Art, Truth & Politics | by Harold Pinter | Is your government not guilty of supporting acts of murder upon the citizens of a sovereign state?

Since few people are highlighting this part of this important lecture. I want to call your attention upon it. Here it is:

Harold Pinter – Nobel Lecture | Art, Truth & Politics
: "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.'

Soma Is Working

The Australian: So much talk and so few people listening by Miriam Cosic[December 09, 2005]: "'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,' Pinter will say. (The text was published in London newspaper The Guardian yesterday.)

''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.'

There is the rub. We hardly need to be deceived any more because people are so uninterested in politics, no matter how far-reachingly it affects their lives. Aldous Huxley's soma is working."

Nobel Lecture - | Art, Truth & Politics | by Harold Pinter

Here follows the beginning of the truth that every American needs to hear:

Nobel Lecture - Literature 2005 | Art, Truth & Politics | by Harold Pinter: "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.

---

Read the whole lecture here:

http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html

Another Mis-calculation, The Invasion Has Strenghtened Iran

Iraqi Letters: Iran and Iraq: War and Politics: "
In the simplest possible terms, I cannot understand the following: Iran is a declared enemy of America. America invades Iraq. America consistently strengthens the hand of pro-Iranian political parties and their influence on the future shape of Iraq!

The latest source of amusement is that both the US administration and the regime in Iran are enthusiastic supporters of the new draft constitution.

There are too many murmurs coming from the Iraqi politicians taking part in the political process that Iran has too much influence on Iraqi politics… to ignore!
"

Condi to Europe: 'Trust Me' by Paul Craig Roberts

Condi to Europe: 'Trust Me' by Paul Craig Roberts: "In the run-up to the Iraqi invasion, this critical information was withheld from Congress and the American people. Instead, the Bush administration worked to create the belief that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the September 11 attacks.

The Bush administration has made it abundantly clear that it believes, with no apologies, that the ends justify the means. Lying is simply a means to an end. What Condi Rice is telling Europeans is 'pay no attention to our lies; just accept that we are liars for a good and proper cause.'

What other proof do we need of the Bush administration’s low esteem for truth than the fact, revealed by the Los Angeles Times, that the Bush administration has been caught paying journalists to write favorable stories about the war in Iraq? First they rigged the 'intelligence' used to start a war; then they rigged the news reports about the war.

And these people think they should be trusted?"

The Grave Threat Is the Bush Administration by Paul Craig Roberts

The Grave Threat Is the Bush Administration by Paul Craig Roberts: "What kind of a country have we become when we put a citizen on trial on the basis of a confession obtained under torture by a foreign government? Is the case against this student anything other than an attempt to enlist the sympathy factor for Bush in order to repair his standing in the polls?

Americans need to understand that a police state has to produce results in order to justify its budget and its powers. It doesn’t really care who it catches. Stalin’s police state caught the wife of Stalin’s foreign minister in one of its street sweeps.

The Bush administration justifies torture and threatens to veto congressional attempts to restrain its use. The Bush administration justifies indefinite detention of American citizens without charges. It asserts the power of indefinite detention based on its subjective judgment about who is a threat. An American government that preaches 'freedom and democracy' to the world claims the powers of tyrants as its own.

Americans need to wake up. The only danger to Americans in Iraq is the one Bush created by invading the country. The grave threat that Americans face is the Bush administration’s police state mentality."

Journalist Helen Thomas condemns Bush administration - MIT News Office | She Got It Right

Journalist Helen Thomas condemns Bush administration - MIT News Office: "'I have never covered a president who actually wanted to go to war. Bush's policy of pre-emptive war is immoral - such a policy would legitimize Pearl Harbor. It's as if they learned none of the lessons from Vietnam,' she said to enthusiastic applause.

Thomas ignored the clapping just as she once ignored the camera flashes and shouting matches of the Washington press corps.

'Where is the outrage?' she demanded. 'Where is Congress? They're supine! Bush has held only six press conferences, the only forum in our society where a president can be questioned. I'm on the phone to [press secretary] Ari Fleischer every day, asking will he ever hold another one? The international world is wondering what happened to America's great heart and soul.'"

Another Condi Lie for the Record

German Sues Over Abduction Said to Be at Hands of C.I.A. - New York Times: "Mr. Romero of the A.C.L.U. said the lawsuit was an attempt to counter the 'culture of impunity' in the Bush administration for human rights violations and to force the C.I.A. to abandon practices in conflict with American values. The organization has obtained 77,000 pages of government documents on detention and interrogation under the Freedom of Information Act that have been the basis for thousands of news reports.

Mr. Romero took issue with a statement Ms. Rice made on Monday before leaving for Germany denying accusations of human rights violations and declaring that 'the United States does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture.'

'Unfortunately, as our lawsuit shows today, those statements are patently false,' Mr. Romero said."

No, Thank You, Mrs. Rice. | Do You Really Think All the World is That Stupid?

U.S. Interrogations Are Saving European Lives, Rice Says - New York Times: "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice chastised European leaders on Monday, saying that before they complain about secret jails for terror suspects in European nations, they should realize that interrogations of these suspects have produced information that helped 'save European lives.'"

Look who's talking!

The obvious irony is that those 'European lives', (as if the value of human life was relative to the ethnicity of the group one prefers) like those who perished in Spain's bomb attack, would not have suffered but because of the US war of aggression.

How many more attacks will be encouraged by the ideological rationalization of the American torture policy? Do not they realize that the case inflaming 'terrorists' is a sense of moral outrage because of the abuse of power of a decadent and ruthless regime? How smart is it to 'stay the course' in the wrong direction?

No thank you, Mrs. Rice. But there is more on this insult to our intelligence:

Intelligence gathered from these interrogations, she said, "has stopped terrorist attacks and saved innocent lives in Europe as well as the United States." But she declined to offer examples or provide any specific information to support her assertions. She said any information related to the prisons was classified. Ms. Rice did not explicitly confirm the existence of the detention centers, first described in news reports early last month. But acknowledgment of them was implicit in her remarks. Without the debate over the covert jails, there would have been no reason for her statement.

"We must bring terrorists to justice wherever possible," she said, "but there have been many cases where the local government cannot detain or prosecute a suspect, and traditional extradition is not a good option."

Why? Because, you say so? or because the terrorist have by definition no human rights? No, Thank You, Mrs. Rice.

Administration officials, including Ms. Rice on Monday, have repeatedly maintained since the reports about the secret prisons began that the government is abiding by American law and international agreements. "We are respecting U.S. law and U.S. treaty obligations," she said several times on Monday. "And we are respecting other nations' sovereignty."

That is a change in the position of the Bush administration, which has repeatedly maintained in recent years that American law does not apply to prisoners held abroad. That is one reason some terror suspects were taken to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and to other foreign locations.

Asked about that conflict while speaking to reporters on her plane, Ms. Rice did not answer directly and instead repeated her statement about respecting American laws and obligations.

Her silence is much more eloquent than her crafted deceitful statement.

Following the reports of a secret detention policy, the administration has come under criticism from the United Nations, at least two arms of the European Union and several European countries. The Europeans say the secret detention centers would be illegal in their countries. Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, wrote Ms. Rice on behalf of the European Union last week, seeking an explanation.

In Congress, Democrats are calling for an investigation of the prisons and the treatment of suspects held there, while Republicans are pushing for an inquiry to determine who in the government leaked the information to the news media.

The great patriots are fulfilling their duty of persecuting the messenger while ignoring the evil policy of the administration

News reports over the last month have said the C.I.A. began holding dozens of terror suspects in secret prisons in Europe shortly after Sept. 11. While the administration has not confirmed the reports, it has also not denied them.

The mistreatment of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq as well as the ongoing debate over the imprisonment of terror suspects at Guantanamo, have raised questions among Europeans and human rights organizations

And any one with any sense of decency not blinded by American Imperial ideology

about the treatment of suspects held in the C.I.A. facilities, where no one can visit them or check on their treatment.

Ms. Rice insisted she could not confirm the existence of secret prisons because that would involve discussion of classified activities. "One of the difficult issues in this new kind of conflict is what to do with captured individuals who we know or believe to be terrorists," she said. Many are "essentially stateless, owing their allegiance to the extremist cause of transnational terrorism."

She could find a few pointers in the Geneva convention regarding prisoners of war. After all it is America who claims to be waging a 'war on terror' but it is obvious from the start that the US is committed to the rules for other countries but not when it is them perpetrating the crimes.

On her plane later, Ms. Rice expressed impatience with the spiraling investigations and inquiries.

May I express impatience with the spiraling nonsense she propagates on behalf of this rotten administration?

"Democracies are going to debate these things," she said. "But they need to debate them not just on one side of the issue - that is, how the actual activities are being carried out." They should also consider, "are we doing everything we can to protect innocent lives?"

O yes, Do not mind the reality of actual abuse carried out by my administration. It is all for a good cause, there are always abstract 'innocent' lives to justify our abuses of actual real people. If you want to sleep while knowing part of the truth just do what I do, repeat to yourself that they are 'terrorist' and we are just defending 'innocent' people.

Thank you for reminding me once more that all your crimes are perpetrated in the name of a good cause. But, No, thank you, Mrs. Rice.

Wasted Lives; Why 'Staying the Course' Does not Work

The Peking Duck: Bob Herbert: Black Hole in Iraq: "In Mr. Shroeder's view, President Bush's war policies have been both tragic and futile. 'Staying the course,' he said, is like continuing to pour water into a hole in the sand at the beach, 'a process that gets you nowhere.'

'My son told us two weeks before he died that he felt the war was not worth it,' Mr. Shroeder said. 'His complaint was about having to go back repeatedly into the same towns, to sweep the same insurgents, or other insurgents, out of these same towns without being able to hold them, secure them. It just was not working, and that's what he wanted to get across.'

Mr. Shroeder dismissed the idea that criticism of the administration and the war was evidence of a lack of support for the men and women fighting in Iraq. 'You can support the troops and be critical of the policy that put them there,' he said.

He took issue with the public officials who insist that his son died for a 'noble cause,' however comforting that might be to believe. On the contrary, he feels that Augie's life 'was wasted.'

Recalling his last conversation with his son, Mr. Schroeder said, 'I asked him, 'Do you feel like you're protecting your family and other Americans back here?' And he said, 'No. Not at all.' '

He said Augie felt that he was not accomplishing anything. 'He thought it was a waste.'"

How The Press Was and May Be Manipulated

Open Source » Blog Archive » Knight-Ridder on Getting It Right: "I also think it was the case that people didn’t want to jepoardize their access. This administration is incredibly vengeful in going after people that it considers critics, people who ask the wrong questions, who write things this administration dislikes.
Jonathan Landay"

Bush's Administration: Keeping Us Ill Informed

KR Washington Bureau | 04/15/2005 | Bush administration eliminating 19-year-old international terrorism report| by By Jonathan S. Landay: "WASHINGTON - The State Department decided to stop publishing an annual report on international terrorism after the government's top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered.

Several U.S. officials defended the abrupt decision, saying the methodology the National Counterterrorism Center used to generate statistics for the report may have been faulty, such as the inclusion of incidents that may not have been terrorism.

Last year, the number of incidents in 2003 was undercounted, forcing a revision of the report, 'Patterns of Global Terrorism.'

But other current and former officials charged that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's office ordered 'Patterns of Global Terrorism' eliminated several weeks ago because the 2004 statistics raised disturbing questions about the Bush's administration's frequent claims of progress in the war against terrorism.

'Instead of dealing with the facts and dealing with them in an intelligent fashion, they try to hide their facts from the American public,' charged Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA analyst and State Department terrorism expert who first disclosed the decision to eliminate the report in The Counterterrorism Blog, an online journal."

'BBC NEWS | Americas | US civil rights group to sue CIA

BBC NEWS | Americas | US civil rights group to sue CIA: "'Extraordinary rendition'

'The lawsuit will charge that CIA officials at the highest level violated US and universal human rights laws when they authorised agents to abduct an innocent man, detain him incommunicado, beat him, drug and transport him to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan,' the ACLU said in a news release.

The release identified the jail as the 'Salt Pit'.

The group did not provide the name or nationality of the plaintiff, saying only that he would appear at a news conference next week to reveal details of the lawsuit.

The ACLU also wants to name corporations which it accuses of owning and operating the aircraft used to transport detainees secretly from country to country.

The highly secretive process is known as 'extraordinary rendition' whereby intelligence agencies move and interrogate terrorism suspects outside the US, where they have no American legal protection.

It has become extremely controversial, the BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington reports.

Some individuals have claimed they were flown by the CIA to countries like Syria and Egypt, where they were tortured.

The US government and its intelligence agencies maintain that all their operations are conducted within the law and they will no doubt fight this case vigorously, our correspondent says.

He says they will not want to see US intelligence officers forced publicly to defend their actions and they will not want to see one of their most secret procedures laid bare in open court. "

Who Owns Iraq?

Hope Over History By Richard Cohen:

"I am not -- not yet, anyway -- a pulloutnik. In the apt Pottery Barn analogy, we broke Iraq and we own it.

How presumptuous! USA did not 'broke' Iraq. 'It tried to 'steal' Iraq and messed it up in the process, and now thinks it owns it.

The National Security Council's 'National Strategy for Victory in Iraq' -- a numbingly repetitive document -- nevertheless makes a convincing case that chaos, a civil war, a bloodbath, and a precipitous loss of American prestige and influence would follow an abrupt U.S. withdrawal. A repeat of the shameful exit from Vietnam has to be avoided -- if only because Iraq is in the center of the Middle East, not a small country on the periphery of Asia."

Please wake up, 'chaos, 'civil war' bloodbath and overal loss of American pretige and influence cannot follow withdrawal, because it preceeds it.

There is no more 'American prestige' in the middle east -or the world- the only place that exist is in the egotistic minds of some blindfolded Americans.
What needs to happen is a complete change of strategy, from aggression to defense. Back off. Empower the Iraquis to take care of themselves and only help when and if asked. let the Iraquis sort it out, after all it is their country. Get UN peace keeping forces as USA steps off the scene. Renounce American military bases, (which is probably the 'reason' for the war if there was any 'reason' for it. I am tempted to think, there was no 'reason', it was just a presumptuous abuse of power in service of ideological imperialism.

Revisiting History, by Jon Lovchik - Democratic Underground

Revisiting History, by Jon Lovchik - Democratic Underground: "Many of the people who were involved in PNAC are currently in the Bush administration, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. This report, which was prepared four months before Bush took office, includes this statement about the Middle East:

'Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The section titled 'Repositioning Today's Force' discusses the U.S. military presence in the Middle East over the last decade and includes this statement:

'From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene.'

There is no question that the strategy envisioned by PNAC includes a permanent U.S. military presence worldwide, and particularly in the Middle East."

CENSORSHIP WITH BOMBS by Randolph T. Holhut

CENSORSHIP WITH BOMBS: "The Bush administration has long accused al-Jazeera's reporters of being propagandists for Muslim extremists. But 50 million people in the Arab world are watching al-Jazeera and it has become the Arab equivalent of the BBC in terms of depth and breadth of news coverage. Unlike the American media, al-Jazeera has shown the war for what it really is — a clumsy, ill-conceived and heavy-handed enterprise that is killing civilians and destroying cities indiscriminately.

The thought that Bush would censor al-Jazeera with bombs isn't surprising. Neither is the Blair government's overreaction to the leak of the memo. It's just the latest of a steady drip of embarrassing revelations about this war and the people that are running it.

It took weeks for the mainstream American press to pick up on the first batch of Downing Street Memos. It took weeks for American papers to pick on the reports of the use of white phosphorous and napalm on civilian targets in Iraq. It will probably take weeks for them to write about this latest incident. But I hope that there's someone in the British press that has the courage to stand up the Blair government and publish the memo in its entirety, even under the threat of imprisonment. "

Worse than Watergate? The Mother of All Constitutional Crises by Judith Coburn

Worse than Watergate? The Mother of All Constitutional Crises: "In fact, one of the most revelatory pieces of reporting on the whole pre- and post-invasion period could be found not in the American press but in an extraordinary three-part series in the leftist Italian newspaper La Repubblica, articles which have received only a few skeptical references buried in the back pages of our major papers (while being headline news in the on-line world of political websites and blogs). The Italian investigative reporters do tell us something new -- exactly how two of the key administration arguments for war in Iraq were concocted and known to be bogus by Italian intelligence and discredited by the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and State Department officials until Vice President Cheney pounded CIA Director George Tenet and Secretary of State Colin Powell into submission."

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Profile: Christian Peacemaker Teams

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Profile: Christian Peacemaker Teams: "In an interview with the BBC News website in December 2004, Peggy Gish, a CPT member, described how she spent 13 months on the ground listening to stories of Iraqi men and women who claim they had been wrongfully imprisoned, tortured and beaten by the occupying forces.

CTP member in Hebron
The CPT (whose members often wear red hats) has been active in the West Bank for a decade
'We heard about very violent house raids in the middle of the night, in which US soldiers would storm in, and if the men did not get down immediately, they would knock them down and beat them,' Ms Gish said.

After collating the claims, CPT posted them on US and Canadian websites and urged people to lobby government officials.

CPT members also aim to find out what everyday life is like for ordinary Iraqis. Before his departure to Iraq, Briton Norman Kember - who is being held by a previously unknown militant group, The Swords of Truth - told a Christian radio station that he was hoping to meet ordinary Iraqis of various backgrounds and hear their stories."

The Wrong Signals

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Bush outlines Iraq 'victory plan': "On Tuesday, Mr Bush said pulling out too soon would send 'the wrong signal' to US troops, the enemy and the people of the world."

So, preemptive action, a war of aggression sold under false premises, prisoner abuse and torture, thousands of innocent civilians casualties, the use of quimical weapons in populated areas, the supression of civil liberties, millions of dollars in contracts for coorporations; destruction of the infra-structure and inability to restore basic services, . . .

Are these the 'right Signals'? Let not one more person die because of the president's ideological delusions. Stop the strategy of Aggression. Bring the troops home.

A Terrible Wrong Perspective We Cannot Afford to Ignore

Early Warning by William M. Arkin - washingtonpost.com: "Well, this weekend, another high ranking U.S. officer spoke up. What he said isn't some truth uttered without the gloss of 'public affairs' or spin. It is insight into a terribly wrong perspective, both about the U.S. military and about the international mood.

Yesterday, Lt. Gen. Walter E. (Buck) Buchanan III, commander of U.S. Central Command Air Forces (CENTAF) and the top air commander in the Middle East, and otherwise, I thought, a competent and smart officer, told the Associated Press not one, but three brainless things.


Speaking on the sidelines of the gigantic Dubai Air Show in the United Arab Emirates, Buchanan said reports of civilian casualties in Iraq were exaggerated, that the U.S. military had not used white phosphorous as an anti-personnel weapon, and that many Iraqi deaths in Iraq had been 'staged.' "

"Extraordinary Measures" to Justify Ordinary Abuse

Shake and Bake - New York Times: "In fact, one of the many crimes ascribed to Saddam Hussein was dropping white phosphorus on Kurdish rebels and civilians in 1991.

But white phosphorus has made an ugly comeback. Italian television reported that American forces used it in Falluja last year against insurgents. At first, the Pentagon said the chemical had been used only to illuminate the battlefield, but had to backpedal when it turned out that one of the Army's own publications talked about using white phosphorus against insurgent positions, a practice well known enough to have one of those unsettling military nicknames: 'shake and bake.'

The Pentagon says white phosphorus was never aimed at civilians, but there are lingering reports of civilian victims. The military can't say whether the reports are true and does not intend to investigate them, a decision we find difficult to comprehend. Pentagon spokesmen say the Army took 'extraordinary measures' to reduce civilian casualties, but they cannot say what those measures were.

They also say that using white phosphorus against military targets is legal. That's true, but the 1983 convention bans its use against 'civilians or civilian objects,' which would make white phosphorus attacks in urban settings like Falluja highly inappropriate at best. The United States signed that convention, but the portion dealing with incendiary weapons has been awaiting ratification in the Senate.

These are technicalities, in any case. Iraq, where winning over wary civilians is as critical as defeating armed insurgents, is no place to be using a weapon like this. More broadly, American demands for counterproliferation efforts and international arms control ring a bit hollow when the United States refuses to give up white phosphorus, not to mention cluster bombs and land mines.

The United States should be leading the world, not dragging its feet, when it comes to this sort of issue - because it's right and because all of us, including Americans, are safer in a world in which certain forms of conduct are regarded as too inhumane even for war. That is why torture should be banned in American prisons. And it is why the United States should stop using white phosphorus."

To Stay or Not to Stay. . . That is the Question.

ZNet |Iraq | Libby Indictment May Open Door to Broader Iraq War Deceptions by Stephen Zunes: "Some thoughtful activists and intellectuals who opposed the invasion of Iraq have since concluded that because the elected Iraqi government is reasonably representative of the majority of the Iraqi people, because much of the insurgent movement is dominated by fascistic Islamists and Baathists, and because the Iraqi government is too weak to defend itself, U.S. armed forces should remain.

These activists argue that even though the premise of the invasion was a lie and the occupation was tragically mishandled, the consequences of a precipitous U.S. military withdrawal would result in a far worse situation than exists now.

Such a case might be worth consideration if the Bush administration and congressional leaders had demonstrated that they had the integrity, knowledge, foresight, and competence to successfully lead a counterinsurgency war in a complex, fractured society on the far side of the planet.

To support the continued prosecution of the Iraq War, however, would require trusting the same politicians who hoodwinked the country into that war in the first place. A growing number of Americans, therefore, have come to recognize that any administration dishonest enough to make the ludicrous pre-war claims of an Iraqi military threat and any Congress that -- through whatever combination of dishonesty or stupidity -- chose to reinforce these false assertions simply cannot be trusted to successfully control the insurgency, extricate the United States from further military involvement, and successfully facilitate Iraq's development as a peaceful, secure, democratic country."

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Iraq abuse 'as bad as Saddam era'

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Iraq abuse 'as bad as Saddam era': "Iraq abuse 'as bad as Saddam era'
Former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has said that human rights abuses in Iraq today are as bad as those during the rule of Saddam Hussein.

In an interview with the UK's Observer newspaper, Mr Allawi said that Iraqis were being tortured and killed by secret police in secret bunkers.

He said militias operated with impunity inside the interior ministry and had infiltrated the police.

'People are doing the same as (in) Saddam Hussein's time and worse,' Mr Allawi told the newspaper.

Iraq is the centrepiece of this region. If things go wrong, neither Europe nor the United States will be safe
Iyad Allawi

'It is an appropriate comparison. People are remembering the days of Saddam.

'These were the precise reasons that we fought Saddam Hussein, and now we are seeing the same things.'

He also warned of the danger of Iraq disintegrating in chaos.

'Iraq is the centrepiece of this region,' he said. 'If things go wrong, neither Europe nor the United States will be safe.'

American Chronicle: WAKE UP AMERICA! by Charles Fortunato

American Chronicle: WAKE UP AMERICA!: "This administration was determined to go to war regardless of any strategies or legal justification. They fabricated and manipulated intelligence reports to discredit anyone who dared challenge them.

This was a pernicious preemptive strike without most of the worlds approval, against a sovereign state. We expended over 200 billion dollars that could have been used for America�s needy, and for national disasters, education, and national health care. Other monies are distributed with ulterior motives to buy influence and control all over the world, as subsidies, in the billions of indebted dollars, rather than for the direct benefit to the American people.

We had the Valerie Plame leak, Halliburton (no bid contracts), and the torture at ABU-GHRAIB prison. Then came the acknowledgment of the city of Fallujah being destroyed and Iraqi citizens burned to death by white phosphorus chemical munitions. Then there is the arrogant administration statement of, 'We have to change the world before the world changes us'.

This is horrible and alarming. We should change ourselves in order to regain the respect and honor that has been lost. Do we remember George M. Cohen�s song, 'Over here, over there, for the Yanks are coming'. Well here is what we have done 'Over There'. Over 2,000 American troops killed, over 15,000 wounded, over 50,000 with battle fatigue, and over 100,000 Iraqi men, women, and children killed. Peace was an American value.

Since we embraced imperialism and colonialism, we have lost nationally and with it worldwide respect and honor, but gained contempt and revenge. There will be little chaos in Iraq by our leaving with a fully complete withdrawal as soon as possible and within six months. We support our troops and we support our troops to come home to their families. By suspending our occupation, we will be giving Iraq back their sovereignty to solve its own destiny.

How long will it take the American people to realize that we have been betrayed by both entrenched political parties? It is now time for accountability involving indictments and impeachment. This warrants the enforcement of the rule of law under the Constitution, otherwise it becomes null and void."

A War of Agression is Inmoral and Unconstitutional

Global Politician: "The State Department's real weakness in coming months will likely transpire to be that only Congress, not the president, is authorized to declare war. The court will assert that without an official declaration of war, the president could not have lawfully waged war on another nation. Ouch. What's more, the often heard view of war opponents like Hinchey and John Conyers, who have also been creating commotion about the leaked Downing Street memo, that had the declaration-of-war requirement been adhered to in the first place, Congress might well have discovered in the process that the president's WMD claims were defective will likely gain an awful lot of potency. `The Congress might also have concluded that invading a sovereign and independent country for the purpose of 'spreading democracy', a war in which tens of thousands of innocent people would be killed and maimed, could not be justified under moral principles`, says Hornberger. `By waging war on Iraq without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, the president violated the Constitution. Some people pooh-pooh the violation, perceiving the Constitution as simply a technical document that can be violated whenever the president feels that 'national security' or even the welfare of foreigners necessitates it. Some also make the claim that when Congress delegated its power to declare war on Iraq to the president (on the eve of the 2002 congressional elections), that delegation served as an adequate substitute for an actual declaration of war on Iraq. They are wrong. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land that we the people of the United States have imposed on our federal officials. Like it or not, U.S. officials are supposed to comply with its restrictions on power`, according to Hornberger.

So to sum everything up once more; besides the total absence of WMD on the ground in Iraq, the way the war was started can be safely termed the most controversial aspect of this war. Most notably because it represented a unilateral action by the US which not only risked its isolation on the world stage, got many innocent people killed and created enormous renewed security risks to the homeland."

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld Must be Held Accountable for War Crimes

We Must Hold the Scoundrels Accountable by Paul Craig Roberts: "As events unfold, we must keep in mind that matters do not end with bringing home the troops and punishing the administration officials who blew the cover of a covert US agent. The worst transgression was the Bush administration�s decision to deceive our nation in order to use a war in Iraq to pursue an undeclared agenda in the Middle East. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld committed treason. They still have not told us the real reason they were so determined to invade Iraq that they used falsified intelligence to justify a war of aggression. We must find out their real agenda and hold them fully accountable for their crimes."

Another Deadly Silence: 'WP' had been used on combatants and civilians alike during the assault that leveled Fallujah,

Why is it that Associated Press has know bypassed reporting at least two major stories inconvenient to the Bush Administration?

First The downing Street Memo, Now the use of Phosphorous as a weapon in the battle of Fallujah. First denied then admitted by the Pentagon.

The italian documentary shows the corpses of civilians. No main Stream Media outlet seems to care to inform the American people about it.

Why?

Thoughtfully critiqued: "This seems to me to be another story that got a degree more attention among some observers due in part to speculation about why it wasn't reported. There's been no Downing Street memo-type outcry from readers here, as in the case of the relative silence in the U.S. media regarding the leaked British intelligence documents alleging that the Bush administration fixed facts to promote its predetermined Iraq invasion. But that may be due in part to the plethora of other news subordinating this story.

The caller was referring to what The Washington Post reported this week: 'Pentagon officials acknowledged Tuesday that U.S. troops used white phosphorus as a weapon against insurgent strongholds during the battle of Fallujah last November. But they denied an Italian television news report that the spontaneously flammable material was used against civilians.'

By then, The British Broadcasting Corporation had produced several reports on what it called the 'public relations disaster' for the U.S. of having had to retract its initial denial of using against combatants the so-called new Napalm, which is used to illuminate targets but burns flesh to the bone once it makes contact with skin.

Like the BBC, the British newspaper The Independent cited photographic evidence from the Italian state broadcaster, Rai, showing corpses of women and children with clothes intact and without bullet wounds but with their flesh burned off, described as consistent with the effects of the so-called fire weapons. In the Italian documentary, U.S. troops who had participated in the fighting confirmed year-old claims that 'WP' had been used on combatants and civilians alike during the assault that leveled Fallujah, near Baghdad.
The Pentagon's reversal raises the specter of war-crimes charges. But the caller was correct that the silence on the story raised more credibility concerns for U.S. news organizations. As for why it was not reported here, Mr. Rose explained:

"Unfortunately, we don't get Reuters. We use The Associated Press and some other wire services, but not Reuters. We never saw the story. That's why we didn't use it."

Iraq : A Flawed Policy Wrapped in an Illusion

An Unlikely Lonesome Dove:

"'Our military's done everything that has been asked of them,' Murtha said, regaining his composure. 'The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It's time to bring the troops home.'

The questioning turned to the inevitable charges that Murtha was irresponsibly advocating a cut-and-run. The Old Bull roared like a lion. 'This is a flawed policy wrapped in an illusion!' he said, pounding the podium."

Finally, a politician dares to call reality by its name. Thanks to John Murtha, Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania. (won two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star with a Combat "V," and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry.)

US Covering up War Crimes?

Shameless BBC: When Misinformation means War Crimes: "The same BBC News website, in the article “Iraq probes US phosphorus weapons” reads:

“Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance against civilians.”

I asked Karen Parker, Chief Counsel of the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers based in San Francisco to comment on what the BBC reports.

Question: Karen, how do you comment on what the BBC writes?

Answer: The comment “Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance [WP] against civilians.” assumes that therefore civilians may be targeted by WP weapons. This is an outrageous assumption because civilians may NEVER be the target of military operations -- whether using bows and arrows or white phosphorous, or any other weapon. This rule is not dependent on specific treaties but is a fundamental part of the laws and customs of war. Protocol III relating to incendiary weapons (of the Convention on Prohibitions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (1983)) makes all this clear by reinforcing this. While this treaty mainly sets out rules relating to WP in regards to combatants, it also reinforces the rule against targeting civilians.

There seems to be some controversy about whether WP might be a chemical weapon or a poisonous gas weapon and hence prohibited by treaties ratified by the US relating to these types of weapons. While a technically interesting question, it deflects attention from the fact that the US forces targeted civilians with WP and other weapons, both illegal and legal in Falluja. The debate about what category of weapons WP weapons are is irrelevant to THAT issue. What is important is to focus on the deliberate targeting of civilians or using weapons against a legal military target when there is a substantial likelihood of serious and numerous civilian casualties. Such targeting is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, especially due to the nature of the weapons such as those containing WP used against them.

While the US may not have ratified certain weapons conventions, this does not mean that therefore the US may legally use the weapons that are the subject of such treaties. This is because weapons may be otherwise banned by operation of existing humanitarian law. Under these rules, a weapon may be considered banned if: (1) it cannot be contained to the legal field of battle; (2) it cannot be stopped or cleaned-up when the war is over; (3) it causes "undue suffering" or "superfluous injury" (terms from The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 -- echoed in the "Conventional Weapons Treaty"); or (4) it unduly harms the environment. The nature of WP makes it difficult to control, so it cannot be contained to legal military targets. In this sense, it could be banned by operation of international law in urban areas, as it cannot be sufficiently controlled to the legal field of battle. Note that the Incendiary Weapons Protocol was intended to limit the use of these weapons even against combatants because of the "excessively injurious" issue.

Most specific weapons treaties have provisions that provide for "similar, but unnamed weapons" that are "analogous" to the names ones. For example, the 1925 Protocol on Gases has such clauses. WP weapons fit this rule as either "chemical" or "gases" by analogy.

Q. The US government has just admitted to have used WP in Fallujah as a weapon. What’s your comment on this?

A. It is very disturbing that the US lied for a number of months about the use of WP in Falluja, and only came forward with an admission of use after clear evidence. While combatant forces are allowed to withhold certain information from the general public at certain times, the US apparently lied to US Members of Congress and other officials. This is especially disturbing because the use of WP in urban areas is prohibited by operation of law. In this sense, the US was covering up war crimes.

White phosphorus: Not relevant for the US MSM

BBC NEWS | Americas | White phosphorus: weapon on the edge:

"The admission contradicted a statement this week from the new and clearly under-briefed US ambassador in London Robert Holmes Tuttle that US forces 'do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons'.

The official line to that point had been that WP, or Willie Pete to use its old name from Vietnam, was used only to illuminate the battlefield and to provide smoke for camouflage.

'Shake 'n Bake'

This line however crumbled when bloggers (whose influence must not be under-estimated these days) ferreted out an article published by the US Army's Field Artillery Magazine in its issue of March/April this year.

The article, written by a captain, a first lieutenant and a sergeant, was a review of the attack on Falluja in November 2004 and in particular of the use of indirect fire, mainly mortars.

Another eloquent silence in the Main Stream Media of the United States. It does not even acknowledge the controversy.

The evidence has been documented see:
has been documented see this

I guess that in a week or two they will say that like the Downing Street Memo, it is all old news.

But you should see the documentary:
- Download the full documentary: 'Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre'
- Rai 24 News website"
- Fight To Survive


It makes quite clear that WP was used as a weapon not just as illumination or camouflage."

Republican Congress Against Human Rights

Blinding Justice - New York Times: "The main legal mechanism for saving wrongly convicted prisoners from execution, and for challenging other wrongful convictions, is the writ of habeas corpus. Although habeas traces to Magna Carta and is enshrined in the Constitution, Congress may be about to scale it back drastically. The proposed changes would make the criminal justice system less fair and far more likely to convict the innocent."

When truth does not matter | Ignoring the Facts

Ignoring the Facts

: "More important, though, is the mind-set of those in the administration, from the president on down, who had those facts -- or, as we shall see, none at all -- and mangled them in the cause of going to war with Iraq. For example, the insistence that Hussein was somehow linked to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- a leitmotif of Bush administration geopolitical fantasy -- tells you much more than whether this or that fact was right. It tells you that to Bush and his people, the facts did not matter."

It did not matter that Mohamed Atta, the leader of the Sept. 11 terrorists, never met with Iraqis in Prague, as high-level Bush officials claimed. It did not matter that Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, was finding no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program. None of that mattered to Vice President Cheney, who warned of a "reconstituted" nuclear weapons program, promoted the nonexistent Prague meeting and went after legitimate critics with a zealousness that Tony Soprano would have admired: "We will not hesitate to discredit you," Cheney told ElBaradei and Hans Blix, the other important U.N. inspector. ElBaradei recently won the Nobel Peace Prize. Cheney's gonna have to wait for his.

No problem he will get the Bush award for 'competence' along with any other major deceiver of this administration.

When truth does not matter, facts does not matter, what matters is appereance and perception. They play the game of deception and think they can get away with it. It is up to us to be informed so that they may not fool us again.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq probes US phosphorus weapons

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq probes US phosphorus weapons: "Italian TV station Rai alleged last week that the US had used phosphorus against built-up areas, and that civilians were killed.

The report sparked fury among Italian anti-war protesters, who demonstrated outside the US embassy in Rome.

Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful

The US initially said white phosphorus had been used only to illuminate enemy positions, but now admits it was used as a weapon.

BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract that denial is a public relations disaster for the US.

A Pentagon spokesman, Lt Col Barry Venable, confirmed to the BBC the US had used white phosphorus 'as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants' - though not against civilians, he said.

He said earlier denials had been based on 'poor information'."

Sen. McCain Answers the "ticking-time-bomb" Fallacy for the Rationalization of Torture

Torture's Terrible Toll By Senator John McCain in Newsweek 25 November 2005 issue.

Abusive interrogation tactics produce bad intel, and undermine the values we hold dear. Why we must, as a nation, do better.

Those who argue the necessity of some abuses raise an important dilemma as their most compelling rationale: the ticking-time-bomb scenario. What do we do if we capture a terrorist who we have sound reasons to believe possesses specific knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack?

In such an urgent and rare instance, an interrogator might well try extreme measures to extract information that could save lives. Should he do so, and thereby save an American city or prevent another 9/11, authorities and the public would surely take this into account when judging his actions and recognize the extremely dire situation which he confronted. But I don't believe this scenario requires us to write into law an exception to our treaty and moral obligations that would permit cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. To carve out legal exemptions to this basic principle of human rights risks opening the door to abuse as a matter of course, rather than a standard violated truly in extremis. It is far better to embrace a standard that might be violated in extraordinary circumstances than to lower our standards to accommodate a remote contingency, confusing personnel in the field and sending precisely the wrong message abroad about America's purposes and practices."

For Bush Freedom and Democracy . . .

Means Torture and Indefinite Detention Without Charges

Power �ber Alles by Paul Craig Roberts:

Habeas corpus prevents authorities from detaining a person indefinitely without charges; the guarantee of habeas corpus ensures that no one can imprison you without a trial.

The Bush administration wants the power to detain indefinitely anyone it declares to be an enemy combatant or a terrorist without presenting the detainee in court with charges. In England the power to arrest people and to hold them indefinitely without charges was taken away from kings centuries ago. Bush apparently thinks he is the reincarnation of an absolute monarch.

Nothing more effectively undercuts the image that Bush paints of America as the land of freedom, liberty and democracy than the Republican Party's destruction of habeas corpus.

Power �ber Alles by Paul Craig Roberts:

True Colors: "When torture is the 'only option' ... - Los Angeles Times

When torture is the only option ... - Los Angeles Times:

"Those who oppose the amendment don't think the CIA should be permitted to use torture or other rough interrogation techniques. What they think is that sometimes the CIA should be required to squeeze the truth out of prisoners. Not because the CIA wants to torture people, but because it may be the only option we've got. "

So now torture is a form of self-defense. "may be is the only option we've got" is not good enough. Who says it is the 'only option' in this complex world of alternatives? Was not the preemptive war against Iraq rationalized as our only option? It turned out to be manipulation. What prevents the CIA from abusing its power and manipulating us if the law gives them the right to act unjustly?

Even if torture was the 'only option', that does not make it a good alternative. If we allow torture because it may be the 'only option' what prevents the rest of the world from attacking the US as their 'only option' to fight injustice? Our conduct must be grounded on principles not on expedience and double standards.

The end does not justify the means. Even if we convince ourselves that it is our 'only option'. Torture will continue to be an act of injustice, which the law ought not to uphold in any shape or form.

Mark the politicians and reporters who favor exemptions for torture, they are showing their true colors.

But it gets worse:

But if torturing a terrorist (or carrying out some other form of rough interrogation) is the only way to save innocent lives, we have no right to refuse.

Who defines 'terrorist'? who determines that 'innocent lives' will be saved? Who can assure that it is the only option? Do we want justice to be reduced to a judgment call in the interest of power?

Objective evil is not eliminated by abstract potential good. The End does not justify the Means!

Here is the core of the argument:

Suppose a nuclear bomb is primed to detonate somewhere in Manhattan, Levin wrote, and we've captured a terrorist who knows where the bomb is. But he won't talk. By forbidding torture, you inflict death on many thousands of innocents and endless suffering on the families of those who died at a terrorist's whim � and who might have lived had government done its ugly duty.

This is a fallacious argument.

It makes us responsible for the death of thousands because we refuse giving government the 'right' to protect us by any (evil) means. In other words in the name of security we may become Natzis.

We ought to forbid torture because it is wrong. A Nuclear attack against the US will not be caused because we refused to torture, but because we allowed it.

It will be because someone perceives that our government is so corrupt and evil that it needs to be hurt or eliminated. If we refuse torture, we would be disarming the nuclear attack at its roots. While at the time our 'war against terror' is promoting it.

The US will not be hated for its stance for freedom and democracy, but for its hipocrisy in preaching such principles and using them to justify abuse of power against the rest of the world.

If we condone torture we are planting a seed of destruction against ourselves. Only arrogance blinds us to this simple fact.

We do not torture such terrorists to punish them. God forbid we should do as they do. But if torture (used with repugnance) can stop even one such atrocity, our duty is hideously plain.

The backward logic of this article is dangerous. It justifies plain evil in the name of good, by refering our wrong actions to good intentions.

But that is not how ethics work. Your intention may be to alliviate hunger but that does not allow you to become a cannibal. The important correction to this flawed logic is to allow everyone to be held to the same standard. Would this person condone US prisoners planning nuclear attacks against other nations, to be detained indefintely and tortured? Would that be right? If it is right one way it must be right the other way. There is no exemption for justice because the perpetrators of injustices are Americans.

If they do it is "terror", if we do it is 'hideous' duty. Our noble motivation, supposedly, justifies our 'hideous' action. Because our intentions are pure, we do not take revenge we only avert evil with evil.

You know what? that sounds to me like a perfect rationalization for a terrorist.

I will rather follow St. Paul's teaching. "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." Romans 12:21.

A Party Without Virtue by Paul Craig Roberts

A Party Without Virtue by Paul Craig Roberts: "Led by Bush, the Republican Party now stands for detainment without trial and war without end. It is a party destructive of all virtue and a great threat to life and liberty on earth."

Behind the Image Curtain : by Abu Khaleel

Iraqi Letters: "Behind the Image Curtain" by Abu Khaleel.

For decades, people were so fond of Churchill's "Iron Curtain" description of the Soviet Union and its allies. There was a great deal of truth in that description. In the Soviet Union, as in all totalitarian systems, iron curtains were possible. When that Union collapsed, the curtain was hurriedly demolished.

In America, and in other democracies, iron curtains are not possible. Because of the vision and decency of those who originally designed the political system in America (perhaps even because of the nature of America itself) darkness and iron curtains are simply not possible. They are incompatible with the very concept of the system.

However, in America there is another curtain that is more difficult to demolish... because it is not 'solid'.

Imagine a huge room full of light and noise, called the United States of America.
People in that room are free to come and go as they please. They are free to talk, to listen, to say yes or no. But they are not totally free to know.

The room is surrounded by huge, white velvet curtains. On those curtains are projected images of what goes on in America and in the rest of the world; a lively, noisy, entertaining world of images.

There are numerous screens projecting on those curtains. The numerous larger ones are all owned by only a few big corporations, and consequently follow the bidding of a handful of individuals. These screens project images of the real world and of reality that does not always reflect that reality truthfully. The images pass through a number of selective filters.

There are many other, smaller screens, but few people bother to watch them. They strain the eye, are usually full of unpleasant images and are generally thought to be less reliable.

There also numerous holes in those curtains. Anybody in America is absolutely free to have a peek at the real world through those holes. But not more than 10% of adult Americans actually do: scholars, academics, the inquisitive and the discontented. Some of those choose to or are paid to retain the filters they are accustomed to when having a look. For the bulk of the population, those holes are not even visible from the living room couch.

People are also free to come and go across those curtains. Few people bother. Some of those who do, take little projections of the screens they are used to with them.

Those who venture out without their little screens or filters and have a good look at the real world, come back in disgust and start yelling like madmen... but no one listens to madmen in that bustling room. They, as well as the people on the other side of that image curtain... remain unheard.

I sometimes find myself looking at some of the misery caused by American policies in the world and wondering: are Americans so evil to be so insensitive to the harm their country has done and is doing to innocent people? The answer is a definite no!

They simply cannot see the real world from behind that image curtain.

Modern day politicians in America have naturally taken to that wonderful system. Politics in America has now become mostly not about substance and view... but about 'image'. This is probably why actors have been doing so well in politics.

The internet, an American invention, is bringing some change. It has introduced a few more holes in that curtain. But we have a long way to go. Most are still too small for people sitting on those couches. We will have to wait for those velvet curtains to have enough holes in them, to become more like lace curtains... for the other side to be seen from the couch.

It is only then that America and the rest of the world will live in the same world... hopefully in peace.

Democracy Now! | U.S. Broadcast Exclusive - "Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre" on the U.S. Use of Napalm-Like White Phosphorus Bombs

Democracy Now! | U.S. Broadcast Exclusive - "Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre" on the U.S. Use of Napalm-Like White Phosphorus Bombs: "Almost one year after these allegations came to light, a new documentary claims to provide fresh evidence of the use of chemical weapons in Fallujah. In the film, eyewitnesses and ex-US soldiers say white phosphorus bombs were used in Fallujah. Rai says this amounts to the illegal use of chemical weapons and says they were used indiscriminately against civilian populations.

In a North American broadcast exclusive, we bring you an excerpt from the film.

* 'Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre,' a documentary by Sigfrido Ranucci and Maurizio Torrealta. Broadcast today on the Italian state television network RAI.

- Download the full documentary: 'Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre'
- Rai 24 News website"
- Fight To Survive

The End Justifies the Means: Cheney's 'Dark Side' Is Showing

Cheney's 'Dark Side' Is Showing:

"That's the world these folks operate in, and so it's going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective.'"

If you want to know in a nutshell what is the problem with Amercian ideological discourse, it springs from a simple ethical blunder swallowed by almost every side, a pragmatic belief that the end justifies the means.

Torture becomes palatable when seen in light of the 'greater good' of 'democracy and freedom'. But, wait a minute, was not 'democracy and freedom' designed to avoid uncivilized practices like torture in the first place? What is democracy and freedom without justice for all?

Now we have a Vice, which openly articulates what everyone knows; that in order to achieve their 'objectives' the Americans have been willing to overide any moral boundary, including geneva conventions and international agreements concerning wars of aggression, while keeping the ordinary American uninformed about the truth.

We are under a government which justifies and practices evil. It is not guided by virtue, the rule of law, justice and truth but uses its power to serve the interest of an wealthy elite at any cost.

Los Angeles Times: Lying with intelligence

Los Angeles Times: Lying with intelligence: "
When it came to selling an invasion of Iraq it had wanted to launch before 9/11, the Bush White House systematically ignored the best available intelligence from U.S. agencies or any other reliable source.

It should be remembered that while Bush and his gang were successfully scaring the wits out of us about the alleged Iraq-Al Qaeda alliance, U.N. weapons inspectors were on the ground in Iraq. Weapons inspectors Hans Blix and 2005 Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei promised they could finish scouring the country if given a few more months. But instead, they were abruptly chased out by an invasion necessitated by what the president told us was a 'unique and urgent threat.'

Bush exploited the worldwide horror felt over the 9/11 attacks to justify the Iraq invasion. His outrageous claim, repeated over and over before and after he dragged the nation into an unnecessary war, was never supported by a single piece of credible evidence. The Bush defense of what is arguably the biggest lie ever put over on the American people is that everyone had gotten the intelligence wrong. Not so at the highest level of U.S. intelligence, as DITSUM No. 044-02 so clearly shows. How could the president not have known?
"

USATODAY.com - Bush declares: 'We do not torture'

USATODAY.com - Bush declares: 'We do not torture':

"'There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again,' Bush said. 'So you bet we will aggressively pursue them but we will do so under the law.'

He declared, 'We do not torture.'"

And Bush is not a liar either.

If his administration does not torture he has nothing to worry about because the bill in congress just establishes that.

Why is he and his vice president opposing the ban on torture if his administration does not torture, and is not planning to continue doing it by playing, yet once more, the fear card?

How to Keep the Demon of Eugenics at Bay.

Echoes of eugenics movement in stem cell debate:

"Burke said in an interview that the dark history of eugenics is worth more than a footnote. A look at the California eugenics movement, she said, adds some new dimensions to 'today's excitement about stem cell research.'

'Both are linked to a conviction that tampering with heredity or our genetic makeup can lead to solutions for a broad number of problems, both individual and social,' she said.

Behind the advocacy of stem cells, she said, 'is this dream of living in a disease-free future,' one of the early threads that made up Goethe's own worldview.

That's not to say that stem cell research advocates are closet eugenicists. But Burke said it's important to bring out the historical facts -- one way of 'coming to grips with the fact that California has been at the center of this history.'

'Thirty percent of the documented sterilizations in the United States were done in California,' she said. 'There was a broad and diverse network of individuals and organizations in this state, from the early 20th century through the end of the century, advocating the idea that altering the genetic material of our state would allow for the true realization of the California dream.

'Of course everyone wants to have healthy babies. But what is healthy? What is a life worth living?' "

As we continue to face the threat of our own Brave New World it is good to keep in mind the lessons from history concerning ideological errors which corrupted entire 'civilized' societies; i.e. eugenics' appeal to intellectual elites.

Two reality checks should help us resist this temptation, and both are intimately linked to Christian teaching. First, life on earth is not an end in itself but a preparation for eternity. Second, every human life is inherently precious in virtue of it being made in God's image.

That means that the intrinsic value of human life can never be altered relative to accidental ccircumsntances, like wealth, education, age, health, intelligence, race, etc.

The only way to improve humanity is to make it more and more godly, more and more according to its original image, which has been revelead and restored to us in Jesus Christ.

Embrace Christ, follow his teaching and commandments and the power of the Brave New World will fade as darkness is disspelled by the power of light.

Rosa Parks - Christianity Today Magazine

Rosa Parks - Christianity Today Magazine: "Many find it ironic that a young man would beat a person who once fought for his freedom. What kind of social conditions would push someone to attack and rob an elderly woman?

I wouldn't say these young people are being pushed. Many people these days go astray by using drugs and attack people in order to get money. They are making those choices.

I regret that some people, regardless of race, are in such a state of mind that they would harm an older person. Too many of today's youth don't know who they are or where they have been. And therefore, they don't know where they're going.

I live in hope that things will be better. If we get to children at an early age and see that they get the proper guidance, then they will not fall into that behavior that is harmful to themselves and others."

The Ugly Face of Capitalism

They profit while the hungry die - Los Angeles Times:

"The Canadian government recognized this and last month increased the share of its food aid open to local and regional purchases from 10% to 50%. The U.S. is the only donor nation that still avoids local and regional purchases.

Congress nonetheless blocked the overdue reform. Why? The Iron Triangle — the nickname given the coalition of big agribusinesses, shipping companies and nongovernmental development and relief organizations, or NGOs, that lobbies for food aid. Big agribusinesses and shippers earn above-market profits from selling food aid and transoceanic shipping services to the government. They don't want to sacrifice those windfalls, not even to save lives."

When profit is set as the primary value, a Nation has been enslaved in the service of Mammon. That is the problem at the root of our current crisis. When politicians begin to put the well being of people, -all the people- not only wealthy Americans at the center of their policies, then and only then, will they be able to speak credibly about democracy and freedom. Else it will continue to be only propaganda and self deception.

The War Dead

Americans Contemplate War's Milestone - Los Angeles Times:

"In dozens of interviews across the country, sadness was a universal theme as people contemplated the loss of 2,000 American service members. Many also were angry — or anxious — as they talked about how long the war might go on. Some said the only way to honor the war dead was to finish the job that was started when the U.S. invaded Baghdad in March 2003."

The only way to honor "the war dead" (a much higher number on the Iraqui side than on the American side) is for the Bush administration to admit its crimes, and back off responsibly from its war of agression, so that no more soldiers die or kill in the pursuit of the crooked neo-conservative agenda, which even now is plotting to engage Iran and Syria.

Cheney for Torture

Cheney Plan Exempts CIA From Bill Barring Abuse of Detainees:

"'This is the first time they've said explicitly that the intelligence community should be allowed to treat prisoners inhumanely,' said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. 'In the past, they've only said that the law does not forbid inhumane treatment.' Now, he said, the administration is saying more concretely that it cannot be forbidden."

Why would a government commited to the ideals of democracy and freedom advocate exemptions to allow torture?

The problem of the double standard shows once more its ugly face. Human dignity is non negotiable. "Love your enemy" still holds. Christian supporters of the Bush administration should hold it accountable to Christian principles, or face the fact that they have been manipulated to conform to the spirit of this world in the name of "family values" which apply only to an American wealthy elite.

Let the Christian Right Bush administration hear it clearly. Torture is sin. The CIA should not have a free pass to immoral behaviour in the name of national security. Fear is not the foundation of freedom. It is a terrorist tactic, and must be rejected as such.

Creative Chaos? : "Aide Says FEMA Ignored Warnings"

Aide Says FEMA Ignored Warnings:

For 16 critical hours, Federal Emergency Management Agency officials, including former director Michael D. Brown, dismissed urgent eyewitness accounts by FEMA's only staffer in New Orleans that Hurricane Katrina had broken the city's levee system the morning of Aug. 29 and was causing catastrophic flooding, the staffer told the Senate yesterday.

Marty Bahamonde, sent to New Orleans by Brown, said he alerted Brown's assistant shortly after 11 a.m. that Monday with the "worst possible news" for the city: The Category 4 hurricane had carved a 20-foot breach in the 17th Avenue Canal levee.

"FEMA headquarters knew at 11 o'clock. Mike Brown knew at 7 o'clock. Most of FEMA's operational staff knew by 9 o'clock that evening. I don't know where that information went," said Bahamonde, a 12-year FEMA staffer who has worked full time since 2002 as a public affairs official.

President Bush, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Richard B. Myers, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have all said they were told that the city's flood walls did not fail until Aug. 30. They said they assumed that the worst was over during a day-long window when operations could have been launched to rush aid to the Louisiana Superdome or rescue more than 50,000 residents and tourists before streets and homes were flooded.

"President Bush, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Richard B. Myers, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have all said they were told that the city's flood walls did not fail until Aug. 30. They said they assumed that the worst was over during a day-long window when operations could have been launched to rush aid to the Louisiana Superdome or rescue more than 50,000 residents and tourists before streets and homes were flooded."

Is this conduct the result of incompetence alone? Or was it intentional criminal neglect?

There was a time when we could excuse these administration's failures as simple mistakes due to incompetence and would not entertain the possibility that high racking officials of the Bush administration could be lying to promote an agenda, when denying something unbelievable for us. But that trust has been long eroded. As with Iraq and the WMD, we later learned that there was intentional deception resulting from ideological planning, so it may be the case with the Katrina aftermath.

So, we need to ask if the destruction of the City of New Orleans, which the Bush Administration did nothing to stop, does not fit with the neoconservative ideology of creative chaos, (or 'destruction' 'revolution') i.e. the idea that destruction is the precondition for a reconstruction according to their radical-right agenda for the future (if you are not aware of what I am talking about read:
Flirting With Facism). This would also help to explain 9/11 'intelligence' failures, as providing the ocassion to begin to practice the notion of creative chaos at a great scale level.

You may think that I am making things up, but ever since vietnam, I have not known any other administration with as much chaos related to their failures. Is this an accident or is it ideologically driven?

It is scary to think that people with such a mentality would be ruling the USA, but it is a thought which cannot be discarded out of hand anymore.
The German People did not realize the mess the got into until it was too late, are we willing to take the risk by ignoring the signs?

Reality Strikes Again: "Oil For Dummies"

Missteps Hamper Iraqi Oil Recovery - Los Angeles Times:

"Current and former Iraqi oil officials expressed disappointment, frustration and anger at the U.S. performance.

They said that rather than tapping Iraqi state oil company officials, the U.S. program was overseen by American officials with little experience in the oil industry. In an interview, one senior U.S. official managing part of the restoration effort jokingly described his knowledge level as 'Oil for Dummies.'

Iraqi officials also said KBR relied too heavily on foreign contractors, conducted lengthy, unnecessary studies and failed to deliver promised equipment. They acknowledged that Iraq needed to spend more on its oil industry but wondered why the U.S. investment had not had more of an effect."
. . .

The parts will arrive perhaps by next summer, KBR officials told him.

Ibraheem said he had expected more.

"Frankly speaking, I am not satisfied with KBR's work. What I saw from KBR, their performance is not what we had expected. We heard a lot about KBR, but we're not satisfied.

"The results have meant nothing for us."

Chosing Our Babies

The Abortion Debate No One Wants to Have. By Patricia E. Bauer: "The abortion debate is not just about a woman's right to choose whether to have a baby; it's also about a woman's right to choose which baby she wants to have."

There is a lot of pressure against parenting in our society.

To be a parent, you first have to overcome the presure of selfishness that defines children as a hindrance at best.

Once the child is concieved, comes the pressure of making sure that the child has no potential dissabilities, or has the right sex.

After birth, comes the pressures of looks and wealth which grow with time and the pressure of socialization performance at school which will define the value of the child based on her ability to conform to the arbitrary tests of "success" imposed by our society.

With the advances in genetic engenering and our growning abilities to expand the range of choice, surely the amount of pressure to use that power will increase at all levels, even to chose features like race, height, eye color, atheletic performance and intelligence.

The potential for the engeniering of a society in which every individual conforms to the specific pattern that is perceived the best, (i.e. The eugenic dream come true) is drawing nearer and nearer to us.

Our choices are bound by our values. When our values are wrong our choices will not be right. Our posmodern society acknowledges no standard to discriminate between right and wrong, but power in the hands of whoever excercises it. (We are back to square minus one "might makes right" in ethics) If we link the implications of these two features of our spiritual situation we may recognize the potential abyss we are approaching fast. (remember Natzi Germany)

We have learned to value the life of a suffering or dissable person as "not worth living" as if we knew what we are talking about.

This is just plain prejudice, based on wrong values.
The mystery of life is much to great for us to pass judgment over which life is or not worth living.

As the article quoted well presents, there is a whole range of life experience that is conveniently left out of the equation by prejudice and pressure. It would be wiser for us to trust the giver of life in our attitudes towards what we are willing to consider a life "worth living" before it is too late and we wake up living or being put to death in a "Brave New World" of our own making.

Manufactured Lifelessness : How Technology May Empoverish Life

Beethoven's Paper Trail - New York Times:

I had to spend a few weeks earlier this year looking down from my window at Christo's orange hangings in Central Park, and got back from them nothing but a sense of manufactured lifelessness.

"I worry that further withdrawal of the body will increasingly depersonalize creativity in our computerized age. It is already a given that many young architects can't draw, relying on circuitry to do their imaging for them. Nor can many of them model, never having built things with their hands as children, and felt the pliancy and fragility of structures, the interrelationship of empty space and solid mass. Recently my wife and I bought a country house designed by just such an architect. It looked great until we discovered that the main floor sagged in the middle because it lacked the kind of central support that a child, 40 years ago, would have sensed was necessary in the foundation.

Writing does not, of course, rate high on the tactile scale of things. But a screen of glass impregnated with pixels now gleams in front of practically every young person who wishes to commit words to - I was going to say paper, but will avoid the anachronism. Today's words, dit-ditted downward, flash off somewhere at the speed of light and assemble themselves in electronic limbo. Seen through the glass darkly, they look seductively perfect, every character proportional, every paragraph in alignment. Why mess around with them? In any case, if their orthography is not quite correct, a default 'word processor' (ghastly phrase) will alter them to its liking."

Arquitecs who cannot draw, teachers who can not think, students who cannot write or add. Children who can not imagine. Is there anything in common among all the above?

Yes, technology is ready to provide the crotch that may keep us all artificially producing above the mediocrity line under which we thrive. But there is a price to pay, a chunk of life, the beauty of the soul will be diminished.

At the end the most important things in life will not be blogs, emails, Power point presentations, jpg or doc files. Rather, It will be things like, the hand written diaries, the poems, the drawings, the music, the great meal, the conversation with a friend, the thoughts flowing from a loving heart living at its fullest.

Technology is great as a tool, but a tool is only as good as the purpose it helps to achieve. Let technology be the servant not the master, do not let it impose artificial limits to your life, rather put it to service to open new doors that lie beyond technology itself. An imitation may be a good thing, but it is never as good as the real thing. Let us go for the best.

Thank God for the Internet. Why I do not Trust US Press as an Unbiased Factual Source Any More

The Screwing of Cynthia McKinney By Greg Palast, AlterNet :

"Months before the 2000 presidential elections, the offices of Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Katherine Harris ordered the removal of 90,000 citizens from the voter rolls because they were convicted felons . . . and felons can�t vote in Florida. There was one problem: 97 percent of those on the list were, in fact, innocent.

They weren�t felons, but they were guilty . . . of not being white. Over half the list contained names of non-whites. I�m not guessing: I have the list from out of the computers of Katherine Harris� office -- and the �scrubbed� voter�s race is listed with each name.

And that�s how our President was elected: by illegally removing tens of thousands of legal African American voters before the race.

But you knew that . . . at least you did if you read the British papers -- I reported this discovery for the Guardian of London. And I reported again on the nightly news. You saw that . . . if you live in Europe or Canada or South America.

In the USA, the story ran on page zero. Well, let me correct that a bit. The Washington Post did run the story on the fake felon list that selected our President -- even with a comment under my byline. I wrote the story within weeks of the election, while Al Gore was still in the race. The Post courageously ran it . . . seven months after the election.

The New York Times ran it . . . well, never, even after Katherine Harris confessed the scam to a Florida court after she and the state were successfully sued by the NAACP.

So, I can�t say the New York Times always makes up the news. Sometimes the news just doesn�t make it."

At BBC Television, we had Florida�s computer files and documents, marked �confidential� -- stone-cold evidence showing how the vote fix was deliberately crafted by Republican officials. Not a single major U.S. paper asked for the documents � not from the state of Florida nor from the BBC. Only one U.S. Congressperson asked for the evidence and made it public: Cynthia McKinney of Atlanta.

Many years ago, a friend at the university commented to me on how weak the American Press reporting was.

I did not take him seriously.

Later, in England, I meet an Indian student and commented to him that I was reading CNN on the Internet. He openned his eyes in disbelief that I would still listen to American Press. I asked, why? He said that it was controlled by particular interest, and did not tell the truth. I resisted to believe.

It was only after the fiasco of the reporting of the non existen WMD and the non-reporting of the Downing Street Memo, that I was finally forced to face the facts.

I was under the spell of "all the president men's" success story, where American journalism would risk anything for fullfilling their democratic mission of keeping the public well informed. But, regretabbly I have had to face the reality that now such is certainly not the case.

Of course once you have been burnt by trusting professionals in a field with such powers, one becomes suspicious of all media. Is any one telling the truth? I am being guilty of conspiracy theory paranoia? or is it true that voices of dissent in the USA are ably disabled through effective mass propaganda and character assessination?

The more I read, the more I become convinced that that is the case. That is why every time I found some new piece of evidence of media deception, in my Internet browsing I post it in this blog. Because I do not want to be the victim of ideological blindness. I want the truth, where ever it may lead. And so far it is leading me to conclude that the USA government and the mainstream media are not to be trusted, but to represent their own vested interest. Bill O'reilly's illusion of 'fair an balance' is not only his. It is widely held accross the spectrum of American Press Opinion, which not always deals with reporting fairly both sides of an issue, and has been instrumental in misleading the American public with ideologically loaded mis-information.

I want truth. If I cannot get it, at least I will not stop with the official mis-information. Now we have the Internet to search for the other sides of these equations.

How To End The War by Paul Craig Roberts

How To End The War by Paul Craig Roberts: "There still is a way to bring reality to the Bush administration. The public has the Internet. Is the antiwar movement well enough organized to collect via the Internet signatures on petitions for impeachment, perhaps one petition for each state? Millions of signatures would embarrass Bush before the world and embarrass our elected Representatives for their failure to act."

Is anybody out there listening?
The Internet is our last hope to generate awareness of the dangers this administration is fostering upon our future. We need to start and support the "No More War" movement.

The patriot acts: Why we should be Worry.

The Police State Is Closer Than You Think by Paul Craig Roberts:

"President Bush claims the power to set aside habeas corpus and to dispense with warrants for arrest and with procedures that guarantee court appearance and trial without undue delay. Today in the US, the executive branch claims the power to arrest a citizen on its own initiative and hold the citizen indefinitely. Thus, Americans are no longer protected from arbitrary arrest and indefinite detention."

This statement is true. And we should take the situation more seriously. Have you heard about Army Chaplain James Yee? He was wrongly accused and emprisoned without any of legal protections we take for granted. His crime? serving as chaplain in Guantanamo, and informing about the complaints of prisoners for abuses,
especially those regarding the handling of the Koran.

You may read about it here: Fmr. Army Chaplain James Yee on the Abuse of Prisoners at Guantanamo, His Wrongful Imprisonment and Anti-Muslim Sentiment in the Military

This is what is at stake:

When the protective features of the law are removed, law becomes a weapon. Habeas corpus, due process, the attorney-client privilege, no crime without intent, and prohibitions against torture and ex post facto laws are the protective features that shield the accused. These protective features are being removed by zealotry in the "war against terrorism."

The damage terrorists can inflict pales in comparison to the loss of the civil liberties that protect us from the arbitrary power of law used as a weapon. The loss of law as Blackstone�s shield of the innocent would be catastrophic. It would mean the end of America as a land of liberty. October 8, 2005

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Bush calls for patience on Iraq

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Bush calls for patience on Iraq: "'The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbour them because they're equally as guilty of murder.'"

I have patience on Iraq, I have no patience with Bush's double standard.

There is only one distinction willingly made by the United States, no act of terror will be so named, regardless of how immoral, or destructive as long as it can be seen to work according to alleged American interest.

The illegal invasion of Iraq; the torture of war prisoners, the disregard of Geneva conventions to deal with 'terrorist', The use of depleted uranium bombs, the disregard for innocent civilian victims of the war, (not even caring to count their numbers), the lies and propaganda campaign, are all acts, and support of, terrorist tactics. Nothing has furthered more the cause of extremits in the middle east than Bush' war on terror.

The US Government will never find peace without justice. For as long as it helds to a double standard; one for 'us', another for 'them'; one for our "freedom fighters", and another for the rest of the world, there will be people ( 'insurgents' and 'terrorist') willing to sacrifice their lives to oppose such inmoral abusive behavior.

The Right to Live in a World Where Not Everything Goes

The Right to Die - New York Times: "Oregonians voted in favor of the Death With Dignity Act in 1994, and three years later they voted against repeal. The Oregon law allows terminally ill people who are likely to die within six months to receive drugs to end their lives. When John Ashcroft, a longtime opponent of assisted suicide, became attorney general in 2001, he issued an edict that doctors who prescribe drugs that are used to commit suicide can be prosecuted under the federal Controlled Substances Act. The state of Oregon and a group of terminally ill patients challenged this Ashcroft directive and won."

"Opponents of assisted suicide have never been able to persuade Congress to outlaw assisted suicide directly. In the absence of a Congressional law, Mr. Ashcroft had no authority to interfere with the decision of Oregon's voters."

It is happening before our eyes. As the difference between right and wrong is no longer a matter of ethical principle but of political consensus and majority vote, 'Thou shall do no murder' is dropped to the trash can of religious opinion.

There are worst evils than temporal pain.
There is no mercy in terminating life to avoid temporal suffering. Life is more than avoiding suffering. True mercy comes from him who willingly suffered pain upon the cross. And, paradoxically pain may draw us nearer to him, as so many mystics and saints often told us, especially as we become aware of the truth of our mortality in that precious time nearing our death. But that is a truth drowned with pain killers, hidden from the eyes of our hedonistic and narcisitic society.

He said: come unto me all ye that travail and are heavy laden. I will give you rest. In the world you will suffer affliction but trust me I have conquered the world.
In Oregon the law says it is ok for me to kill you, or help you kill yourself, if I am a Dr. and perceive that your burden is to heavy for you to carry or for me to contemplate. Whose word will you trust?

This is just the beginning of the tyranny of political correctness. And we wonder why Americans are so comfortable waging an inmoral war of aggression. The reason is simple, from Democrats to Republicans there is no real moral compass, but only economic interest and power.

When there is no difference between truth and falsehood but personal interest and majority vote, it is just a matter of time for us to find ourselves living in a world where anything goes.