for self defense, so answering the US force’s insolence did not reveal you to have been an insurgent. The infidels were biting their thumbs at the Iraqis from behind impregnable armor, to respond with small arms fire was entirely a matter of honor, and suicide.

Was Sharon quote really not genuine?

Are quotes being fraudulently attributed to Israeli ministers (as NMT’s indignant Israeli PR visitors are insisting)? We decided to look into the Ariel Sharon “fabrication” about who controls of America. Let’s just say our hasbara critics are going to wish they’d tempered their indignation. In the process, we found more indecorous pronouncements, which we’ve included with direct attributions from the Israeli press. Tokhis oyfn tish.

Did Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon say “I control America,” or words to such effect? It turns out this has been made a bone of contention since the alleged rebuke to Foreign Minister Shimon Peres in October 2001.

The Israeli PR website CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) has been accusing Arab-sympathetic Washington Report, (Washington Report on Middle East Affairs -WRMEA) of orchestrating this story. The quote was picked up by the international press from Chicago Tribune syndicated columnist Georgie Anne Geyer, who had attributed it to having been reported on Israeli radio station Kol Yisrael.

CAMERA claimed that Kol Yisrael denied having aired the quote. But Geyer could not discount the veracity of her multiple Israeli sources, whether or not they heard it on the radio or at the meeting, but the veteran journalist stood by her longstanding contacts. Under a coordinated barrage of LTE complaints by CAMERA, the Chicago Tribune issued this clarification on June 14, 2002:

“[the quote was] widely reported in the Palestinian press but cannot be confirmed in independent sources. Geyer and Universal Press Syndicate regret not having attributed the quote more specifically.”

Hardly an admission of “fabrication,” as CAMERA and this site’s hasbara propagandists are lauding.

And whether Sharon said it or not, Senator Fullbright, or Secretary of State John Foster Dulles had already spelled that notion out for posterity.

Perhaps Prime Minister Olmert’s recent claim to have interrupted George Bush mid-speech, to command Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to stand down on a United Nations vote condemning the recent Gaza attack, proves Israel’s influence, more loudly than pronouncing it.

But a statement about who claims to control whom, pales in comparison to what some Israeli ministers have voiced about their military objectives in Gaza. They remind me of American commanders, utterly oblivious to the Geneva Conventions.

Matan Vilnai
Here’s what Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai famously told Army Radio last year:

“The more Qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they will bring upon themselves a bigger ‘Shoah’ because we will use all our might to defend ourselves.”

SHOAH is the Hebrew word for Holocaust; itself a word zealously trademarked by Zionists internationally to mean only the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis against the Jews.

Israeli PR damage-control immediately jumped in to assert that by ‘Shoah,’ Vilnai had meant ‘disaster,’ the word’s original definition. (Would that be like asking Americans to believe that when Rudy Giuliani brings up 911, he’s talking about dialing emergency?)

Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter
at weekly cabinet meeting Sunday, Jan 20, 2008:

“the government must instruct the IDF to eliminate the rocket fire from Gaza entirely. These attacks need not be minimized or managed, but stopped completely irrespective of the cost to the Palestinians.”

Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit:

“any other country would have already gone in and leveled the area, which is exactly what I think the IDF should do – decide on a neighborhood in Gaza and level it.”

“We should let them know ‘you have to leave, this area will be taken down tomorrow’ and just take it down – that will show them we mean business. Sporadic actions are good, but they’re not good enough.”

(At the same meeting, according to Haaretz: legal experts were requested to prepare an opinion on a “gradual evacuation of the population” in Gaza from areas of fighting.)

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
at the annual Herzliya Conference Jan 23, 2008

“But there is no justification for demanding we allow residents of Gaza to live normal lives while shells and rockets are fired from their streets and courtyards at Sderot and other communities in the south.”

“Does anyone seriously think that our children will wet their beds at night in fear and be afraid to go out of the house and they [Gazans] will live in quiet normality?”

Israeli air strikes represent massive violations of international law

palestine flag“The Israeli air strikes on the Gaza Strip represent severe and massive violations of international humanitarian law as defined in the Geneva Convention, both in regard to the obligations of an occupying power and in the requirements of the laws of war.” Written by Professor Richard Falk, United Nations Special Investigator for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories.

The entire commentary by the UN Special Investigator for Human Rights can be read at ‘Israeli air strikes represent massive violations of international law’

Unfortunately the United Nations is well known for giving lip service to international law while helping super powers violate it. Such is the case now with Gaza, too.

Acacia Park turns out Pro-Palestinian

Free Gaza protestCOLO. SPRINGS- Some pictures from today’s ANSWER / UFPJ protest of Israel’s continued attacks on Gaza. Meanwhile Israel launched more air attacks and continued to mobilize forces in preparation for a ground “incursion.”

Talking points from Phyllis Bennis:

The Israeli airstrikes represent serious violations of international law – including the Geneva Conventions and a range of international humanitarian law.

The U.S. is complicit in the Israeli violations – directly and indirectly.

The timing of the air strikes has far more to do with U.S. and Israeli politics than with protecting Israeli civilians.

This serious escalation will push back any chance of serious negotiations between the parties that might have been part of the Obama administration’s plans.

Acacia Park
Wider crop of view across Bijou Street. We occupied the four corners of Nevada and Bijou.

Acacia Park
Northwest corner

Nevada Avenue
Northwest corner looking across Nevada Avenue.

Harold Pinter on drama and US banditry

“What has happened to our moral sensibility? Did we ever have any? What do these words mean? Do they refer to a term very rarely employed these days – conscience? A conscience to do not only with our own acts but to do with our shared responsibility in the acts of others? Is all this dead?”
-Harold Pinter (1930-2008)

I’m reminded of a friend of mine who asked “You know what PTSD is? It’s a bad conscience.”

An outspoken critic of the Iraq War, Harold Pinter died Christmas Eve. Here is the address he prerecorded for his acceptance of the Nobel Prize in 2005, when he had become too infirm to attend in person.

Nobel Lecture: Art, Truth & Politics

In 1958 I wrote the following:

‘There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false.’

I believe that these assertions still make sense and do still apply to the exploration of reality through art. So as a writer I stand by them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen I must ask: What is true? What is false?

Truth in drama is forever elusive. You never quite find it but the search for it is compulsive. The search is clearly what drives the endeavour. The search is your task. More often than not you stumble upon the truth in the dark, colliding with it or just glimpsing an image or a shape which seems to correspond to the truth, often without realising that you have done so. But the real truth is that there never is any such thing as one truth to be found in dramatic art. There are many. These truths challenge each other, recoil from each other, reflect each other, ignore each other, tease each other, are blind to each other. Sometimes you feel you have the truth of a moment in your hand, then it slips through your fingers and is lost.

I have often been asked how my plays come about. I cannot say. Nor can I ever sum up my plays, except to say that this is what happened. That is what they said. That is what they did.

Most of the plays are engendered by a line, a word or an image. The given word is often shortly followed by the image. I shall give two examples of two lines which came right out of the blue into my head, followed by an image, followed by me.

The plays are The Homecoming and Old Times. The first line of The Homecoming is ‘What have you done with the scissors?’ The first line of Old Times is ‘Dark.’

In each case I had no further information.

In the first case someone was obviously looking for a pair of scissors and was demanding their whereabouts of someone else he suspected had probably stolen them. But I somehow knew that the person addressed didn’t give a damn about the scissors or about the questioner either, for that matter.

‘Dark’ I took to be a description of someone’s hair, the hair of a woman, and was the answer to a question. In each case I found myself compelled to pursue the matter. This happened visually, a very slow fade, through shadow into light.

I always start a play by calling the characters A, B and C.

In the play that became The Homecoming I saw a man enter a stark room and ask his question of a younger man sitting on an ugly sofa reading a racing paper. I somehow suspected that A was a father and that B was his son, but I had no proof. This was however confirmed a short time later when B (later to become Lenny) says to A (later to become Max), ‘Dad, do you mind if I change the subject? I want to ask you something. The dinner we had before, what was the name of it? What do you call it? Why don’t you buy a dog? You’re a dog cook. Honest. You think you’re cooking for a lot of dogs.’ So since B calls A ‘Dad’ it seemed to me reasonable to assume that they were father and son. A was also clearly the cook and his cooking did not seem to be held in high regard. Did this mean that there was no mother? I didn’t know. But, as I told myself at the time, our beginnings never know our ends.

‘Dark.’ A large window. Evening sky. A man, A (later to become Deeley), and a woman, B (later to become Kate), sitting with drinks. ‘Fat or thin?’ the man asks. Who are they talking about? But I then see, standing at the window, a woman, C (later to become Anna), in another condition of light, her back to them, her hair dark.

It’s a strange moment, the moment of creating characters who up to that moment have had no existence. What follows is fitful, uncertain, even hallucinatory, although sometimes it can be an unstoppable avalanche. The author’s position is an odd one. In a sense he is not welcomed by the characters. The characters resist him, they are not easy to live with, they are impossible to define. You certainly can’t dictate to them. To a certain extent you play a never-ending game with them, cat and mouse, blind man’s buff, hide and seek. But finally you find that you have people of flesh and blood on your hands, people with will and an individual sensibility of their own, made out of component parts you are unable to change, manipulate or distort.

So language in art remains a highly ambiguous transaction, a quicksand, a trampoline, a frozen pool which might give way under you, the author, at any time.

But as I have said, the search for the truth can never stop. It cannot be adjourned, it cannot be postponed. It has to be faced, right there, on the spot.

Political theatre presents an entirely different set of problems. Sermonising has to be avoided at all cost. Objectivity is essential. The characters must be allowed to breathe their own air. The author cannot confine and constrict them to satisfy his own taste or disposition or prejudice. He must be prepared to approach them from a variety of angles, from a full and uninhibited range of perspectives, take them by surprise, perhaps, occasionally, but nevertheless give them the freedom to go which way they will. This does not always work. And political satire, of course, adheres to none of these precepts, in fact does precisely the opposite, which is its proper function.

In my play The Birthday Party I think I allow a whole range of options to operate in a dense forest of possibility before finally focussing on an act of subjugation.

Mountain Language pretends to no such range of operation. It remains brutal, short and ugly. But the soldiers in the play do get some fun out of it. One sometimes forgets that torturers become easily bored. They need a bit of a laugh to keep their spirits up. This has been confirmed of course by the events at Abu Ghraib in Baghdad. Mountain Language lasts only 20 minutes, but it could go on for hour after hour, on and on and on, the same pattern repeated over and over again, on and on, hour after hour.

Ashes to Ashes, on the other hand, seems to me to be taking place under water. A drowning woman, her hand reaching up through the waves, dropping down out of sight, reaching for others, but finding nobody there, either above or under the water, finding only shadows, reflections, floating; the woman a lost figure in a drowning landscape, a woman unable to escape the doom that seemed to belong only to others.

But as they died, she must die too.

Political language, as used by politicians, does not venture into any of this territory since the majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.

As every single person here knows, the justification for the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein possessed a highly dangerous body of weapons of mass destruction, some of which could be fired in 45 minutes, bringing about appalling devastation. We were assured that was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq had a relationship with Al Quaeda and shared responsibility for the atrocity in New York of September 11th 2001. We were assured that this was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq threatened the security of the world. We were assured it was true. It was not true.

The truth is something entirely different. The truth is to do with how the United States understands its role in the world and how it chooses to embody it.

But before I come back to the present I would like to look at the recent past, by which I mean United States foreign policy since the end of the Second World War. I believe it is obligatory upon us to subject this period to at least some kind of even limited scrutiny, which is all that time will allow here.

Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe during the post-war period: the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought. All this has been fully documented and verified.

But my contention here is that the US crimes in the same period have only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognised as crimes at all. I believe this must be addressed and that the truth has considerable bearing on where the world stands now. Although constrained, to a certain extent, by the existence of the Soviet Union, the United States’ actions throughout the world made it clear that it had concluded it had carte blanche to do what it liked.

Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America’s favoured method. In the main, it has preferred what it has described as ‘low intensity conflict’. Low intensity conflict means that thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped a bomb on them in one fell swoop. It means that you infect the heart of the country, that you establish a malignant growth and watch the gangrene bloom. When the populace has been subdued – or beaten to death – the same thing – and your own friends, the military and the great corporations, sit comfortably in power, you go before the camera and say that democracy has prevailed. This was a commonplace in US foreign policy in the years to which I refer.

The tragedy of Nicaragua was a highly significant case. I choose to offer it here as a potent example of America’s view of its role in the world, both then and now.

I was present at a meeting at the US embassy in London in the late 1980s.

The United States Congress was about to decide whether to give more money to the Contras in their campaign against the state of Nicaragua. I was a member of a delegation speaking on behalf of Nicaragua but the most important member of this delegation was a Father John Metcalf. The leader of the US body was Raymond Seitz (then number two to the ambassador, later ambassador himself). Father Metcalf said: ‘Sir, I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist activity.’

Raymond Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational, responsible and highly sophisticated man. He was greatly respected in diplomatic circles. He listened, paused and then spoke with some gravity. ‘Father,’ he said, ‘let me tell you something. In war, innocent people always suffer.’ There was a frozen silence. We stared at him. He did not flinch.

Innocent people, indeed, always suffer.

Finally somebody said: ‘But in this case “innocent people” were the victims of a gruesome atrocity subsidised by your government, one among many. If Congress allows the Contras more money further atrocities of this kind will take place. Is this not the case? Is your government not therefore guilty of supporting acts of murder and destruction upon the citizens of a sovereign state?’

Seitz was imperturbable. ‘I don’t agree that the facts as presented support your assertions,’ he said.

As we were leaving the Embassy a US aide told me that he enjoyed my plays. I did not reply.

I should remind you that at the time President Reagan made the following statement: ‘The Contras are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.’

The United States supported the brutal Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua for over 40 years. The Nicaraguan people, led by the Sandinistas, overthrew this regime in 1979, a breathtaking popular revolution.

The Sandinistas weren’t perfect. They possessed their fair share of arrogance and their political philosophy contained a number of contradictory elements. But they were intelligent, rational and civilised. They set out to establish a stable, decent, pluralistic society. The death penalty was abolished. Hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken peasants were brought back from the dead. Over 100,000 families were given title to land. Two thousand schools were built. A quite remarkable literacy campaign reduced illiteracy in the country to less than one seventh. Free education was established and a free health service. Infant mortality was reduced by a third. Polio was eradicated.

The United States denounced these achievements as Marxist/Leninist subversion. In the view of the US government, a dangerous example was being set. If Nicaragua was allowed to establish basic norms of social and economic justice, if it was allowed to raise the standards of health care and education and achieve social unity and national self respect, neighbouring countries would ask the same questions and do the same things. There was of course at the time fierce resistance to the status quo in El Salvador.

I spoke earlier about ‘a tapestry of lies’ which surrounds us. President Reagan commonly described Nicaragua as a ‘totalitarian dungeon’. This was taken generally by the media, and certainly by the British government, as accurate and fair comment. But there was in fact no record of death squads under the Sandinista government. There was no record of torture. There was no record of systematic or official military brutality. No priests were ever murdered in Nicaragua. There were in fact three priests in the government, two Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The totalitarian dungeons were actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States had brought down the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954 and it is estimated that over 200,000 people had been victims of successive military dictatorships.

Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously murdered at the Central American University in San Salvador in 1989 by a battalion of the Alcatl regiment trained at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. That extremely brave man Archbishop Romero was assassinated while saying mass. It is estimated that 75,000 people died. Why were they killed? They were killed because they believed a better life was possible and should be achieved. That belief immediately qualified them as communists. They died because they dared to question the status quo, the endless plateau of poverty, disease, degradation and oppression, which had been their birthright.

The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance. ‘Democracy’ had prevailed.

But this ‘policy’ was by no means restricted to Central America. It was conducted throughout the world. It was never-ending. And it is as if it never happened.

The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn’t know it.

It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.

I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It’s a winner. Listen to all American presidents on television say the words, ‘the American people’, as in the sentence, ‘I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people.’

It’s a scintillating stratagem. Language is actually employed to keep thought at bay. The words ‘the American people’ provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You don’t need to think. Just lie back on the cushion. The cushion may be suffocating your intelligence and your critical faculties but it’s very comfortable. This does not apply of course to the 40 million people living below the poverty line and the 2 million men and women imprisoned in the vast gulag of prisons, which extends across the US.

The United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious. It puts its cards on the table without fear or favour. It quite simply doesn’t give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant. It also has its own bleating little lamb tagging behind it on a lead, the pathetic and supine Great Britain.

What has happened to our moral sensibility? Did we ever have any? What do these words mean? Do they refer to a term very rarely employed these days – conscience? A conscience to do not only with our own acts but to do with our shared responsibility in the acts of others? Is all this dead? Look at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of people detained without charge for over three years, with no legal representation or due process, technically detained forever. This totally illegitimate structure is maintained in defiance of the Geneva Convention. It is not only tolerated but hardly thought about by what’s called the ‘international community’. This criminal outrage is being committed by a country, which declares itself to be ‘the leader of the free world’. Do we think about the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay? What does the media say about them? They pop up occasionally – a small item on page six. They have been consigned to a no man’s land from which indeed they may never return. At present many are on hunger strike, being force-fed, including British residents. No niceties in these force-feeding procedures. No sedative or anaesthetic. Just a tube stuck up your nose and into your throat. You vomit blood. This is torture. What has the British Foreign Secretary said about this? Nothing. What has the British Prime Minister said about this? Nothing. Why not? Because the United States has said: to criticise our conduct in Guantanamo Bay constitutes an unfriendly act. You’re either with us or against us. So Blair shuts up.

The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading – as a last resort – all other justifications having failed to justify themselves – as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people.

We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it ‘bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East’.

How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore if any American soldier or for that matter politician finds himself in the dock Bush has warned that he will send in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they’re interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London.

Death in this context is irrelevant. Both Bush and Blair place death well away on the back burner. At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and missiles before the Iraq insurgency began. These people are of no moment. Their deaths don’t exist. They are blank. They are not even recorded as being dead. ‘We don’t do body counts,’ said the American general Tommy Franks.

Early in the invasion there was a photograph published on the front page of British newspapers of Tony Blair kissing the cheek of a little Iraqi boy. ‘A grateful child,’ said the caption. A few days later there was a story and photograph, on an inside page, of another four-year-old boy with no arms. His family had been blown up by a missile. He was the only survivor. ‘When do I get my arms back?’ he asked. The story was dropped. Well, Tony Blair wasn’t holding him in his arms, nor the body of any other mutilated child, nor the body of any bloody corpse. Blood is dirty. It dirties your shirt and tie when you’re making a sincere speech on television.

The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in the dark. Funerals are unobtrusive, out of harm’s way. The mutilated rot in their beds, some for the rest of their lives. So the dead and the mutilated both rot, in different kinds of graves.

Here is an extract from a poem by Pablo Neruda, ‘I’m Explaining a Few Things’:

And one morning all that was burning,
one morning the bonfires
leapt out of the earth
devouring human beings
and from then on fire,
gunpowder from then on,
and from then on blood.
Bandits with planes and Moors,
bandits with finger-rings and duchesses,
bandits with black friars spattering blessings
came through the sky to kill children
and the blood of children ran through the streets
without fuss, like children’s blood.

Jackals that the jackals would despise
stones that the dry thistle would bite on and spit out,
vipers that the vipers would abominate.

Face to face with you I have seen the blood
of Spain tower like a tide
to drown you in one wave
of pride and knives.

Treacherous
generals:
see my dead house,
look at broken Spain:
from every house burning metal flows
instead of flowers
from every socket of Spain
Spain emerges
and from every dead child a rifle with eyes
and from every crime bullets are born
which will one day find
the bull’s eye of your hearts.

And you will ask: why doesn’t his poetry
speak of dreams and leaves
and the great volcanoes of his native land.

Come and see the blood in the streets.
Come and see
the blood in the streets.
Come and see the blood
in the streets!

Let me make it quite clear that in quoting from Neruda’s poem I am in no way comparing Republican Spain to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. I quote Neruda because nowhere in contemporary poetry have I read such a powerful visceral description of the bombing of civilians.

I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now defined as ‘full spectrum dominance’. That is not my term, it is theirs. ‘Full spectrum dominance’ means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources.

The United States now occupies 702 military installations throughout the world in 132 countries, with the honourable exception of Sweden, of course. We don’t quite know how they got there but they are there all right.

The United States possesses 8,000 active and operational nuclear warheads. Two thousand are on hair trigger alert, ready to be launched with 15 minutes warning. It is developing new systems of nuclear force, known as bunker busters. The British, ever cooperative, are intending to replace their own nuclear missile, Trident. Who, I wonder, are they aiming at? Osama bin Laden? You? Me? Joe Dokes? China? Paris? Who knows? What we do know is that this infantile insanity – the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons – is at the heart of present American political philosophy. We must remind ourselves that the United States is on a permanent military footing and shows no sign of relaxing it.

Many thousands, if not millions, of people in the United States itself are demonstrably sickened, shamed and angered by their government’s actions, but as things stand they are not a coherent political force – yet. But the anxiety, uncertainty and fear which we can see growing daily in the United States is unlikely to diminish.

I know that President Bush has many extremely competent speech writers but I would like to volunteer for the job myself. I propose the following short address which he can make on television to the nation. I see him grave, hair carefully combed, serious, winning, sincere, often beguiling, sometimes employing a wry smile, curiously attractive, a man’s man.

‘God is good. God is great. God is good. My God is good. Bin Laden’s God is bad. His is a bad God. Saddam’s God was bad, except he didn’t have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians. We don’t chop people’s heads off. We believe in freedom. So does God. I am not a barbarian. I am the democratically elected leader of a freedom-loving democracy. We are a compassionate society. We give compassionate electrocution and compassionate lethal injection. We are a great nation. I am not a dictator. He is. I am not a barbarian. He is. And he is. They all are. I possess moral authority. You see this fist? This is my moral authority. And don’t you forget it.’

A writer’s life is a highly vulnerable, almost naked activity. We don’t have to weep about that. The writer makes his choice and is stuck with it. But it is true to say that you are open to all the winds, some of them icy indeed. You are out on your own, out on a limb. You find no shelter, no protection – unless you lie – in which case of course you have constructed your own protection and, it could be argued, become a politician.

I have referred to death quite a few times this evening. I shall now quote a poem of my own called ‘Death’.

Where was the dead body found?
Who found the dead body?
Was the dead body dead when found?
How was the dead body found?

Who was the dead body?

Who was the father or daughter or brother
Or uncle or sister or mother or son
Of the dead and abandoned body?

Was the body dead when abandoned?
Was the body abandoned?
By whom had it been abandoned?

Was the dead body naked or dressed for a journey?

What made you declare the dead body dead?
Did you declare the dead body dead?
How well did you know the dead body?
How did you know the dead body was dead?

Did you wash the dead body
Did you close both its eyes
Did you bury the body
Did you leave it abandoned
Did you kiss the dead body

When we look into a mirror we think the image that confronts us is accurate. But move a millimetre and the image changes. We are actually looking at a never-ending range of reflections. But sometimes a writer has to smash the mirror – for it is on the other side of that mirror that the truth stares at us.

I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory.

If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us – the dignity of man.

Time for Iraq to Pay the Bill? YHGTBFKM

The NYT editorial pages decry “Time for Iraq to Pay the Bill.” Oh, really? Sign that editor up for charges, and every single US politician on that bandwagon. It was indeed part of the pitch to convince the public that America could pay for this war. Iraq reconstruction would be financed using Iraq’s oil revenues. Sounds like a great business plan. Except it’s robbery. In war-making terms: pillage.

It must simply sting, that America expend so much money to “liberate” Iraq, to restart its oil production, to position our oil companies to collect their cut, only to see Iraq accumulate oil monies while the US public is saddled with the cost or Iraq’s reconstruction. But we destroyed Iraq. It’s our responsibility to rebuild. Shouldn’t this go without saying? Instead our talking heads are saying it’s the exact inverse.

Do you suppose you could interest rapists to collect fees from their victims for services rendered? Was the sexual attention wanted or unwanted? Arguable, in a rapist’s mind. It don’t work that way, do it? It’s the same in rape and war.

The Geneva Conventions spell out the ethic for military peanut brains who need it explained. You are not permitted to finance your war with the spoils of your invasion. There are no spoils of war. That’s pillage. Reconstruction-wise, Colin Powell famously put this concept in layman terms for us consumers: You break it, you fix it. You don’t charge the Pottery barn for a contract to have you fix it.

It’s there in the laws of war. Do they teach anything in military school? In law school? The rhetorical answer is yes they do. Ergo, these jackasses, brutes, cheerleaders and their investors, are criminals. Make ’em pay for their scaffolds.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful… if only…

… the people who loudly proclaim they oppose Immigration, only on the basis of Respect for Law and Order and not out of racist fear and racist fearmongering, start opposing the United States Army exporting a Violent and Deadly form of illegal immigration, where they forcibly take over a nations economy, government, society…

And imprison, torture or kill anybody in the “Host” country who objects…

That violates many many laws, including and especially the Constitution of the United States, which is the standard by which ALL American laws, statutes and government actions are to be judged.

For instance, foreign treaties, according to the Constitution, are supposed to have as much full weight of law in American Jurisprudence as the Constitution itself.

Treaties like the Charters of the League of Nations and the United Nations, the Geneva Conventions, the Hague conventions, the World Court, the international doctrines which provided the basis for prosecuting the Nazis for war crimes like the ones Mr Bush orders committed daily.

McCain was dubbed the “POW Songbird”

An excerpt from prisoner of war John McCain’s November 9, 1967 interview for the North Vietnamese newspaper NHAN DAN:
McCain told vietcong about US attack procedures
Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain have released a fact sheet on the highly decorated hero’s service in Vietnam. If this is reminiscent of the Swiftboat shits against John Kerry, at least these vets have the official records and news reports. Apparently John McCain III crashed a total of five planes, received one and a half medals per hour of service, and while the admiral’s son was pampered in the Hanoi Hilton, his extensive singing earned him the name “POW Songbird.”

FACT SHEET: Military record of John Sidney McCain III

Both McCain III’s father and grandfather were Admirals in the United States Navy. His father Admiral John S. ”Junior” McCain was commander of U.S. forces in Europe – later commander of American forces in Vietnam while McCain III was being held prisoner of war. His grandfather John S. McCain, Sr. commanded naval aviation at the Battle of Okinawa in 1945.

McCain III, like his father and grandfather, also attended the United States Naval Academy. McCain III finished near the bottom of his graduating class in 1958.

McCain III lost five U.S. Navy aircraft

1 – Student pilot McCain III lost jet number one in 1958 when he plunged into Corpus Christi Bay while practicing landings.

2 – Pilot McCain III lost another plane two years later while he was deployed in the Mediterranean. ”Flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula, he took out some power lines which led to a spate of newspaper stories in which he was predictably identified as the son of an admiral.

3 – Pilot McCain III lost number three in 1965 when he was returning from flying a Navy trainer solo to Philadelphia for an Army-Navy football game. McCain III radioed, ”I’ve got a flameout” and ejected at one thousand feet. The plane crashed to the ground and McCain III floated to a deserted beach.

4 – Combat pilot McCain III lost his fourth on July 29, 1967, soon after he was assigned to the USS Forrestal as an A-4 Skyhawk combat pilot. While waiting his turn for takeoff, an accidently fired rocket slammed into McCain Jr’s. plane. He escaped from the burning aircraft, but the explosions that followed killed 134 sailors, destroyed at least 20 aircraft, and threatened to sink the ship.

5 – Combat pilot McCain III lost a fifth plane three months later (Oct. 26, 1967) during his 23rd mission over North Vietnam when he failed to avoid a surface-to-air missile. McCain III ejected from the plane breaking both arms and a leg in the process and subsequently parachuted into Truc Bach Lake near Hanoi. After being pulled from the lake by the North Vietnamese, McCain III was bayoneted in his left foot and shoulder and struck by a rifle butt. He was then transported to the Hoa Lo Prison, also known as the Hanoi Hilton.

1973 New York Daily News labeled POW McCain III a “PW Songbird”

On McCain III’s fourth day of being denied medical treatment, slapped, and threatened with death by the communist (they were demanding military information in exchange for medical treatment), McCain III broke and told his interrogator, ”O.K., I’ll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital.” U.S. News and World Report, May 14, 1973 article written by former POW John McCain.

It was then that the communist learned that McCain III’s father was Admiral John S. McCain, the soon-to-be commander of all U.S. Forces in the Pacific. The Vietnamese rushed McCain III to Gai Lam military hospital (U.S. government documents), a medical facility normally unavailable for U.S. POWs.

By Nov. 9, 1967 (U.S. government documents) Hanoi press was quoting McCain III describing his mission including the number of aircraft in his flight, information about rescue ships, and the order of which U.S. attacks would take place.

While still in North Vietnam’s military hospital, McCain III gave an interview to prominent French television reporter Francois Chalais for a series titled Life in Hanoi. Chalais’ interview with McCain III was aired in Europe.

Vietnamese doctors operated on McCain’s Leg in early December, 1967. Six weeks after he was shot down, McCain was taken from the hospital and delivered to a U.S. POW camp.

In May of 1968, McCain III allowed himself to be interviewed by two North Vietnamese generals at separate times.” May 14, 1973 article written by former POW John McCain In August 1968, other POWs learned for the first time that John McCain III had been taken prisoner.

On June 5, 1969, the New York Daily News reported in a article headlined REDS SAY PW SONGBIRD IS PILOT SON OF ADMIRAL,

“…Hanoi has aired a broadcast in which the pilot son of United States Commander in the Pacific, Adm. John McCain, purportedly admits to having bombed civilian targets in North Vietnam and praises medical treatment he has received since being taken prisoner…”

The Washington Post explained McCain III’s broadcast:

“The English-Language broadcast beamed at South Vietnam was one of a series using American prisoners. It was in response to a plea by Defense Secretary Melvin S. Laird, May 19, that North Vietnam treat prisoners according to the humanitarian standards set forth by the Geneva Convention.”

In 1970, McCain III agreed to an interview with Dr. Fernando Barral, a Spanish psychiatrist who was living in Cuba at the time.

The meeting between Barral and McCain III (which was photographed by the Vietnamese) took place away from the prison at the office of the Committee for Foreign Cultural Relations in Hanoi (declassified government document). During the meeting, POW McCain sipped coffee and ate oranges and cakes with the Cuban.

While talking with Barral, McCain III further seriously violated the military Code of Conduct by failing to evade answering questions ”to the utmost of his ability” when he, according government documents, helped Barral by answering questions in Spanish, a language McCain had learned in school. The interview was published in January 1970.

McCain III was released from North Vietnam March 15, 1973

In 1993, during one of his many trips back to Hanoi, McCain asked the Vietnamese not to make public any records they hold pertaining to returned U.S. POWs. McCain III claims, that while a POW, he tried to kill himself.

McCain III was awarded “medals for valor” equal to nearly a medal-and-a-half for each hour he spent in combat

For 23 combat missions (an estimated 20 hours over enemy territory), the U.S. Navy awarded McCain III, the son of famous admirals, a Silver Star, a Legion of Merit for Valor, a Distinguished Flying Cross, three Bronze Stars, two Commendation medals plus two Purple Hearts and a dozen service medals.

“McCain had roughly 20 hours in combat,” explains Bill Bell, a veteran of Vietnam and former chief of the U.S. Office for POW/MIA Affairs — the first official U.S. representative in Vietnam since the 1973 fall of Saigon.

“Since McCain got 28 medals,” Bell continued, “that equals to about a medal-and-a-half for each hour he spent in combat. There were infantry guys — grunts on the ground — who had more than 7,000 hours in combat and I can tell you that there were times and situations where I’m sure a prison cell would have looked pretty good to them by comparison. The question really is how many guys got that number of medals for not being shot down.”

No one is faulting John McCain for collaborating with his Vietnamese captors. He survived captivity, however arduous or not. It is enough to say he is a survivor. It would be too much though to call him a hero.

The Dirty Half-Dozen Dozen Dozen

Unleashing hell as they burn in itThe DoD records for 2007 reveal Army, Marines allow more convicts to enlist and Army doubled felony waivers and US military ups recruitment of criminals and Double number of ex-cons join the US army. The variation in the headlines invites the question: which is it- 861 cons or ex-cons? Is the army enlisting soldiers from the prison population, or from the post-rehabilitated? I’m not sure if either is more unsavory to train to shout “Kill! Kill! Kill!” These are men guilty of burglary mainly, and aggravated assault, but also manslaughter and rape. Representing for the US.

Remember Lee Marvin and the Dirty Dozen? In a fictional WWII adventure, a squad of hardened convicts was offered a reprieve from their prison sentences in exchange for volunteering to join a suicidal commando mission. Given the arrangement would have been kept a secret, we’re left to imagine that it could have actually happened. The film came out in 1967, when redemption through patriotism, manslaughter for flag and country as atonement for vile crimes, might have had some appeal.

Can you imagine being an Afghan or Iraqi, your life, your home, your family, your future, in the hands of a criminal/ex-criminal? If there’s a common denominator with law-breakers, it isn’t just immorality, it’s bad judgment, and dare I say it, none-too-brightness. The US military is committing a war crime to put the lives of occupied peoples in such hands. The Geneva Conventions stipulate that care of civilians must be responsible and adequate. At least Marvin and fiends were only tasked with shooting everything up.

An Army spokesman minimized the recruiting development thus:

“We are a reflection of American society and the changes that affect it: today’s young men and women are more overweight, have a greater incidence of asthma and are being charged for offenses that in earlier years wouldn’t have been considered a serious offense, and might not have resulted in charges in the first place.”

For those of you concerned only for our soldiers’ welfare, there’s a big problem there too. At least the Dirty Dozen were self-contained, messing only with each other’s psychopathic urges. The 6x12x12 degenerate recruits who entered US military service in 2007, up from 457 in 2006, are integrated into the ranks of all the branches. Your sons or daughter have to serve side by side with these dubious bedfellows.

US and Hague Rules of Warfare

Extract from the Hague Conventions of 1907
Chapter One: Means of injuring the enemy
 
Article 22.
The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy
is not unlimited.

Article 23.
In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden
  (a) To employ poison or poisoned weapons;
  (b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
  (c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
  (d) To declare that no quarter will be given;
  (e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
  (f) To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;
  (g) To destroy or seize the enemy’s property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
  (h) To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent’s service before the commencement of the war.

These are incorporated into the 1940 US Rules of Land Warfare, just after these passages:

US Rules of Land Warfare

Jamie Leigh Jones is still locked in a box

Jamie Leigh Jones KBR HalliburtonWhen they teach in math class about the square roots of numbers, you invariably encounter the paradox of negative numbers. Since neither two positive factors nor two negatives can produce a negative, you’re told the square root of a negative is “irreducible” and you must leave the equation be. It turns out that this explanation was really a matter of convenience, because later in the year students revisit the square root of -1 and learn it can be called an imaginary number. Now you were expected to solve the equation, and zoom, math took off from there. I remember feeling betrayed that math had become an abstraction, so comfortable was I to be stuck at the simpler impasse.

I use this analogy to contemplate some oversimplifications about law which are being used to temper moral indignation at the machinations of our government. We’re told, for example, that we’ve subverted the rule of law in Iraq, that enemy combatants are not covered by the Geneva Conventions, that Guantanamo Cuba falls neither under Cuban law nor our dominion. We’re told the International Criminal courts do not have jurisdiction over Americans and we’re told our contractor-mercenaries are exempt from anyone’s prosecution. Those legal impediments to justice are not only imaginary, to say it in legalese, they’re balderdash.

My math teacher had a educational reason to maintain that the square root of -1 was unsolvable. Whatever motive does anyone have to keep the American public in the dark about the suspension of human rights?

NBC has just trumpeted the tragic case of Jamie Leigh Jones, but presumes simultaneously to reinforce the aforementioned balderdash. Two years ago Jones was gang raped by KBR coworkers in Iraq and kept in a shipping container until she was able to convince one of her keepers to lend her a cell phone. Her father then called a congressman who called the State Department who sent agents over to KBR’s compound in the Green Zone to set her free. Since that time, the feds have dropped the case, the rape-kit evidence has gone missing, KBR claims it has been ordered to conduct no investigation, and Jones is left with no recourse but to file a civil suit. Now she is being told that an arbitration clause in her contract prevents her from doing even that.

The truths being asserted, as indignant as they might make us feel, are that contractors in Iraq are outside the reach of any law. Specifically Iraqi law, as dictated by Viceroy Bremer’s famous contractor indemnity clause, but by inference, US law, because Iraq is a “sovereign nation,” and International Law, because otherwise our whole country could be held accountable for what it’s perpetrated there.

I’ve even read it asserted that two years marks the expiration of Jone’s right to redress from her attackers. Wherever have you heard of so short a statute of limitation for rape?

Another assumption attempts to bolster the impregnability of arbitration clauses which have become de rigueur in corporate employment contracts. Such clauses may forbid civil litigation, rightfully, but do not preclude responsibility for criminal acts. The supposed ambiguity that Jones’ rape cannot be considered a crime is to build a crock upon a sham. No contract may dictate that a assignee consents to be the victim of a crime. Sorry boys.

Likewise, the concept of Iraq being a lawless state is our Defense Department’s wet dream. We may administrate Iraq like the Wild West, as it may for now be under our screws, but like everywhere else on the globe, Iraq is protected by international law. You might also find lawyers who will argue that any lands under the authority of our government are bound by the US constitution period.

The only thing standing between the KBR miscreants and fair judgment is our government’s determination [not] to apply the law. If the media wanted to report that all Blackwater KBR killer rapists are indemnified exclusively by Bush decree, that would be the truth.

Thank you Miss Jones for pressing on with your accusations and lawsuit. Please don’t let the disinformation discourage you.

Gitmo operating manual leaked

Wiki Leaks has obtained an updated copy of the Standard Operating Procedures for CAMP DELTA. They’ve posted both a DOC and PDF version available for download as it is UNCLASSIFIED. Due to the document’s size, the transparency group is inviting everyone to study and comment. Already revealed: certain detainees are hidden from the International Red Cross, the use of psychological torture, both violations of the Geneva Conventions. Below is the table of contents:
 
Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures
Headquarters, Joint Task Force – Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO)
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba – 1 March 2004

Contents (listed by paragraph and page number), page iv
Camp Delta Rules, page ix
Chapter 1
Introduction
, page 1.1
Purpose ? 1-1, page 1.1
Minor SOP Modifications ? 1-2, page 1.1
References ? 1-3, page 1.1
Explanation of Abbreviations and Terms ? 1-4, page 1.1
JDOG Mission and Commander’s Intent ? 1-5, page 1.1
Responsibilities ? 1-6, page 1.1
U.S. Personnel Standards of Conduct ? 1-7, page 1.2
General Protection Policy ? 1-8, page 1.3

Chapter 2
Command and Control
, page 2.1
Chain of Command ? 2-1, page 2.1
Physical Plant ? 2-2, page 2.1
Camp Delta Operations ? 2-3, page 2.1

Section I – Personnel, page 2.1
Detention Operations Branch ? 2-5, page 2.1
Detention Services Branch ? 2-6, page 2.2

Section II – Functions, page 2.2
Detention Operations Center (DOC) ? 2-7, page 2.2
Record Keeping ? 2-8, page 2.3

Chapter 3
Detainee Reception Operations
, page 3.1
Overview ? 3-1, page 3.1
Infantry Support Operations ? 3-2, page 3.1
Land Movement ? 3-4, page 3.2
In-processing Security ? 3-5, page 3.2
Inbound and Outbound Operations DMO ? 3-6, page 3.4
Linguist Support ? 3-7, page 3.4
Facility Support ? 3-8, page 3.4

Chapter 4
Detainee Processing (Reception/Transfer/Release DMO)
page 4.1
Purpose ? 4-1, page 4.1
Initial Processing ? 4-2, page 4.1
Documents ? 4-3, page 4.1
Preparation for Processing ? 4-4, page 4.1
Personnel Requirements ? 4-5, page 4.1
In-Processing Procedures ? 4-6, page 4.1
MP Escort Responsibilities ? 4-7, page 4.2
Clothing Removal Rome (Station 1) ? 4-8, page 4.2
Shower (Station 2) ? 4-9, page 4.2
Cavity Search (Station 3) ? 4-10, page 4.2
Dressing/Shackle Exchange (Station 4) ? 4-11, page 4.2
DNA Sample (Station 5) ? 4-12, page 4.2
Height And Weight (Station 6) ? 4-13, page 4.2
DRS In-Processing (Station 7) ? 4-14, page 4.3
ID Wristband/Dossier (Station 8 ) ? 4-15, page 4.3
Fingerprint (Station 9) ? 4-16, page 4.3
Camp Rules (Station 10) ? 4-17, page 4.3
Post processing ? 4-18, page 4.3
Reporting ? 4-19, page 4.3
Behavior Management Plan ? 4-20, page 4.3

Chapter 5
Detention Facility Operations
, page 5.1
Section I –
Rules of Engagement (ROE) and Rules for the Use of Force (RUF) ? 5-1, page 5.1
Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) Use ? 5-2, page 5.3
Camp Rules ? 5-3, page 5.2

Section II –
Daily Reports ? 5-4, page 5.1

Incident Reports ? 5-5, page 5.2
SPOT Reports ? 5-6, page 5.2
Serious Incident Reports ? 5-7, page 5.3
Discipline Records ? 5-8, page 5.3

Section III –
Guard Mount ? 5-9, page 5.3
Change of Shift Procedures ? 5-10, page 5.3
Equipment Chit System ? 5-11, page 5.4

Section IV –
DOC Operations ? 5-12, page 5.6 Public Address System ? 5-13, page 5.4
Radio Discipline ? 5-14, page 5.4
Building Maintenance ? 5-15, page 5.6 Video Camera/ Combat Camera ? 5-16, page 5.8

Section V –
Evidence and Contraband Procedures ? 5-17, page 5.4
Investigations ? 5-18, page 5.8
Section VI – Other Agencies

Section VII – Training

Chapter 6
Cell Block Operations
, page 6.1
Section I – Security Procedures
Overview ? 6-1, page 6.1
Headcounts ? 6-2, page 6.1
Searches ? 6-3, page 6.1
Searching the Koran ? 6-4, page 6.1
Keys ? 6-5, page 6.2
Food Tray Slot (“Bean Hole”) Covers ? 6-6, page 6.2
Applying Restraints (“Shackling”) ? 6-7, page 6.2

Section II – Support Operations
Shower and Exercise ? 6-8, page 6.3
Detainee Mess Operations ? 6-9, page 6.3
Laundry / Linen ? 6-10, page 6.4
Barber ? 6-11, page 6.4
Other Personnel ? 6-12, page 6.4
Library Books ? 6-13, page 6.5
Medical Appointments ? 6-14, page 6.5

Section III – Documentation and Reporting
Block Documentation ? 6-15, page 6.5
Passive Collection ? 6-16, page 6.7
Cell Block Report ? 6-17, page 6.7

Section IV – Block Maintenance
Inspections and Inventories ? 6-18, page 6.7
Cleaning ? 6-19, page 6.7
Equipment Maintenance ? 6-20, page 6.7

Section V – Detainees
Detainee Standard of Conduct ? 6-21, page 6.7
Detainee Identification Band ? 6-22, page 6.8
Uniform and Dress Rules ? 6-23, page 6.8
Personal Hygiene and Appearance ? 6-24, page 6.8
Detainee comfort during inclement weather 6-26, page 6-10

Chapter 7
Sally Port Operations
, page 7.1
Sally Ports ? 7-1, page 7.1
Sally Ports 1 And 8 ? 7-2, page 7.1
Sally Ports 3 And 9 ? 7-3, page 7.4
Sally Ports 4 And 10 ? 7-4, page 7.5
Detainee Medical Clinic Gate ? 7-5, page 7.5
Roving Sally ? 7-6, page 7.6
Weapon Boxes ? 7-7, page 7.6
Badge ID Process? 7-8, page 7-6?

Chapter 8
Detainee Behavioral Management
, page 8.1
Purpose ? 8-1, page 8.1
Provision of Basic Needs ? 8-2, page 8.1
Discipline Process ? 8-3, page 8.1
Loss of Exercise ? 8-4, page 8.2
Loss of Hot Meals ? 8-5, page 8.2
Comfort Items ? 8-6, page 8.2
Detainee Classification System ? 8-7, page 8.2
GTMO Form 508-1 ? 8-8, page 8.4
Level 5 (Intel) Blocks ? 8-9, page 8.4
Confiscation of Items ? 8-10, page 8.5
Special Rewards ? 8-11, page 8.7

Chapter 9
Segregation Unit Operations
, page 9.1
Section I – In-Processing
In-processing and Documentation ? 9-1, page 9.1
Placement for Intelligence Purposes ? 9-2, page 9.1
Section II – Operations
Block Operations ? 9-3, page 9.1
Extension Request processing ? 9-4, page 9.2

Chapter 10
NAVSTA Brig Operations
, page 10.1
Purpose ? 10-1, page 10.1
Transport to NAVSTA Brig ? 10-2, page 10.1
Personnel Support Requirements ? 10-3, page 10.1
Medical Support Requirements ? 10-4, page 10.1
Meals ? 10-5, page 10.1
Exercise ? 10-6, page 10.1
Showers and Laundry ? 10-7, page 10.1
Special Orders for Guard Staff ? 10-8, page 10.2
Visitation ? 10-9, page 10.2
Use of the Television ? 10-10, page 10.3

Chapter 11
Escort Operations
, page 11.1
General ? 11-1, page 11.1
Escort Control ? 11-2, page 11.1
Priority of Escorts ? 11-3, page 11.1
Escort Teams ? 11-4, page 11.1
Vehicle Usage ? 11-5, page 11.3
Equipment Maintenance ? 11-6, page 11.4
Communications ? 11-7, page 11.4
Distinguished Visitors ? 11-8, page 11.4
NAVBASE Hospital Escorts ? 11-9, page 11.4

Chapter 12
Detainee Property
, page 12.1
Authorized Personnel ? 12-1, page 12.1
Property handling ? 12-2, page 12.1

Chapter 13
Detainee Mail Operations
, page 13.1
Types of Mail ? 13-1, page 13.1
Incoming Mail ? 13-2, page 13.1
Outgoing Mail ? 13-3, page 13.1
ICRC Mail ? 13-4, page 13.2
Cleared Mail ? 13-5, page 13.3
Redacted Mail ? 13-6, page 13.3
Held Mail ? 13-7, page 13.3
Mail screening ? 13-8, page 13.3
Mail Transmittal Records ? 13-9, page 13.4
Mail for Detainees Held at Locations Other Than GTMO ? 13-10, page 13.4
Mail Sent Directly to Detainees ? 13-11, page 13.4
Incorrectly Addressed Mail ? 13-12, page 13.5
Mail for Released Detainees ? 13-13, page 13.5
Detainees in Special Housing ? 13-14, page 13.5
Detainees with More Than 12 Items of Mail ? 13-15, page 13.5
Detainees Passing Mail between Cells ? 13-16, page 13.5

Chapter 14
Intelligence Operations
, page 14.1
General ? 14-1, page 14.1
Force Protection ? 14-2, page 14.1
Significant Activity Report ? 14-3, page 14.1
Disturbance Matrix ? 14-4, page 14.1
Communication Matrix and Link Diagram ? 14-5, page 14.1
Leadership Matrices ? 14-6, page 14.1
Items of Intelligence Value ? 14-7, page 14.1
Detainee Mail screening ? 14-8, page 14.1
Operational Intelligence ? 14-9, page 14.2
Source Operations and Reports ? 14-10, page 14.2
Duties ? 14-11, page 14.2
JIIF Guard Personnel ? 14-12, page 14.2
SCIF Security ? 14-13, page 14.3

Chapter 15
Linguist Operations
, page 15.1
General ? 15-1, page 15.1
Organization ? 15-2, page 15.1
Roles and Responsibilities ? 15-3, page 15.1
Camp Delta Operations ? 15-4, page 15.1
Detainee In-Processing Operations ? 15-5, page 15.2
Document Exploitation (DOCEX) ? 15-6, page 15.2
DOCEX Translation Guidelines ? 15-7, page 15.3
DOCEX Quality Control ? 15-8, page 15.3
Detainee Library ? 15-9, page 15.3
Passive Collection of CI Information ? 15-10, page 15.5
Intelligence Reference Guide for Linguists ? 15-11, page 15.5
Security Considerations ? 15-12, page 15.5

Chapter 16
Religious Support
, page 16.1
Section I – Accommodation of Religion
Chaplain ? 16-1, page 16.1
Religious Practices ? 16-2, page 16.1
Chaplain Requests ? 16-3, page 16.1
Fasting Requests ? 16-4, page 16.1

Section II – Muslim Detainee Religious Practices
The Muslim Prayer ? 16-5, page 16.2
Friday Prayer Service ? 16-6, page 16.2
Muslim Fasting ? 16-7, page 16.2
Muslim Holiday – Eid ? 16-8, page 16.2
Dietary Practices ? 16-9, page 16.3
Medical Practices ? 16-10, page 16.3
Wear and Appearance of Clothing ? 16-11, page 16.3
Showers and Hygiene ? 16-12, page 16.3
Religious Accommodation ? 16-13, page 16.3

Section III – Islam
Cultural Considerations ? 16-14, page 16.3

Section IV – Christian Detainee Religious Practices
The Christian Prayer ? 16-15, page 16.4
Christian Holidays ? 16-16, page 16.4
Religious Items ? 16-17, page 16.5

Section V – Muslim Funerals
Muslim Funeral and Burial Rites ? 16-18, page 16.5
Washing the Body ? 16-19, page 16.5
Shrouding the Body ? 16-20, page 16.5
Procedures for the Burial ? 16-21, page 16.6

Chapter 17
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
, page 17.1
Personnel ? 17-1, page 17.1
Operations ? 17-2, page 17.1
ICRC Visitation Rules ? 17-3, page 17.1
Levels of Visitation ? 17-4, page 17.1

Chapter 18
Food Service
, page 18.1
Responsibilities ? 18-1, page 18.1
Operations ? 18-2, page 18.1
Duties ? 18-3, page 18.1

Chapter 19
Medical
, page 19.1
Section I – Procedures
Restraint Procedures ? 19-1, page 19.1
Dispensing of Medications ? 19-2, page 19.1
Sick Call ? 19-4, page 19.2

Section II – Emergencies
Emergency Sick Call ? 19-5, page 19.2
Emergency Condition Responses ? 19-6, page 19.2
Combat Lifesavers ? 19-7, page 19.3

Section III – Medical Problems
Voluntary Total Fasting and Re-feeding ? 19-8, page 19.4
Bodily Fluids ? 19-9, page 19.4
Heat Category Measure ? 19-10, page 19.5

Section IV – Facilities
Detention Hospital ? 19-11, page 19.6

Chapter 20
Repair and Utility
, page 20.1
Work Orders ? 20-1, page 20.1
Tool Accountability ? 20-2, page 20.2

Chapter 21
Force Protection
, page 21.1
Section I – Precautions
Searches ? 21-1, page 21.1
Security Inspections and Vulnerability Assessments ? 21-2, page 21.1
Fire Prevention Precautions ? 21-3, page 21.1

Section II – Measures
Change in FPCON ? 21-4, page 21.1
Alert Roster/Recall Roster ? 21-5, page 21.7
Brevity Codes for Implementation of FPCON Levels ? 21-6, page 21.7

Section III – Alert Systems
Duress Condition ? 21-7, page 21.7
NAVBASE Siren System ? 21-8, page 21.8

Section IV – Weapons
Weapon Conditions ? 21-9, page 21.8
Weapons and Ammunition Storage Facility ? 21-10, page 21.8

Chapter 22
Key Control
, page 22.1
Overview ? 22-1, page 22.1
Key Custodian ? 22-2, page 22.1
Key Control Register ? 22-3, page 22.1
Key Access Roster ? 22-4, page 22.1
Key and Lock Accountability ? 22-5, page 22.1
Key Issue Procedures ? 22-6, page 22.1
Emergency Procedures ? 22-7, page 22.2

Chapter 23
External Security Operations
, page 23.1
Conduct of Infantry Soldiers ? 23-1, page 23.1
Task Organization ? 23-2, page 23.1
Infantry FPCON Actions ? 23-3, page 23.1
Tower Operations ? 23-4, page 23.1
Debrief Format ? 23-5, page 23.2
External Positions ? 23-6, page 23.2
Special Instructions ? 23-7, page 23.3
Mounted Patrols ? 23-8, page 23.4
Listening Posts (LP)/Observation Posts (OP) ? 23-9, page 23.5
Ammunition handling ? 23-10, page 23.5
Worcester TCP ? 23-11, page 23.5
Gardner TCP ? 23-12, page 23.7
Blocker Position (BP) ? 23-13, page 23.8

Chapter 24
Initial Reaction Force (IRF) Operations
, page 24.1
Section I – Preparation
Team Organization ? 24-1, page 24.1
IRF Team Equipment ? 24-2, page 24.1
Additional Equipment ? 24-3, page 24.1
Training ? 24-4, page 24.1
Brevity Code ? 24-5, page 24.2

Section II – Operations
IRF Team Guidelines ? 24-6, page 24.2
IRF Team Use ? 24-7, page 24.2

Section III – Documentation
Verbal Reporting ? 24-8, page 24.3
Written Reporting ? 24-9, page 24.3

Chapter 25
Quick Response Force (QRF) Operations
, page 25.1
Mission ? 25-1, page 25.1
Requirements ? 25-2, page 25.1
Notification Procedures ? 25-3, page 25.1
Ammunition Numbers and Accountability ? 25-4, page 25.1
Uniform ? 25-5, page 25.1

Chapter 26
Military Working Dogs (MWD)
, page 26.1
Responsibilities ? 26-1, page 26.1
Operations ? 26-2, page 26.1
Training ? 26-3, page 26.2
Logistics ? 26-4, page 26.2

Chapter 27
Operational Security (OPSEC) and Deceptive Lighting Plan
, page 27.1
Purpose ? 27-1, page 27.1
Responsibilities ? 27-2, page 27.1
Punitive Action ? 27-3, page 27.1
Essential Elements of Friendly Information (EEFI) ? 27-4, page 27.1
Prohibited Activity ? 27-5, page 27.1
Deceptive Light Plan ? 27-6, page 27.2

Chapter 28
Public Affairs
, page 28.1
Operations ? 28-1, page 28.1
Themes for Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) ? 28-2, page 28.1
Detainee International Public Information Themes ? 28-3, page 28.1

Chapter 29
Transitions
, page 29.1
Section I – To Camp IV
Preparation ? 29-1, page 29.1
Process ? 29-2, page 29.1
Movement to Camp IV ? 29-3, page 29.1

Section II – For Transfers
Preparation ? 29-4, page 29.1
Process ? 29-5, page 29.1
Movement to Camp IV ? 29-6, page 29.2
Standing Orders ? 29-7, page 29.2

Chapter 30
Delta Block Mental Health Facility (MHF)
, page 30.1
Section I – Operations
Overview ? 30-1, page 30.1
Staffing ? 30-2, page 30.1
Watch ? 30-3, page 30.1
Non-Acute Section ? 30-4, page 30.1
Video Monitoring Station ? 30-5, page 30.1
Interview Cells ? 30-6, page 30.1
Delta Acute Section and Self-Harm Precautions ? 30-7, page 30.1

Section II – Operations
Self-Harm Precautions Guidelines ? 30-8, page 30.1
Shower and Exercise ? 30-9, page 30.1
Dispensing of Prescribed Medication and Medical Sick call Procedures ? 30-10, page 30.1
Detainee Behavioral Management Matrix ? 30-11, page 30.1
Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) Use ? 30-12, page 30.1
Medical Records ? 30-13, page 30.1
Crisis/Mass Casualty Response ? 30-14, page 30.1

Section III – Restraint and Seclusion
Purpose ? 30-15, page 30.1
Background ? 30-16, page 30.1
Definitions ? 30-17, page 30.1
Indications ? 30-18, page 30.1
Practice Authority ? 30-19, page 30.1
Critical Elements ? 30-20, page 30.1
Doctor’s Order ? 30-21, page 30.1
Training ? 30-22, page 30.1
Performance Improvement ? 30-23, page 30.1

Section IV – Personnel
Combat Stress Reactions ? 30-24, page 30.1
Interpreters ? 30-25, page 30.1

Chapter 31
Supply Operations
, page 31.1
Waste Disposal ? 31-1, page 31.1
Camp Supply Rooms ? 31-2, page 31.1
Supply Requests ? 31-3, page 31.1
Computer Requests ? 31-4, page 31.1
MRE Sanitization ? 31-5, page 31.1

Chapter 32
Emergency Action Plans (EAPs)
, page 32.1
Attempted/Actual Self Harm ? 32-1, page 32.1-2
Mass Disturbance ? 32-2, page 32.2
Power Outage ? 32-3, page 32.4
Hostage Situation? 32-4, page 32.5
Death ? 32-5, page 32.5
Medical Emergency ? 32-6, page 32.5
Radio Range Ambulance access (emergency) 32.6a page 32.6
Fratricide ? 32-7, page 32.7
Fire ? 32-8, page 32.8
Bomb Threat / Discovery / Explosion ? 32-9, page 32.9
Mass Casualty Incident (MCI) ? 32-10, page 32.10
Evacuation Routes ? 32-11, page 32.14
Destructive Weather ? 32-12, page 32.15
Escape and Apprehension (“Orange Sherbet”) ? 32-16, page 32.17
Camp Coordinated Contraband Search & Seizure (“Clean Sweep”) ?32-16, page 32.17
Intrusion Detection System (IDS) Alarm T-SCIF ? 32-16, page 32-17

Chapter 33 Camp 4 Standard Operating Procedures
Commander’s Intent ? 33-1, page 33.1
Manning Requirements ? 33-2, page 33.1
Leave Policy ? 33-3, page 33.1
Chain of Command (Command and Control) ? 33-4, page 33.1
Service and Support ? 33-5, page 33.1
Personnel Responsibilities ? 33-6, page 33.2
General Rules ? 33-7, page 33.5
Bay Rules ? 33-8, page 33.6
Compound Recreation / Central Recreation Yard Rules ? 33-9, page 33.7
Central Shower/Bath Rules ? 33-10, page 33.8
Mess Yard Rules ? 33-11, page 33.8
Bay Leader Duties and Responsibilities ? 33-12, page 33.9
Laundry/Linen Exchange ? 33-13, page 33.9
Personnel and Detainee cleaning ? 33-14, page 33.10
Radio Call Signs ? 33-15, page 33.10
Fire Evacuation Plan ? 33-16, page 33.11
“OPERATION SNOWBALL” ? 33-17, page 33.11
Gator Maintenance ? 33-18, page 33.12
Logbooks ? 33-19, page 33.13
Radio/Telephone Transmissions ? 33-20, page 33.13
NIPR Account ? 33-21, page 33.13
Break Area ? 33-22, page 33.13
Sally Port Storage Lockers ? 33-23, page 33.13
P.A. Intercom and Announcement System ? 33-24, page 33.13
Detainee Movement from/to Camp 4 ? 33-25, page 33.13
Medical Personnel/Medication Distribution ? 33-26, page 33.14
Assigned Personnel Duty Uniform ? 33-27, page 33/14
Detainee Movement Operations (DMO) ? 33-28, page 33.14
Duress and IRF Codes ? 33-30, page 33.15

Chapter 34
Commissions
, page 34.1
Quick Reaction Force (QRF) Teams ? 34.1, page 34.1
Disturbance in the courtroom ?34.2, page 34.1
Medical Emergency ? 34.3, page 34.2
Fire ?34.4, page 34.2
Bomb Threat ?34.5, page 34.3
React to an Ambush along the convoy route ? 34.6, page 34.3

Information Not Covered By the Camp 4 SOP ? 34-7, page 34.4
Forms Found in Appendix C of the Camp Delta SOP (To Be Added At A Later Date) ? 34-8, pages 34.4

APPENDIXES
A. References
B. Camp Delta Forms

Glossary
Index

Cowards

ACLU PR problemI approached my fellow board members at the ACLU to add their organization’s name to the list of cosponsors of the upcoming PPJPC social event: Give Peace a Dance. They turned it down.
 
Do I bite my thumb at them?

The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado Springs stands only for the civil liberties of Americans. Yes, this would exclude non-citizens, guest workers or refugees, not to mention world citizens. Where does this leave populations under American occupation, whose welfare is our responsibility according to the Geneva Conventions?

(Actually, the Bill of Rights applies to anyone on American soil, citizens and non-citizens. And laws of war dictate that such protections are also owed to people under occupation. I don’t care if you are not concerned about your fellow human beings, you’re bound by law to care for the victims of our war. Do you have any particular affinity for the principles of the ACLU in the first place?)

My colleagues’ rationale? The ACLU should not dilute their focus, nor offend their conservative base, by speaking up against war, in this casethe deprivation of rights of millions which illegal US actions have wrought.

If the Justice and Peace were to have any allies, to my mind the ACLU would be a likely candidate. Unfortunately the peace movement in Colorado Springs is not gathering momentum through the coordinate efforts of organizations. This city is still vastly overpopulated with people who may know the right thing to do, but who aren’t up to the task of doing it.

They are cowards. There will always be an excuse, won’t there? It’s hard to argue with a man who wants to run from the lion, but this isn’t about our own self-preservation is it? The only way to stop this lion is to keep marching. That is our only hope that it might someday stop attacking others. I don’t think it takes any courage to do the right thing. To do the wrong thing, for lack even of knowing what to do, is cowardice.

My efforts to persuade the ACLU were heavy handed and condescending, I wish I could have spoken otherwise. I called their excuses morally bankrupt. So why stop now? These do-gooders may be wrapped in the fog of Bush’s war, but they’re not stupid. They’re cowards.

Israel obstinate

PLOMore nations gave formal recognition to the PLO, a terrorist group, than to Israel. Thus more people thought the Palestinian Liberation Organization had a “right to exist” than did Israel, a chunk of Arab land appropriated to make a Jewish State. To date Israel has rejected 70 UN resolutions against its actions. I think it bears repeating them, lest typifying Israel’s behavior as illegal, be dismissed as a rant.

# 1. General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947): the 1947 Partition plan of Palestine and the creation of Israel.
# 2. General Assembly Resolution 194 (1947): Palestinian Refugees have the right to return to their homes in Israel.
# 3. Resolution 106 (1955): condemns Israel for Gaza raid.
# 4. Resolution 111 (1956): condemns Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people.
# 5. Resolution 127 (1958): recommends Israel suspend its no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem.
# 6. Resolution 162 (1961): urges Israel to comply with UN decisions.
# 7. Resolution 171 (1962): determines flagrant violations by Israel in its attack on Syria.
# 8. Resolution 228 (1966): censures Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control.
# 9. Resolution 237 (1967): urges Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees.
# 10. Resolution 242 (1967): Israel’s occupation of Palestine is Illegal.
# 11. Resolution 248 (1968): condemns Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan.
# 12. Resolution 250 (1968): calls on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem.
# 13. Resolution 251 (1968): deeply deplores Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250.
# 14. Resolution 252 (1968): declares invalid Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital.
# 15. Resolution 256 (1968): condemns Israeli raids on Jordan as flagrant violation.
# 16. Resolution 259 (1968): deplores Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation.
# 17. Resolution 262 (1968): condemns Israel for attack on Beirut airport.
# 18. Resolution 265 (1969): condemns Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan.
# 19. Resolution 267 (1969): censures Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem.
# 20. Resolution 270 (1969): condemns Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon.
# 21. Resolution 271 (1969): condemns Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem.
# 22. Resolution 279 (1970): demands withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.
# 23. Resolution 280 (1970): condemns Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon.
# 24. Resolution 285 (1970): demands immediate Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.
# 25. Resolution 298 (1971): deplores Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem.
# 26. Resolution 313 (1972): demands that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon.
# 27. Resolution 316 (1972): condemns Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon.
# 28. Resolution 317 (1972): deplores Israel’s refusal to release.
# 29. Resolution 332 (1973): condemns Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon.
# 30. Resolution 337 (1973): condemns Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty.
# 31. Resolution 347 (1974): condemns Israeli attacks on Lebanon.
# 32. General Assembly Resolution 3236 (1974): affirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine to self-determination without external interference and to national independence and sovereignty.
# 33. Resolution 425 (1978): calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
# 34. Resolution 427 (1978): calls on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
# 35. Resolution 444 (1979): deplores Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces.
# 36. Resolution 446 (1979): determines that Israeli settlements are a serious obstruction to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
# 37. Resolution 450 (1979): calls on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon.
# 38. Resolution 452 (1979): calls on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories.
# 39. Resolution 465 (1980): deplores Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist its settlements program.
# 40. Resolution 467 (1980): strongly deplores Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon.
# 41. Resolution 468 (1980): calls on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return.
# 42. Resolution 469 (1980): strongly deplores Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians.
# 43. Resolution 471 (1980): expresses deep concern at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
# 44. Resolution 476 (1980): reiterates that Israel’s claim to Jerusalem are null and void.
# 45. Resolution 478 (1980): censures (Israel) in the strongest terms for its claim to Jerusalem in its Basic Law.
# 46. Resolution 484 (1980): declares it imperative that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors.
# 47. Resolution 487 (1981): strongly condemns Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility.
# 48. Resolution 497 (1981): decides that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is null and void and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith.
# 49. Resolution 498 (1981): calls on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.
# 50. Resolution 501 (1982): calls on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops.
# 51. Resolution 509 (1982): demands that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon.
# 52. Resolution 515 (1982): demands that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in.
# 53. Resolution 517 (1982): censures Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
# 54. Resolution 518 (1982): demands that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon.
# 55. Resolution 520 (1982): condemns Israel’s attack into West Beirut.
# 56. Resolution 573 (1985): condemns Israel vigorously for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.
# 57. Resolution 587 (1986): takes note of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw.
# 58. Resolution 592 (1986): strongly deplores the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops.
# 59. Resolution 605 (1987): strongly deplores Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
# 60. Resolution 607 (1988): calls on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
# 61. Resolution 608 (1988): deeply regrets that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians.
# 62. Resolution 636 (1989): deeply regrets Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
# 63. Resolution 641 (1989): deplores Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians.
# 64. Resolution 672 (1990): condemns Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
# 65. Resolution 673 (1990): deplores Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
# 66. Resolution 681 (1990): deplores Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
# 67. Resolution 694 (1991): deplores Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
# 68. Resolution 726 (1992): strongly condemns Israel’s deportation of Palestinians.
# 69. Resolution 799 (1992): strongly condemns Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
# 70. Resolution 1397 (2002): affirms a vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders.
# 71. General Assembly Resolution ES-10/15 (2004): declares the wall built inside the occupied territories as contrary to international law and asks Israel to demolish it.

Torturers not Liable, says judge

The judge called it lamentable, but said he had no authority to oversee military actions oversees, not quite in those words.

He said allowing foreign nationals to sue American military personnel, (although Rumsfeld was appointed to a quasi-military rank, Sec. of Defense) would undermine their ability to make decisions and take actions considered necessary, and pointed out that under such a precedent, Osama Bin Hidin’ could sue because two US presidents had threatened to have him killed.

Imperialism strikes again.

Remember when Jessica Lynch was captured? How dare those Iraqis capture an American who is LIBERATING them!! Bush and Rumsfeld both ORDERED the Iraqis to abide by the Geneva Convention, while constantly stating that US personnel didn’t have to abide by any such laws.

And that US military were above prosecution for war crimes.

Apparently the criminals are above being punished in United States courts as well.

Scorched journalist policy

Shall we speculate as to who is killing journalists in Iraq and Afghanistan? (141 to date in Iraq.) Well, the who is documented, much of it labeled “friendly fire.” Shall we speculate about the why? Forgive me if it feels like I am connecting the dots with a crayon.
 
A recent documentary interviewed some Iraqi journalists about their inconsistent use of flack jackets. The journalists said they choose not to wear protection around fellow Iraqis because they don’t want to be mistaken for working for the occupiers. But walking beside American soldiers the journalists do wear flack jackets because they are fearful of being shot …by the Americans.

Witness to a crime
We’ve all seen it in the movies: the protagonist is accidental witness to a crime and becomes targeted by the perpetrator lest he live to testify. Or the victim begging for life, vowing in exchange not to go to the police. Both victim and criminal know it’s an offer the villain cannot risk.

Massacres usually intend to leave no survivors because the dead tell no tales. Countless war movies have depicted the war correspondent happening upon a war crime in progress, recognizing immediately that a “stray bullet” will be eminent.

Kill Boxes
We’ve learned over the course of two Gulf Wars that our military employs such tactics as “Kill Boxes” and “Free Fire Zones.” Both describe a similar US M.O.. The first is Air Force lingo for an area bounded by given coordinates inside of which everything is considered a target. The airmen are tasked with killing everybody in that box. They have the discretion not to shoot something, but they will be held responsible for whatever they leave, authorized as they were to annihilate all.

Photo shown across the world except in the USA renowned Kill Box in 1990 was the Highway of Death, where thousands of Iraqi soldiers fleeing from Kuwait were incinerated in their vehicles. (American viewers were spared the graphic images.)

The Hague Conventions forbid firing upon soldiers who are no longer attacking you. Even cowboys know you don’t shoot somebody in the back. Both the Hague and Geneva Conventions outlaw the indiscriminate killing of civilians and other non-combatants.

Free Fire Zones
Kill Boxes violate all international conventions. They are as illegal as the US Army’s Free Fire Zone in which soldiers are ordered to fire freely at “anything that moves.” Civilians are expected to know beforehand to get out of the way. They figure it out when our snipers begin popping their family members’ heads off in their gardens. IED detonations now trigger automatic Free Fire Zones around the radius of the blast. An American reputation for ruthless overkill now precedes us. As a result, when IEDs explode, Iraqis have learned to run for their lives. Our soldiers lie to themselves that the escaping figures must be responsible for the IED, and are thus combatants. American Humvees carry extra shovels to plant on the bodies of the slain civilians to paint them as bomb laying insurgents.

The US has deliberately shot civilians since the Korean War, though this has only recently been revealed. In No Gun Ri, entire masses of refuges were machine-gunned to prevent fighters from passing amongst them. This policy continued in Vietnam, the My Lai massacre being unique only for having been uncovered. In war, Collateral Damage has always been a tragic unintended consequence, but by no stretch of a JAG’s imagination can it be a sanctioned consequence.

Secret and Confidential
Let’s speculate here… If military manuals exist with instructions for Kill Boxes and Free Fire Zones which explicitly require the killing of civilians and non-combatants, how do you suppose the instructions read for dealing with uninvited members of the press? The US military seems quite preoccupied with how its actions appear in news broadcasts. How might US soldiers be instructed to deal with journalists who stumble upon the bodies and capture the unbecoming bloodshed with their cameras? We’ll find out someday when a witness survives.

Justice in America, RIP

Saddam Hussein being hanged by lynch mob. 
 
Rest in Pieces.
 
Habeus Corpus Act, 1679-2006.
US Bill of Rights, 1791-2006.
Peace of Westphalia, 1648-2006.
Geneva Conventions, 1864-2006.
Hague Conventions, 1899-2006.
Nuremberg London Agreement, 1945-2006.
UN Convention against torture, 1984-2006.

A City Council anti-torture resolution

Who are the torturersWhen our president signed the Military Commissions Act, it granted US agencies the power to torture their captives. Dear council members, the PPJPC comes before you to ask that the City of Colorado Springs adopt a resolution to condemn the use of torture anywhere in the world. You may say that it not the place of a municipality to second guess national legislation. We would assert to you that it is.
 
I know that for the most part the members of the council support the Bush administration, and you begin every meeting with an invocation to a higher authority. Somewhere between those authorities exist moral principles which have been agreed by international consensus, appropriately called conventions. They bind the laws of nations and they bind you too.

The Geneva Conventions govern the treatment of individuals in war. They were written to protect all people, there are no peoples excluded. Waring regimes have often tried to hold that certain combatants should not protected by international conventions but the Geneva Conventions were adopted to preempt just such ploys.

There is a later Convention on Torture which our nation has also ratified. And there are further conventions that make clear the enforcement of international law. That no person, regardless of their nationality, is exempt from the international conventions. Further, that no laws, passed by nations attempting to circumvent the rule of law, will exempt individuals or nations from having to adhere to internationally agreed principles.

You may tie your political fortunes to the Bush administration, and perhaps in your lifetime that ship may still float. But on the troubling matter of torture, the unfair and immoral abuse of defenseless individuals, I believe you know you face a higher and certain judgment.

Legal clarity

President Bush feels the Military Commissions Act of 2006 will provide “clarity” for American interrogation specialists to know they can torture their suspects with impunity. Because America doesn’t torture, in the dictionary sense of the word.

But there’s a clarity that will hit all the Bushmen when they sober up. They will face the Geneva Conventions and the International Convention on Torture. And there are two further legal principles already in force since the last world war. No one is exempt from international law, and no domestic law may abridge or revoke international conventions.

Pass whatever tortured laws you think can protect you, you can run but you can’t hide.

On the issue of providing indemnity to American interrogators, there is one further principle exercised at Nuremburg. Each of us is responsible for refusing immoral commands. There is no such excuse as just following orders.

The US Supreme Court, rigged as it has been to Bush’s favor, may not strike down his permit to torture, but international jurists will. Bush’s vengefull threat aimed at the already-dead 9/11 highjackers will prove true in a manner opposite his intent:

“Those who kill the innocent will be held to account.”

A proposed local anti-torture resolution

We, concerned American citizens and residents of the city of Colorado Springs, call upon our city council to issue a proclamation to both the state of Colorado and the federal government, that as citizens of this city, state, and country, we categorically reject the application of any deliberate mental or physical abuse upon any and all prisoners held by our local, state, and national governments. And further that we call upon our national leaders to have all prisoners held by the US military, be treated according to the regulations of the Geneva Conventions regarding the humane treatment of prisoners of war.

We urge the passing of the following resolution by the City Council of Colorado Springs:
……………………………………………………………………………..

We, the citizens of Colorado Springs, categorically reject the current policy of our national government of transferring US held prisoners to other countries, or to US allied armed groups, to have them tortured during interrogation or as punishment. We also reject any policy of deliberate governmental assassination of foreign opponents, whether it be carried out by our own military, or outsourced to US allies.

We, the citizens of Colorado Springs, categorically reject the indefinite holding of any prisoners without trial and without charges filed against them, whether foreign or domestic. We reject the systematic denial of timely access to lawyers of the choosing of the prisoners needing legal representation. We reject harassment of the legal councils of all prisoners. All prisoners should immediately have access to the press, so that any mistreatment can be made public. Not to do so, is not in keeping with the processes of a democratic society, whether these prisoners be domestic or foreign.

We, the citizens of Colorado Springs, call upon the US government to immediately prosecute any officials who have abused prisoners, or denied them their due rights. This includes not just the immediate abusers of prisoners, but those in supervisory positions over those lower level employees, who directed the actions of their subordinates. We call upon our federal government to immediately initiate a grand federal investigator commission into these multiple abuses that have already been documented as having occurred, and to have them stopped at once.

Further, we the citizens of Colorado Springs, call upon our state and local authorities to renounce the use of abuse and torture of American prisoners held in local and state facilities. We are well aware that the deliberate use of sexual abuse, solitary confinement, and physical assault is rampant throughout the US in multiple correctional facilities, and that the multiple torture methods and abuse techniques and denial of rights used against our own citizens is now being incorporated into the systematic abuse of foreign POWs held by our military. Calling foreign POWs by any other name does not change their real status as POWs. If the US military has taken prisoner any foreign citizen during military engagements, then these troops we consider to be POWs, and their treatment is subject to the Geneva Conventions.

We, the citizens of Colorado Springs and our city council, especially condemn local military contracting agencies, with their many offices located inside our city limits, that have directed torture against POWs in other countries. Already US troops operating in conjunction with these private contractors have been found guilty of directing torture and abuse of prisoners in their custody. These private operatives have been documented as having shot at foreign nationals and having severely injured and murdered foreign civilians as a result. We do not consider these companies to be good citizens of our community, and urge that appropriate criminal charges be brought against companies that have violated prisoner rights per the Geneva Accords regarding humane treatment of POWs. We call upon the city, the state of Colorado, and the US federal government to cease contracting at once with these companies, and to end their immunity from having charges brought against them for their acts of criminality overseas.

Further, we the citizens of Colorado Springs, reject as dishonest and criminal any government denial at either the state, local, or national levels that these abuses are in fact occurring. The documentation is extensive and overwhelming that the US is mistreating POWs, and also prisoners within its own national criminal corrections facilities. The US government has a known and long history of using torture against POWs. Tens of thousands of US held Vietnamese POWs were tortured to death in the so-called ‘tiger cages’ and during the US “Phoenix Operations.” Similarly, the atrocities on prisoners captured by the US financed ‘Contras’ has been well documented. The US use of torture on POWs is not new. What is new is the open advocacy by federal leaders of what had been covert policy. We condemn, as citizens of Colorado Springs, this open advocacy of war crimes committed by US soldiers. We support our troops by demanding that they not be subject to orders to commit war crimes.

We the citizens of Colorado Springs and our city council, proclaim it time for the abuse to stop, and for humane treatment of all prisoners to begin. To allow our government to abuse foreign prisoners of war is to be complicit in the crime, just as continuing to allow abuse to be inflicted on our own incarcerated citizens. We reject both, and call upon our government, at all levels, to most urgently begin to humanely treat those behind bars.

The passage of this proclamation by our city council to be sent to both the Governor of the state of Colorado and to the President of the United State.

Who are the unlawful combatants?

Who are the combatants fighting an illegal war? It’s US. The entire of the world, not including the Murdoch NewsCorp empire of Britain, Australia and the US, have declared the Iraq War to have been an illegal act of agression. Even the Secretary General of the U.N. stated as much. We’re quibbling about whether fighters captured in this war and in Afghanistan have to be considered legal combatants and subject to protection under the Geneva Conventions. We are asserting they do not.

It looks like we are the illegal combatants. Our soldiers and their mercenary counterparts may not be entitled to prisoner of war status either, if you adher to our logic.