World Trade Center vs. Silent Partner

Christopher Plummer as Bin LadenWORLD TRADE CENTER, Oliver Stone’s sentimental take on 9/11 heroism comes out this summer. I have nothing against a story which describes the travails of two New York City cops and their families caught up in the World Trade Center collapse. But Stone’s timing with the release of this movie is unfortunate. With the upcoming elections, the only rallying cry the Republicans have anymore is 9/11. What a time for Stone to wax patriotic. And I think the absence of his usual political curiosity offers a silent aquiescence to the official line. Too bad.
 
For anyone who feels they absolutely need a jolt of 9/11 heroism, might I suggest the documentary 9/11 aired on CBS and made by the Naudet brothers, the French filmmakers who inadvertantly captured the first tower being hit. Talk about harrowing viewing. They went inside the WTC to witness the second strike and were still inside when the opposite tower collapsed. (That’s why the video of the first plane was so late to emerge. Filmmaker and film were nearly destroyed in the rubble.)

I’d like to recommend an altogether different classic: THE SILENT PARTNER, an unforgettable 1978 sleeper hit starring Elliot Gould and Christopher Plummer. Don’t take my word for it, this thriller shares some striking plot points.

Plummer plays bank robber Harry Reikel who is thwarted in his first attempt to rob the bank at which Gould’s Miles Cullen is a bank teller. Deciding to await a better opportunity, Reikel discards the deposit slip upon which he’d written his directives, this is a robbery, etc. While tidying the lobby, Miles discovers the imprint of Reikel’s message on the deposit slip beneath. He reacts with alarm, but goes home to consider the opportunity knocking and hatches a plan.

(What did the US security advisor do with the memo titled “Bin Laden determined to strike inside the US?”)

The next day at work Miles waylays as much money as he can from the bank vault. When the forecasted robbery occurs, he gives Reikel some of the money, later declaring the entire sum as stolen, and then takes the bulk of the loot home, thus becoming the robber’s silent partner. Of course, when Reikel learns on TV the magnitude of his purported take, he figures out what Miles has done. Now Reikel becomes the partner whom Miles must keep silent.

Does it make sense that someone might be using Guantanamo to keep al Qaida ranks silent, lest anyone find out that Bin Laden had only commandered the planes? Crashing the airliners was forewarned by the now infamous security memo, but the terrorists may have had nothing to do with upping the magnitude of the 9/11 disaster by setting demolition charges at the WTC and the Pentagon. Those may have been more easily planted by cold-blooded accomplices to the terrorists, silent partners who wanted a Pearl Harbor to launch their PNAC authoritarian coup.

Life is good TM

Gitmo
I encounter the LIFE IS GOOD mantra across hundreds of leisure products carried by boutique retailers. While the enjoy-life ethic would seem highly likeable, it does seem particularly ghoulish to be asking Americans to stop and smell the roses over the mass graves of our current third world horrors. I think it’s as perverse has handing everybody lemons so you can smell the lemonade.

I’d like to solicit readers to submit any photos of westerners wearing LIFE IS GOOD gear in the vicinity of global or environmental injustice; perhaps a grinning American traveling through a refugee camp in Darfur, Indonesia or Pakistan?

Meanwhile I may have to doctor such a photo, as Americans aren’t really looking at refugees, are they? Submissions will be published here.

Maybe there is no al-Qaeda?

Try this on for size: the war on terror is being used to justify all forms of restrictive government controls, from surveillance to union-busting to torture. Lacking any terrorist acts of late, how do we know there are even terrorists? Except that our government keeps scooping them up, putting them in Guantanamo, but it won’t let us see them.

Is Guantanamo really about keeping certain Islamic “illegal combatants” from doing harm? As the overwelming number of detainees are released without charges, it’s hard to believe the authorities cared who they had detained. Perhaps Guantanamo has been serving to perpetuate the myth that such terrorists exist at all.

Arbitrary interments function to terrorize a populace (a reason why they’re violations of international law), but perhaps the US has an additional purpose. What if there is no major league AL Qaeda except for the fictional assemblage at Guantanamo? Perhaps we’ve not been allowed a close look at the captives at Guantanamo lest we detect that there is no rhyme or reason to those detained.

There has been most certainly a group of Islamic Fundamentalists who orchestrated the 1990 attack the WTC, the bombing of the USS Cole, the bombing of the US embassy buildings in Nairobi, and other bombing in Southeast Asia. And on 9/11/2001 a group of Saudi Arabians flew two airplanes into the WTC, although likely with assistance.

But that’s probably about it. With a dozen or so hijackers dying on 9/11, another dozen usual suspects rounded up in Pakistan and Indoneasia, and poster boy Osama traipsing about Afghanistan, there might not have been any more.

A “war on terror” requires enemy terrorists. If there are no further acts of terrorism, how are you going to assert that there are still terrorists out there? Why not incarcerate a bunch of guys who dress like terrorists and take credit for intervening with their dastardly plans? Plus you’ll be asserting that if you have some, there must be more.

But the stories coming out of those released from Guantanamo indicate that US security agencies are simply playing a cruel games with individual world citizens. Why have such detainees been denied access to the world? Isn’t it more appropriate to say that the world is being denied access to the detainees? Maybe it’s the outside world that the US is trying to keep out of Guantanamo. Otherwise people of reason could unravel the fiction of Al Qaeda.

The Pope thinks who should step in?

Pope visits AuschwitzOn Sunday Pope Benedict paid a visit to Auschwitz and asked “WHERE WAS GOD AT AUSCHWITZ?
 
Why didn’t he ask where was the POPE at Auschwitz?!
 
We’re certainly asking where is the Pope now? Why is he touring sites of past atrocities when there are current crimes which the Pope could be trying to impede?

Where was the Catholic church when America launched its illegal war? Who has not been speaking out as America rains its state terror upon innocent populations?

We know Pope John Paul was showing some slowing of activity where he might otherwise have been more outspoken againt America’s illegal atack of Iraq. We saw him endure drowsily through George Bush’s 2003 visit. I’d like to think Pope John Paul was drugged to keep him from getting out of his chair and sock George one.

But this pope is freshly minted, doesn’t he want to speak out while there’s still a chance to stop today’s crimes against humanity?

This pope tells us that in his youth he was pressed against his will to join the Hitler Youth. Is he trying to pull a peer pressure excuse this time as well? This is the banality of today’s Nazis. Maybe we do indeed have a Nazi Pope.

Is Pope Ratzinger so confident that fifty years from now a future pope will only stroll through the gate at Camp Guantanamo and ask “where was God” and not where was he and his church?

Free the captives

Shrine for war captivesFor Tom Fox,
Jim Loney,
Norman Kember,
Harmeet Singh Sooden;
for Jill Carroll,
all Western hostages,
all Eastern hostages;
for all detainees held without charges
in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo,
and CIA black sites around the world;
for prisoners of conscience everywhere.

I am going to be sick

From a Navy Seal Kodak momentOne of 17 techniques authorized by Rumsfeld. This is non-fatal duress, permitted so long as it does not induce organ failure. Here Navy Seals put a hood over a detainee and strike his head unpredictably from directions unforeseen.

Today an American doctor was forced to reveal through an affidavid that he and the medical staff at Guantanamo have been force-feeding the hunger-striking detainees through nasal tubes.

Remember Guantanamo? When the Abu Ghraib photos emerged, the White House responded indignantly that Rumsfeld had never authorized such interrogation methods for anywhere except Guantanamo.

Guantanamo is where we’ve been sending suspected terrorists. We’ve now already released most of the Gitmo detainees for lack of charges. We hang on to several hundred more but still have not filed any charges.

Over 80 prisoners at Guantanamo are currently protesting their general inhumane treatment and their detainment without charges, some for up to four years. They have been maintaining a hunger strike, now nearing its sixth month.

The hunger strike has been kept largely out of the American press. Thus the doctor’s recent confession would have little context for typical American viewers.

To counter the hunger-strike, the prisoners are bound at up to “six points of restraint” and force-feed through tubes which are inserted through their nose and wind down to their stomachs.

I have experience with that tube.

A couple years ago I had a ruptured appendix. My recovery required the use of a nasogastric tube through my nose. It was the most miserable experience of my life.

Having the tube inserted into your nose, coaxed around the bends of the nasal passage and down the throat meant an interminable sequence of gagging, regurgitating, and frantic reflexive swallows. Afterward the first order of business was to dry both patient and bed of what was thrown up.

Never before had I felt my life so fragile and helpless. I could not help but reflect that I had gone within minutes from being a defiant patient to being utterly subdued. My sense of dominion over my physical self was gone. I hoped only to emerge from that first night with my sanity.

Torture
I myself have no concept of torture, nor even of physical violence. I can read about the torture we have sanctioned and applied against our enemies and it all looks awful, although perhaps most of us can comprehend its awfulness only in the abstract. Is that perhaps why we permit it?

The nearest I have come to identifying with the terror felt by a torture victim was hearing of the Iraqi general who was shoved head first into a sleeping bag and sat upon until he suffocated. Probably we can all recollect in our youth the panic induced by the combination of claustrophobia and being unable to catch our breath.

From my hospital experience I have a very vivid first hand experience to compare to the treatment meted to the Gitmo detainees. And we’re not even talking about interrogation or punishment, we’re talking about medical procedures. My nasogastric tube was for emptying my stomach. It was not the 3 millemeter tube they are using to feed the prisoners. Nor certainly was it the 4.8 millemeter tube the US medical staff was originally using because they wanted to feed the prisoners more quickly and get them back to their cells. Which suggests that they are repeating the insertion process for each feeding.

Torture is illegal. The United States ratified the 1996 Torture Convention. Torture is wrong regardless of whether you are signatory to an agreement. It’s inhumane, it’s abhorrent, it dehumanizes those who commit it, and it may invite our opponents to justify it as well. As if it were even our place any longer to expect their mercy.

Force-feeding a person who is intent on fasting is another sort of crime. It is assault, plain and simple. And committed by a medial practitioner it is against their professional oath.

I don’t know how to be afraid of the depths to which we are sinking. I do know I feel sick to my stomach.

The 911 Reichtag Fire

In 1933 someone set fire to the Reichstag, the historic German Parliament Building. Hitler seized on the occasion to incite in the German population a fear of terrorists and foreign agents, and trumped up his case for the preemptive invasion of Eastern Europe.
 
To prevent further acts of terrorism, Hitler curtailed civil rights and created the first concentration camp at Dachau. Predating the extermination camps by a half dozen years, Dachau began as an internment camp for political foes and other “enemies of the state.” Many Germans felt that the Reichstag fire was a Nazi deception, set deliberately to further Nazi goals.

2001 brought the American People their 9-11, with similar doubt as to how it came to happen. Americans were also given their Dachau at Guantanamo Bay, a prison camp absent every American notion of civil right. Americans soon became responsible as well for waging a preemptive war on Iraq based on trumped up charges of WMDs, and American atrocities at Mazar-i-Sharif and Fallujah, which beg comparison to the Nazi taking of Czechoslovakia, and Nazi acts at Babi Yar and Lidice.

To compare American to Nazis may seem like a profound trivialization of the horror of the Holocaust. There is no evil greater than that which perpetrated the Holocaust. But the Final Solution didn’t start until 1940. The U.S. Neocons are comparatively early in their game.

History has now confirmed that it was the Nazis themselves who started the Reichstag fire. They set the fire at night, while no one was in the building. Not a single life was lost. Not very Nazi-like. Someday history will reveal the truth about who perpetrated the events of September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center. Time will eventually have to overcome this administration’s persistent efforts to thwart investigation and accountability.

IF the Neocons in the U. S. administration, either by negligence or malice, did allow or facilitate or instigate or perpetrate this ugly tragedy, if they did this, what can they have yet in store for the American people?

(Reprinted ArmchairCommando.)

Koran flushing

Sacreligious treatment of the Koran. Not THE Koran, nor A Koran, but someone’s OWN Koran. A bible-thumper might appreciate this distinction more than the average near-secular American.

Guantanamo interrogators weren’t flushing a Gideon Bible down the toilet, some vinyl-covered copy glimpsed only briefly in a hotel room drawer, nor even a Family Bible, a nicer copy kept on a lower shelf in the family den.

The Holy books destroyed at US facilities are PERSONAL COPIES, given to individuals at Confirmation or First Communion, carried around to daily or weekly meetings, with inscriptions from relatives and teachers and loved ones, with personal inscriptions, study points in the margins, journal entries, or family records.

These are what the US wardens were abusing before the tears of their owners. The political prisoners where often brought with not even the clothes on their backs, but they were allowed their Korans. Perhaps because our Afgan surrogates, the Moslems doing our bidding, would not conceive of depriving the captives of their Korans.

These are the Korans we are desecrating.