Docudharma - Recommended Diaries

No More Excuses

buhdydharma — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:51:18 GMT

I often compare politicians to weathervanes, with political pressures of various kinds and degrees as the winds that turn them.

But there is an interesting phenomenon to be observed with our national weathervanes. They only seem to turn to the right. Just as Obama said of McCain during the election, it must be a problem with their bearings. But whatever it is, it is definitely a problem. Perhaps the problem has to do with what kind of wind is blowing them.

Senator Dianne Feinstein recently came right out and said it:

Now Feinstein has hit back at the criticism from the left in an article about lefty groups targeting Dems for waffling on key components of health care reform:
"I do not think this is helpful. It doesn't move me one whit," she said. "They are spending a lot of money on something that is not productive."

She will not listen to the wind blowing from the Left.

It is apparent that right now, they are not being blown by the Will of The People.

It is apparent that right now, they are being blown by industry lobbyists.

And obviously, by definition, industry lobbyists are trained professionals when it comes to blowing politicians.

Even if we Lowly Citizens did have the access to the politicians that the lobbyists buy, we could not blow politicians as well they, with their experience and training and exotic tools of the trade. They have been in the business of blowing politicians for years, They know just how to stroke their....egos, and they obvious have a firm grip....on their work.

And as we all know, it is hard to get the attention of someone who is being so expertly blown. Something explosive will have to happen, methinks, before We The People have a chance to get their attention. Or maybe it is just the fact that we as an allegedly Free People are just uncomfortable kneeling before our employees in supplication, unlike the paid professionals in DC.

But The People HAVE spoken.

Along with the canard of "We don't have the votes," one of the favorite EXCUSES of the weathervane politicians is that The People 'get to lobby through elections.' While the lobbyists get to blow the pols every day... We The People only get to inform our politicians of the Will of the People every two years, our ONLY input, the ONLY pressure we get to apply, according to the pols who are being blown by the lobbyists daily, is through elections.

Well hey guys, we just HAD an election, and guess what? We The People SPOKE.

The Old Way doesn't work, We want Change.

Thje Republican Way doesn't work, We want Change.

The Way you are doing business....getting blown by lobbyists and ignoring your employers doesn't work for us anymore.

And if you keep ignoring the pressure from We The People, from your employers, We The People will fire you.

The lobbyists may control the money for your campaigns, but if you recall that money is only used for one thing....to buy our votes....during elections....

Which we just had....and used to send you a message.

And which are coming up again awfully damn soon.

So pull out of that meeting with the lobbyist and take a minute and think.

All the money and strokes they give you won't get you jackshit when you are voted out of office.

All it will get you is a lobbyist job.

And then YOU will be the one on your knees.

No More Excuses.

Give We The People what we want, what we elected you to give us, or we WILL fire you....and you will spend the rest of your careers not being the ones being blown, but being the ones doing the blowing.

The People have Spoken. Clearly. You now have 60 votes.

No More Excuses.

Red Pill blogs in the American Matrix

ANKOSS — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:00:48 GMT

Never has so much accurate and impartial information been so thoroughly ignored by the general public as in the current econmic downturn. There are numerous sites on the Internet that have been accurately predicting the steady decline of the world economy while government cheerleaders and corrupt "journalists" have been encouraging the public to smoke green shoots. As a public service, I will post a few links that are the equivalent of the "red pill" in the Matrix.

The Automatic Earth

Zero Hedge

James Howard Kunstler

Naked Capitalism

Stirling Newberry at Firedog Lake

Jesse's Cafe Americain

Calculated Risk

If you have the least interest in understanding the magnitude and direction of the economic turmoil around us, you owe it to yourself to swallow the Red Pill and visit these sites. Otherwise, you will be trapped in a Matrix dream characterized by this ridiculous headline from today's New York Times business section:

"June Sales at Ford Fall Less Than G.M. or Chrysler"

By contrast, here is a quote from Cafe Americain that shows the attitude of the Red Pill blogs:

We are on the record in the opinion that the Obama economic team is ineffective, backward-thinking, compromised, and possibly corrupt. They are serving the corporate banks and not the people. They should be replaced starting with Larry Summers who is a Greenspan and Rubin crony and the core of failure on the team. Tim Geithner should follow to find better employment for his talents, possibly as a salesman of men's suits.

This 4th of July, "Give Peace a Chance"

jimstaro — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:44:59 GMT

The famous tune was penned by John Lennon and Yoko Ono 40 years ago this Saturday, July 4.

It was at a Montreal bed-in that the song was recorded. Those in attendance included Timothy Leary, Dick Gregory, Petula Clark, Derek Taylor, Murray the K and Allen Ginsberg. John Lennon played acoustic guitar and so did Tommy Smothers of the Smothers Brothers. Some of those names became part of the lyrics.

Find the lyrics and a video of Lennon performing the song, and celebrate the independence of our nation by remembering those who worked and continue to work tirelessly for peace.

And leave your thoughts on the message board at the NPR "All Songs Considered - The Blog"!

PEACE BROTHERS and SISTERS, WORLDWIDE!!

Into the Land of Bones

Rusty1776 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:04:09 GMT

One change makes you larger,
And one change makes you small,
And the ones Obama gives you, don't do anything at all.
Go ask Geithner, when he's ten feet tall.

Bring a shovel with you, he's WAY down in that 10 trillion dollar rabbit hole no Obamabots want to talk about, he's down there with the Mad Hatters of Wall Street and the Cheshire Cats of the Fed, he's down there high-fiving his Goldman Sachs pals, they're on a roll, they've been raking in market bubble billions and cashing in when those bubbles have exploded ever since the 1920's.

Mad Hatters, Cheshire Cats, whacko wingnuts and Goldman Sachs.

Are we having fun yet?
Speaking of rabbit holes, Afghanistan's is a prize winner. That one's as deep as it gets, it's been swallowing up armies since Alexander the Great. Armies go into that land of bones, but they don't come out. It's where empires go to die. Someone should tell Obama that.

And if you go chasing rabbits,
And you know you're going to fall,
Tell 'em some hookah-smoking bloggers have given you the call,
To call bullshit, when change is just small.

When the men on that chessboard . . .

Get up and tell you where to go,
And you're lost in all those dimensions,
And your mind is moving low,
Go ask Alice, I think she'll know.

What will she tell you? "This is getting curiouser and curiouser!" That's what she'll tell you.

When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead,
And the White Knight is talking backwards . . .

And the Red Queen's off her head . . .

Remember what the dormouse said,

Feed your head. Feed your head.

Feed it some reality, Obamabots. Feed it some logic, feed it some proportion, feed it some truth. Here's some truth for you: this economy's a land of bones, it's been a land of bones ever since Reagan and his RePugs handed it over to those fucking vultures on Wall Street. They led us into this land of bones, but we don't have to stay here.

We aren't going to get meaningful change
unless we generate maximum pressure from the left.
On Obama. On Democrats in Congress.
It has to be unrelenting.

Unrelenting.

Featured Video's: At Free Documentary.org

jimstaro — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:58:46 GMT

Download Free Political Documentaries And Watch Many Interesting, Controversial Free Documentary Films

FEATURED VIDEOS: At Freedocumentaries.org, you can stream interesting and provocative documentary films for free!

Like These:

Hacking Democracy: Trailer

This must watch, HBO featured, shocking documentary explores voter fraud in today´s electronic voting machines and how they have alterred past elections. This film is especially important to watch given the upcoming US Election. Think your vote counts? Well, it depends...

The War on Democracy: Trailer

"The War on Democracy" is a 2007 documentary film directed by Christopher Martin and John Pilger. Focusing on the political state of Latin America, the film is a rebuke of both the United States' intervention in foreign countries' domestic politics, and its war on terrorism.

Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers: Trailer

War for profit? Are companies profiting from the war in Iraq while further endangering the lives of American soldiers and innocent civilians?

The Road To Guantanamo: Trailer

What would happen if you were on vacation in Afghanistan and were accused wrongly of being a terrorist and taken to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? Winner of the Silver Bear at the Berlin International Film Festival, "The Road to Guantanamo" is the terrifying first-hand account and recreation of three innocent British citizens who were held there for two years. Charges were never brought against them.

And many many many more!!

Gee, wouldn't a coup overthrowing Obama be swell

MinistryOfTruth — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:04:26 GMT

Crossposted at Daily Kos

Apparently, Rush Limbaugh just could not let Michael Sheuer win the worst person of the week award.

" If we had any good luck, Honduras would send some people here and help us get our government back. "

Why yes, wouldn't we be lucky if a coup overthrew the American government, disrupting millions of lives and the important issues facing our nation.

Gee, wouldn't that be just swell.

That way, Conservatives who are so unappealing they can not get elected can get their Government back. What were we the people thinking? Didn't we know that this is a center-right nation?

I guess the only thing that can even compete with " The only thing that can save America is a massive attack by al Qaeda. " is hoping for a coup.

And what kind of coup would please Herr Limbaugh? A military coup? A bloodless coup? A violent coup? Would it be okay if we deport the President like they did in Honduras? Or maybe we need something a little more drastic?

When did " I hope he fails " become " I hope he is overthrown ? "

And I wonder who would replace Barack Obama as President?

I'm sure Rush has an idea.

So, according to Rush, we Americans would be "lucky" if a coup overthrew our Democratically elected Government, throwing our nation into havoc and harming our recovery from the clusterfuck left behind by, that's right, the Conservatives.

Is it fuck patriotism week and nobody told me?

What a way to celebrate our nation's independance.

Stewart smacks down Sheuer and a call to KO for a "Special Comment"

MinistryOfTruth — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:51:49 GMT

Crossposted at Daily Kos

" The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States. "

If this was said by a Democrat, Progressive or Liberal, or even an independant or moderate, that person would have been publicly tarred and feathered and then ran out on a rail by Fox News and the rest of the Right Wing leaning corporate media.

But instead, it was said on Fox News airtime, during the Glenn Beck show, and not a the only major media outlet to say peep about it was John Stewart's Daily Show.

Jon Stewart flat out destroyed Beck and Sheuer for this, and I would hope you do the same, Keith Olbermann.

Link here http://www.thedailyshow.com/vi...

Quote John Stewart

" Is there any way you can YELL LOUD ENOUGH at your TV for the people inside to hear you, because I tried real hard last night. "

You heard it here folks, Jon Stewart just gave his full endorsement for YELLING LOUDER!

Still, this is not enough.

We need to contact authorities, force pundits and politicians to take a stand on this, and boycott Fox News and their Sponsors.

Dear Keith Olbermann, we need a special comment on this, please.
First of all, if you can, please donate to support MediaMatters.org. Without their non-profit watchdog organization our Democracy of We The People would be a much poorer place.

Several Youtube videos were posted of this interview, and one of them has generated 72,807 hits in one day. That video, and Michael Sheuer's statement can be found here.

Of course, this is the video and quote that I take issue with.

At :24 seconds into this video
Scheuer: " The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States. Because it's going to take a grassroots, bottom up pressure, because these politicians prize their office, prize the praise of the media and the Europeans. It's an absurd situation, again. Only Osama can execute an attack that will force Americans to demand a government protect them effectively, consistently and with as much violence as necessary. "

This statement does not only deserve a Worst Person in the World, it deserves a full Special Comment and an in-depth report on who said this, who allowed it to be said and why it is such a despicable thing to even think.

The memo that is being formed is so simple even a climate change denier can figure it out.

1. Obama is making us less safe

2. When a terrorist attack happens Republicans will say "Told you so"

And while that train of thought in and of itself is despicable it doesn't hold a candle to the idea proposed by Mr. Sheuer, which seems to be.

1. Obama is MORE DANGEROUS than Osama bin Laden

2. If OBL attacks Americans will stop supporting President Obama and the Democrats, and once Republicans are re-elected to power because of the fear of the public, we can go back to hunting Osama GOP style for the obvious good of all.

After 6 months of proposing every Conspiracy Theory possible about President Barack Obama in order to quell his popularity, from The B girl, to paling around with terrorists, to the birth certificate nonsense, to socialism, fascism, racism, reverse-racism and whatever new lie that Fox News can invent on the spot with help from the GOP and claim as actual news, one would wonder why a certain small percentage of the population would rather go protest how Democracy works on the 4th of July rather than celebrate their independance, but that is neither here nor there.

The purpose Fox News has is to hold a four year long swiftboat campaign to sink the Democratic party, and it doesn't matter what they must say or do in order to achieve this.

Of course, Glenn beck has already had the opportunity to stand up and condemn this terrible statement since he was sitting right next to the person who said it, but that would require an adult brain which Glenn Beck obviously lacks. If Glenn Beck was the great patriot and defender of liberty that he claims to be he would have leapt out of his chair and said something in defense of the thousands of American lives that would be lost in another massive attack by Osama bin Laden.

Micheal Sheuer, after saying that America needed a massive attack in order to be saved, issued a lame half apology on washingtonindependant.com where no one will probably see it, and Fox News didn't even do that. Rather, they just moved along to their next crime against journalism in their effort to create a more violent, partisan and uneducated world.

Glenn Beck, of course, did not object to this statement when it was spoken or on his program the next day. Instead, Glenn gave us all that glazed eye big smile that shows he doesn't know what is really going on, but he is certain of what he would like to think it is. I do not know if Glenn is aware of what was said in his presence or how truly disgusting a statement it was, but that does not matter, because the person who made that statement shares Glenn's sick view that the world is coming to an end, and as long as you agree with the Conservatives in principle they don't care what you do or say, as long as it makes Conservatives look right.

As Michael Sheuer went about mentally sacrificing thousands of innocent Americans so that we might be safer from the perceived evil here in America (re: the RW view of President Obama and the Democratic Party), Glenn Beck just sat there like a bobblehead doll who has obviously let the important facts go over his head while Michael Sheuer basically hoped out loud for the deaths of American citizens so that a more violent, security orientated America could be imposed upon our nation.

I will allow others to interpret for themselves what meaning Mr. Sheuer was trying to convey when he called for "a government (that) protect(s) them effectively, consistently and with as much violence as necessary."

This horrible statement made on Fox News airwaves should not be allowed to disappear into the fog of the 24 hour news cycle. Fox News and the Republican party should be taken to task on this, and we should demand that they disavow this terrible and traitorous statement.

Just imagine the roar from the Conservative media if a Democrat or Liberal has said

" I hope Osama bin Laden attacks America so President Obama can reap the public support that President Bush enjoyed after 9/11 "

It Does Count If You Are A Republican. Whether the Republicans want to live in reality or not is not my problem. Once they start wishing out loud for terrorist attacks to stop the Democratically President of America it becomes everyone's problem.

To Glenn Beck, who loves our founding fathers so without clearly understanding why, I submit this quote from Benjamin Franklin.

"Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither."

And to Michael Sheuer, you're apology is pathetic. Why don't you go back on Glenn Beck's show and really apologize?

Hopefully, the rest of the media, as well as the rest of the nation which you would so gladly sacrifice will have called you to task before then.

Contact info for Glenn Beck
Call toll-free nationwide: 888-727-BECK
E-Mail me@glennbeck.com
stu@glennbeck.com
cbrady@glennbeck.com
Link to this diary in order to get a twitter campaign going to spread this video farther

Contact info provided by DK user cfk
Street Address 1211 Avenue of the Americas
City New York
Country United States
Postal/Zip Code NY 10036-8795
Telephone +1 888 369 4762
Telefax +1 212 462 6127
Email
yourquestions@foxnews.com
viewerservices@foxnews.com
comments@foxnews.com
foxaroundtheworld@foxnews.com
Foxnewsonline@foxnews.com
www.foxnews.com/

A list of FOX's Sponsors
h/t to boofdah for the link

Contact the Department of Homeland Security
To reach the Secretary
Secretary Janet Napolitano
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528
Citizen Line
* Operator Number: 202-282-8000
* Comment Line: 202-282-8495

Call the FCC
Phone: 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322)
E-Mail the FCC
fcc.gov/complaints.htm

Beyond Yoo: Army Field Manual Allows Torture with Drugs

Valtin — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 04:24:58 GMT

Adapted from original post at Firedoglake

Sometimes people can be too smart for their own good.

According to recent news stories (see Spencer Ackerman's article in the Washington Independent), the Obama administration task force on interrogations is likely to recommend "small, mixed-agency teams for interviewing the most important terrorist targets." Moreover, according to former Deputy Attorney General and Intelligence Science Board member Philip Heymann:

... interrogators from across the military, CIA, and FBI, would be charged with creating a "syllabus" of best interrogation practices that fall within the boundaries of the U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogations, which complies with the Geneva Conventions.

Obama's reliance on the most recent iteration of the Army Field Manual, which went into effect in September 2006, has been the subject of a number of critiques by myself, and by human rights organizations, including Physicians for Human Rights, Center for Constitutional Rights, and Amnesty International. Its Appendix M allows for use of psychological torture techniques, including isolation, sleep deprivation, and partial sensory deprivation.

The main text of the AFM also changed the wording from the previous Army Field Manual as regards the use of drugs on prisoners, and did so in a way that allowed greater latitude for drugs that cause disruption of the senses and temporary psychosis. You'd think this was the brainchild of someone like John "Crush the Testicles" Yoo, but you'd be wrong.

In Yoo's famous memo, dated March 14, 2003, addressed to to William Haynes, then General Counsel at the Department of Defense, Yoo supposedly was answering Haynes/DoD's questions concerning "both domestic and international law that might be applicable to the conduct of... interrogations" of "alien unlawful combatants held outside the United States." Upon public release of the memo, it seemed to many as if Yoo were advocating an "anything goes" attitude towards torture and interrogations.

Among other instances where Yoo stretched or distorted the law to facilitate use of coercive and heretofore illegal forms of interrogation, Yoo examined the use of mind-altering drugs on prisoners. He noted that in the law against torture (emphasis added):

... [18 U.S.C.] section 2340(2)(B) provides that prolonged mental harm, constituting torture, can be caused by "the administration or application or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality." The statute provides no further definition of what constitutes a mind-altering substance. The phrase "mind-altering substances" is found nowhere else in the U.S. Code nor is it found in dictionaries. It is, however, a commonly used synonym for drugs.

Yoo twists and massages the possible meanings of the law to make it say what he wants:

For drugs or procedures to rise to the level of "disrupt[ing] profoundly the senses or personality," they must produce an extreme effect. And by requiring that they be "calculated" to produce such an effect, the statute requires that the defendant has consciously designed the acts to produce such an effect....
By requiring that the procedures and the drugs create a profound disruption, the statute requires more than that the acts "forcibly separate" or "rend" the senses or personality. Those acts must penetrate to the core of an individual's ability to perceive the world around him, substantially interfering with his cognitive abilities, or fundamentally alter his personality.

According to Yoo, the "profound" nature of the disruption indicated could only be found in mental states similar to "drug-induced dementia," "brief psychotic disorder," obsessive-compulsive disorder, or induced suicidal or self-mutilating behavior. Even more, he notes that the use of "truth drugs," "where no physical harm or mental suffering was apparent," was rejected by the State parties to the UN Convention Against Torture as "not viewed as amounting to torture per se."

This was not Yoo's first defense of the use of drugs in interrogation. An article by Jeff Stein at CQ Quarterly on April 4, 2008 cited earlier memos, as early as January and February 2002. The famous August 1, 2002 Bybee memo (not the recent OLC release), authorizing the use of torture, was actually written by Yoo, with the help of Vice President Cheney's chief advisor, David Addington, and White House counsel Timothy Flanigan. My quotes from the Yoo March 2003 memo above were copied almost line for line by Yoo from the earlier Bybee-Yoo 8/02 memo.

Out Yoo-ing Yoo

The use of drugs in interrogations by U.S. agencies is, unfortunately, nothing new, but it is illegal. In the rewrite of the Army Field Manual, supervised by Rumsfeld right-hand man, Stephen Cambone, the Pentagon changed the wording around the use of drugs in interrogations to prohibit "drugs that may induce lasting or permanent mental alteration or damage." Previously, the former AFM had prohibited "chemically induced psychosis." So, unless that psychosis causes "lasting or permanent mental alteration or damage" -- something that is not typical with the use of psychotropic, hallucinogenic, or so-called "truth" drugs, like sodium amytal -- it's presumably allowed in the current AFM.

Oddly, Yoo's memos, which were written to provide supposed legal cover for the use of drugs and other forms of torture, appear to place the Army Field Manual's restrictions on the use of drugs out of sync with Yoo/Addington's legal justifications. Yoo would disallow the use of drugs that "cause profound mental harm," that "penetrate to the core of an individual's ability to perceive the world around him, substantially interfering with his cognitive abilities, or fundamentally alter his personality," and are calculated to that end -- a fairly stringent standard.

But the Army Field Manual only prohibits the use of drugs in interrogations which would cause "lasting or permanent mental alteration or damage," a much more permissive standard than "profound mental harm," especially when the latter is defined as something similar to "brief psychotic disorder" (per Yoo). Thus, when Cambone and Company, getting off on their oh-so-smart word games in the redraft of the AFM, removed the prohibition against "chemically induced psychosis" from the old AFM, and replaced it with their new formulation, then according to Yoo's own analysis, the Army Field Manual now allowed the drugging of prisoners in a manner that would amount to torture.

Perhaps this is yet another reason why the former chief legal counsel for the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center, Jonathan Fredman, told the Senate Armed Services committee that he was concerned that the current Army Field Manual might be vulnerable to documentation of torture by criteria of the UN's Istanbul Protocol. The latter is not a treaty or a binding document, but according to a Wikipedia article "is intended to serve as a set of international guidelines for the assessment of persons who allege torture and ill treatment, for investigating cases of alleged torture, and for reporting such findings to the judiciary and any other investigative body." (Note: I have used the Istanbul Protocol in my own forensic work, and the Wikipedia article is, in this instance, a good description of that document, an example of when Wikipedia works.)

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is conducting an Inspector General investigation on the drugging of detainees in DoD custody. (Note: I gave information to the OIG on the Army Field Manual changes noted above to one of their investigators after they contacted me earlier this year.) The intervention by the IG came at the behest of Senators Carl Levin (D-MI), Joe Biden (D-DE) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) who sent letters to "the CIA and Defense Department inspectors general calling for an investigation." The senators were reacting to a shocking March 2008 article by Joby Warrick in the Washington Post alleging use of drugs on "detainees." (See more in this article by Stephen Soldz. )

It's not known if, when complete, the report will be made public. A DoD member connected to that investigation did not return my request for information on its progress.

The ACLU has begun a campaign for accountabilty for those involved in the torture program. This campaign is not only about what happened in the Bush years. As the case of the Army Field Manual vividly demonstrates, accountability extends to the actions of politicians, medical personnel, and military and intelligence officers working today. The ACLU campaign has created a simple set of web tools that anyone can easily use to make their voices heard that torture is unacceptable, in any administration, at any time.

The torture issue stands at the heart of what America has been, where it is now, and what it will become. No one can be neutral on this issue. To do nothing is to allow the worst crimes to be done in our names.

Other posts online today, as part of a mini-blog storm on behalf of the ACLU's Accountablity Project:

See Emptywheel today for a detailed exploration of an autopsy report revealing death by torture in US custody.
drrational on another autopsy story documenting death by "enhanced interrogation techniques"
bmaz on torture and the Rule of Law.
Teacherken on Bob Hebert on torture.
Glenn Greenwald on NPR's inability to say "torture".

Update, Tuesday evening, adding on more bloggers for accountabilty:

mcjoan at Daily Kos: Accountability for Torture, Accountability for the Dead
digby: Looking in the Rearview Mirror
ACLU's Jameel Jaffer: Accountability for Torture
Christy Hardin Smith at FDL: Tortured Logic: A News Round-Up And The ACLU's Accountability Initiative
Daphne Eviatar at The Washington Independent: ACLU to Argue Against Use of Evidence Obtained Through Torture in Federal Court

Also there are three at ACLU Blog of Rights, from a religious point of view: by Rev. Scotty McClennan, by Arielle Gingold, and by Hussein Rashid.

And, from Andy Worthington...

When Torture Kills: Ten Murders In US Prisons In Afghanistan, by Andy Worthington

The prelude to two notorious murders - and, very possibly, three others - in the US prison at Bagram airbase began in the summer of 2002, when 14 soldiers from the 525th Military Intelligence Brigade at Fort Bragg arrived at the prison, led by Lt. Carolyn Wood, and were soon joined by six Arabic-speaking reservists from the Utah National Guard. Lt. Wood took over interrogations from a team led by an interrogator who later wrote a book about his experiences, The Interrogators, using the pseudonym Chris Mackey. This is how I described what happened next in The Guantánamo Files....

Andy has also posted a valuable story on the recent delay on the release of the CIA Inspector General report on CIA torture.

Also posted at Invictus

UN Official Demands Torture Accountability

Edger — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:09:05 GMT

Real News CEO Paul Jay talks with Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights about the Obama Administration doing everything they can do to "run away" from the whole issue of accountability for the premeditated, organized and institutionalized torture program of the Bush Administration, about the need for real transparency as opposed to the false claims of transparency from Obama while reports and information are held back or heavily redacted before release, and about demands now coming from UN human rights advocate Navi Pillay for holding accountable senior Bush Administration officials.

Also see:
Obama Vows to Deal With Torture, But His Pledge Doesn't Apply to the Bush Administration
by Jason Leopold

President Barack Obama just announced that the U.S. government "must stand against torture wherever it takes place," but it's clear that his pledge does not apply to torture committed by officials from the Bush administration.
To mark the 25th anniversary of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Obama quietly released a statement on Friday in which he said, "My administration is committed to taking concrete actions against torture and to address the needs of its victims."
Obama's statement left out his decision to "look forward, not backward" on the issue of Bush-era torture or how he has discouraged any investigation of former President George W. Bush, ex-Vice President Dick Cheney and other officials involved in sanctioning and practicing torture, brutal tactics that human groups claim killed at least 100 prisoners in U.S. custody.
[snip]
High-Minded Words
Taking office in January, Obama announced that his administration would not condone or practice torture, but he also opposed holding Bush administration officials accountable out of fear that his actions might be deemed vindictive. He has held to that position although Attorney General Eric Holder and CIA Director Leon Panetta both agreed that the near-drowning experience of waterboarding was torture.
Bush's Justice Department lawyers also approved a list of other torture techniques to be used against so-called "high-value" prisoners, including beatings, sleep deprivation for 11 consecutive days, placing insects inside a confinement box to induce fear, exposing detainees to extreme heat and cold, and shackling prisoners to the ceilings of their prison cells or in other painful "stress positions."
Under the Convention Against Torture, the clear record that the Bush administration used waterboarding and other brutal techniques should have triggered the United States to conduct a full investigation and to prosecute the offenders. If the United States refused, other nations would be obligated to act under the principle of universality.
Instead, Obama's high-minded declaration on Friday substituted words for action.

and
Everyone Should See "Torturing Democracy"
by Bill Moyers and Michael Winship

Honduras: Three Days To Glare At The Opposition

davidseth — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:05:30 GMT

A Woman Injured Monday In An Anti-Coup Demonstration

The Thursday confrontation between deposed Honduran president Manual Zelaya and the Roberto Micheletti and his Honduran military coup has been delayed until Saturday.

CNN reports:

Ousted Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya said Wednesday he will not return to his home country until at least Saturday, after a three-day international deadline to reinstate him.
Zelaya had said earlier he would return to Honduras on Thursday. Provisional Honduran President Roberto Micheletti said Tuesday that Zelaya would be arrested on multiple charges if he returns.
The Organization of American States passed a resolution early Wednesday saying that Zelaya should be returned to power within 72 hours. The United Nations unanimously passed a similar resolution Tuesday afternoon.

The refusal to reinstate Zelaya, according to the OAS, will cause it to suspend Honduras's OAS membership. Many OAS members have already withdrawn their ambassadors and cut off relations with the Micheletti coup government. The US has had nice words to support democracy, but has taken little if any action to restore Zelaya.

Unfortunately, and despite virtually universal condemnation, Micheletti continues to talk tough. In an interview with AP he continued his bravado and his defiance:

A defiant Roberto Micheletti said in an interview with The Associated Press late Tuesday that "no one can make me resign," defying the United Nations, the OAS, the Obama administration and other leaders that have condemned the military coup that overthrew President Manuel Zelaya....snip
[The OAS's three day] period for negotiation prompted Zelaya to announce he was putting off his plans to return home on Thursday until the weekend.
Micheletti vowed Zelaya would be arrested if he returns, even though the presidents of Argentina and Ecuador have signed on to accompany him along with the heads of the Organization of American States and the U.N. General Assembly.
Zelaya "has already committed crimes against the constitution and the law," said Micheletti, a member of Zelaya's Liberal Party who was named interim leader by Congress following the coup. "He can no longer return to the presidency of the republic unless a president from another Latin American country comes and imposes him using guns."

Micheletti, according to AP,

said he would not resign no matter how intense the international pressure becomes. He insisted Honduras would be ready to defend itself against any invasion.
...snip "No one can make me resign if I do not violate the laws of the country," Micheletti said. "If there is any invasion against our country, 7.5 million Hondurans will be ready to defend our territory and our laws and our homeland and our government."

Put another way, the confrontation is delayed. It is not diffused.

And the US government? What about its role in restoring democracy to Honduras? According to the New York Times,

[T]here were calls by Venezuela and Nicaragua for the United States to impose tough economic sanctions.
The United States, which provides millions of dollars in aid to Honduras and maintains a military base there, is the only country in the region that has not withdrawn its ambassador from Honduras. France and Spain have also recalled their ambassadors.
"There is a lot of concern about hurting the people of Honduras any more than they have already been hurt," said a senior administration official, referring to American reluctance impose sanctions. "There's enough trouble and poverty in Honduras already."

Does this mean that despite President Obama's words on Monday that, "We stand on the side of democracy, sovereignty and self-determination," the US will not take decisive action to restore democracy in Honduras? That it will stand by, that it will permit the coup to prevail?

This would be a good time to communicate with the White House to urge that it join the other nations in this hemisphere and back up its nice words with actions designed to restore democracy in Honduras. Any other course buttresses the coup and undermines US claims that it supports democracy throughout the hemisphere.

cross-posted from The Dream Antilles

Goldman Sachs Sucks Our Marrow

Ed Encho — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:17:37 GMT

"Greed is a fat demon with a small mouth and whatever you feed it is never enough."

- Jan Willem Van De Wetering

The battle has now been joined by the Great Satan (aka Goldman Sachs) as the brilliant Matt Taibbi piece has fortunatly gone viral thanks to bloggers. When the pigs on Wall Street, their legal armies and on call public relations propagandists turn into pirannhas as they are with this piece the fuckers are on the run. The seige on CNBC's drooling house baboon Jim 'Mad Money' Cramer that was kicked off by comedian Jon Stewart was beaten back with a disinformation laden blitzkrieg and the money changers regained control of the temple. It's all been the hogwash of the GREEN SHOOTS ever since. And despite the dismal news contained in yesterday's jobs report the long weekend couldn't come at a more fortuitous time as the four flushing,gold plated cocksuckers will regroup once again and launch a saturation bombing campaign of more goddammed lies.

Give some credit where it is due to Rolling Stone magazine, after initially witholding Mr. Taibbi's withering takedown of Goldman Sachs entitled The Great Bubble Machine from internet users it has finally seen fit to put it online. Probably sound business on their part since the absence of it on their site only fueled the fire. Now today, the agents of the ivory tower piggies are in full attack mode, there is certainly no shortage of sewage flying in Taibbi's direction - the good ole pejorative of choice to those who dare to ask questions "conspiracy theorists" has been nailed into his skull like a crown of thorns (some might find the delicious irony in this since Taibbi was the one who punched his ticked by sliming 9/11 truthers) and he is very likely being measured for one of those wooden crosses that are erected whenever the whores in the establishment media are summoned to perform a public crucifiction on an out of line journalist or other ill mannered whistleblower. Here is just a sample of the early stages of the barrage that is directed at Taibbi for his transgression. The reputedly liberal New York Times (the former employer of Iraq war pitchwoman Judith Miller) has one entitled Goldman and Rolling Stone Writer Trade Barbs, Time has Goldman Sachs vs. Rolling Stone: A Wall Street Smackdown, BNET has one entitled Uncovering the Goldman Sachs Myths, a particularly gut wrenching piece as it is from a looter capitalist apologist organ. I could list more but why fucking bother, the common talking point is that it is all conspiracy and that Taibbi is of course, not even a real journalist to begin with. Typical rancid establishment swill from all the garbage churned out of America's so-called journalism schools who chose corporate shillhood as a career over honest reporting.

I have to admire Taibbi's balls, he has come out in defense of his brilliant, Pulitzer Prize worthy piece with some nice rebuttals to the Great Satan and all of it's well paid catamites. Here are two of them:

Goldman Sachs is Reeling Under Public Pressure
You acknowledge that we may monitor your use of the Services for our own purposes (and not for your benefit). We may use the resulting information for internal business purposes or in accordance with the rules of any applicable regulatory or self-regulatory body and in compliance with applicable law and regulation.
via Is Goldman Legally Frontrunning Its Clients? zero hedge.
After watching its thoroughly maladroit handling of several p.r. problems this week, I'm absolutely convinced that Goldman Sachs can be hurt if enough people keep piling on with the pressure. The latest evidence of this is its abject collapse in the face of questions from Zero Hedge about the possibility that it is using the data its takes from users of its website to front-run those same people.
Front-running takes place when a bank or broker-dealer- say, Goldman, Sachs - executes a trade for its own account before filling its customer's order. Since a large enough trade (executed by institutional investors, for instance) can actually move the price of the security in question, front-running can be a very profitable activity. It's sort of like fast-food insider trading. It is common knowledge that front-running on Wall Street is rampant, and I interviewed more than one person for my recent Rolling Stone story who accused Goldman of front-running its big clients in all sorts of arenas, from the internet IPO years to the commodities markets.
What caught Zero Hedge's attention was a curious disclaimer uncovered on Goldman's website, which includes a trading platform that visitors can use to execute trades. At one point the disclaimer read:
Monitoring by GS: Your use of the products and services on this Web site may be monitored by GS, and that the resultant information may be used by GS for its internal business purposes or in accordance with the rules of any applicable regulatory or self-regulatory organization.
Subsequently readers uncovered an even more sinister disclaimer that appears on other Goldman documents (see the quote at the top of this post with the key line "and not for your benefit"). So Tyler Durden over at Zero Hedge wrote to Goldman to ask if this meant what it quite obviously seems to mean, and got this response from the bank's Senior Vice Scoundrel, Ed Canaday. Note the way he seems to be addressing Dick Durbin, which looks like a case of wish-fulfillment to me:
Dear Mr Durbin:
This is in response to your recent blog about our web site disclaimer. It is quite usual for websites to have disclaimers that refer to the monitoring of site usage. Most web sites, including yours we noticed, track usage by their visitors. This is primarily used for marketing and to help inform decision about enhancing content.
Your suggestion that we monitor our web site to facilitate front-running is untrue and offensive.
Sincerely
Ed Canaday
Vice President
Goldman, Sachs & Co.
In exactly the same manner that Goldman demonstrated with regard to my story, Canaday avoided any of the factual concerns that Zero Hedge presented about the curious disclaimer; in fact his letter, if anything, is such a classic non-denial denial that it really just confirms everyone's worst suspicions. Most notably, he doesn't specify what "internal business purposes" the company is talking about, and while he insists it is not front-running, it's a very thin, curiously worded denial.
That a company as rich and powerful as Goldman would stoop to peering through the web version of a locker-room peephole to make a few extra pennies either front-running random trades or somehow using visitor data "not for their benefit" shows how completely and utterly morally absent this company is. There is not an ill-gotten dollar they will not chase, no matter how small or insignificant the sums might be.
Word should be spread about this and anyone who used the Goldman 360 portral for trading should seriously investigate this situation, as it is entirely possible you've been ripped off - legally, perhaps, although how much "legality" a disclaimer like that can confer is a serious question in my mind.
More to the point, the fact that Goldman is getting enough public pressure that it feels it has to respond to these queries shows that the company is reeling. And the fact that their public statements have been so hilariously transparent and clumsy shows that they're rattled and don't know how to handle this kind of heat, which they're not used to getting. Kudos to Zero Hedge for applying the pressure; readers who want to see Tyler's very funny response to Canaday should read here.

And in another piece...Taibbi punches back hard yet again!

On Giving Goldman a Chance
After my recent piece about Goldman, Sachs hit the newsstands last week, I started to get a lot of mail. Most of it was thoughtful and respectful criticism, although there was an amusingly large number of people writing in impassioned defense of their right, under our American system, to be ripped off by large impersonal financial companies. "If my pension fund is buying [crap mortgages] from Goldman, and my pension fund loses lots of value, that's not Goldman's fault," wrote one reader. "No one is forcing anyone to buy anything. The only thing Goldman is guilty of is making profits."
I'm not even going to go there - the psychology of a human being who would take the time to actually write in a complaint like that is so bizarre that it would take more time than I have today to even begin discussing it. One other complaint that I will address quickly, though, is the notion that I didn't tell Goldman's side of the story. "Not exactly a balanced approach," complained one reader. "You should take an ethics class. You have to give the other side a fair shot."
Actually I did contact Goldman and gave the bank every opportunity to respond to the factual issues in the article. I'm bringing this up because their decision not to comment on any of those questions was actually pretty interesting.
We figured ahead of time that Goldman was probably not going to respond to many of the allegations in the article, since its MO in the past with regard to hostile journalists has usually either been to make bald denials or to simply avoid comment (that's when they're not using the carpet-bomb litigation technique, as in the case of GoldmanSachs666.com). So what I decided to do the first time I approached them was to send a short list of simple factual questions. If the bank decided to engage us and educate us as to its point of view on these simple questions, we would send more queries and expand the dialogue.
Given this, I tried to make that first list of questions as basic as possible. I asked if Goldman would have turned a profit in Q1 2009 if it hadn't orphaned the month of December 2008. Then I asked if Goldman had made changes to its underwriting standards during the internet boom years; if Goldman's position was still that the steep rise in oil prices last year was due to normal changes in supply and demand; and if it could explain its 1991 request to the CFTC to have its subsidiary J. Aron classified as a physical hedger on the commodities market. Citing various sources, I also noted that some people had complained that its move to short the mortgage market in 2006 even as it was selling those same types of instruments proved that the bank knew the weakness of its mortgage products, and asked if the bank had an answer for that. And I asked if the bank supported cap-and-trade legislation, and if it was fair to say (as we planned to in the piece) that the bank would capitalize financially if such legislation was passed.
I intentionally put a lot of yes/no questions on that list. If the underlying thinking behind any of those questions was faulty, it would have been easy enough for them to say so and to educate us as to the truth. Instead, here is the response that we got:
"Your questions are couched in such a way that presupposes the conclusions and suggests the people you spoke with have an agenda or do not fully understand the issues."
You have to have swallowed half a lifetime of carefully-worded p.r. statements to see the message written between the lines here. That this is a non-denial denial is obvious, but what's more notable here is that they didn't stop with just a flat "no comment," which they easily could have done. No, they had to go a little further than that and - and this is pure Goldman, just outstanding stuff - make it clear that both I and my sources are simply not as smart as they are and don't understand what we're talking about. So the rough translation here is, "No comment, but if you were as smart as us, you wouldn't be asking these questions."
So now word filters through that Goldman has issued yet another statement in response to the piece, this one by amusingly-named mouthpiece Lucas Van Pragg. Again, the company does not take issue with any of the facts in the piece - not one. Here's what he says:
Taibbi's bubble case doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny either. To give just two examples, even with the worst will in the world, the blame for creating the internet bubble cannot credibly be laid at our door, and we could hardly be described as having been a major player in the mortgage market, unlike so many of our current and former competitors.
Taibbi's article is a compilation of just about every conspiracy theory ever dreamed up about Goldman Sachs, but what real substance is there to support the theories?
We reject the assertion that we are inflators of bubbles and profiteers in busts, and we are painfully conscious of the importance of being a force for good.
Okay, let's look at that bit piece by piece. Van Pragg takes issue with the bubble argument by citing two "examples" of the case not holding water, the first being:
... the blame for creating the internet bubble cannot credibly be laid at our door...

I kept waiting for the "because..." clause here, but there wasn't one. He just says so and leaves it at that. Now there is obviously some measure of hyperbole in solely blaming Goldman Sachs for something like the internet bubble, or any of the other recent Wall Street disasters, for that matter. But you'd have to be absolutely crazy (and you wouldn't need "the worst will in the world," either) not to accept the notion that Goldman shouldered a significant portion of the blame for the internet mess. They were, after all, the leading underwriter of internet IPOs during the internet boom years. In 1999, at the height of the boom, they underwrote 37 internet companies, most of which had little or no history and were losing money at the time of the launch. By late 1999 Goldman was underwriting one out of every five internet IPOs. They were repeatedly caught and punished for manipulating the prices of their IPOs, either via laddering or spinning. Van Pragg doesn't deny any of this, and just blithely says that one can't credibly blame them for the internet bubble. I'm almost insulted by the lameness and half-assedness of that comeback, but that might be part of the point, to be insulting. He moves on:
...and we could hardly be described as having been a major player in the mortgage market, unlike so many of our current and former competitors.
Again, not to beat this into the ground, but in 2006, at the height of the housing boom, Goldman underwrote over $75 billion in mortgages, over $59 billion of which were non-prime. That represented 7% of the entire market, which seems like a pretty "major" slice to me. It is true that they did not jump so completely ass-first into the market as Lehman and Bear did (note Van Pragg's bemused reference to "former competitors"), but if you read the piece, we noted why that doesn't take them off the hook at all. Because while their "former competitors" (one of whom is clearly "former" in large part because a former Goldmanite, Hank Paulson, elected to save Goldman's hide instead of Lehman's) were dumb enough to hold their mortgage paper and be sunk by it, Goldman shorted their own crap, which means (and I know I'm repeating myself here) they knew that what they were selling was a loser. So while they maybe weren't the biggest player, they were still a major player, and one can easily make the case that they were the most obnoxious player, given that they dove into this muck with their eyes wide open, unlike so many other idiots on Wall Street.
In the middle of this weirdly substanceless retort, Van Pragg then goes on complain about the lack of substance in the article, makes the predictable charge that the piece was a compendium of invented conspiracy theories, then moves on to "reject" the notion that the company inflates bubbles and profits in busts (about that last part: I recommend checking out Goldman's profit/bonus numbers in 2002, 2008, and 2009 to date. I'm not sure how they can refute the notion that they have profited during the recent financial calamities). Lastly, he says that the bank is "painfully conscious" of the importance of being a force for good, which I noted with amusement is not quite the same thing as saying that that bank is a force for good, or wants to be.
So to sum up, this all translates as:
"Taibbi's bubble case doesn't hold water. To use just two examples, Taibbi's internet bubble case doesn't hold water, and we didn't sell as many mortgages as Lehman Brothers. Taibbi's article is a compendium of every other story about Goldman that doesn't hold water. We reject these theories that do not hold water, and are aware of the difference between right and wrong, making us legally sane according to the law."

I'm aware that some people feel that it's a journalist's responsibility to "give both sides of the story" and be "even-handed" and "objective." A person who believes that will naturally find serious flaws with any article like the one I wrote about Goldman. I personally don't subscribe to that point of view. My feeling is that companies like Goldman Sachs have a virtual monopoly on mainstream-news public relations; for every one reporter like me, or like far more knowledgeable critics like Tyler Durden, there are a thousand hacks out there willing to pimp Goldman's viewpoint on things in the front pages and ledes of the major news organizations. And there are probably another thousand poor working stiffs who are nudged into pushing the Goldman party line by their editors and superiors (how many political reporters with no experience reporting on financial issues have swallowed whole the news cliché about Goldman being the "smart guys" on Wall Street? A lot, for sure).
Goldman has its alumni pushing its views from the pulpit of the U.S. Treasury, the NYSE, the World Bank, and numerous other important posts; it also has former players fronting major TV shows. They have the ear of the president if they want it. Given all of this, I personally think it's absurd to talk about the need for "balance" in every single magazine and news article. I understand that some people feel differently, but that's my take on things.

Such gross intransigence from a reporter in the age of the moneychangers is stunning, in fact it actually borders on outright blasphemy - shit, it brings to mind real muckrakers like the great Upton Sinclair. Talk about a David vs Goliath story for the modern era, Taibbi has put all the other so-called reporters that pollute our press, make excuses for the corrupt, milk the lurid excesses of the dumbed down cult of celebrity (currently on display with the necorphiliac corpse humping of Michael Jackson) and provide the bread and circuses that are necessary when our shiny newly minted (largely with Goldman Sachs money) reality show president come out and brags about saving the markets while millions are beggared to fucking shame and justifiably so.

Let's hope that David has it in him to lob the killshot right into the testicles of the Goldman Sachs Goliath that has stomped on the necks of American's for too long now.

Honduras: One Day Left

davidseth — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:27:08 GMT

With one day left before OAS imposes sanctions on the coup, José Miguel Insulza, secretary general of the Organization of American States, is in Honduras today delivering the OAS's message that Manual Zelaya must be reinstated as president. If he's not reinstated, presumably by tomorrow, Honduras will be expelled from the OAS and various other sanctions may be imposed. The US is studying whether what happened in Honduras fits the legal definition of a "coup." If it does, cutting off all aid to Honduras is statutorily required.

According to the New York Times, Insulza isn't in Honduras to negotiate. He's just there to deliver the ultimatum in person:

O.A.S. officials acknowledged that he would talk to members of Congress and the Supreme Court, both of which played a part in the president's removal. But Mr. Insulza insisted that he "was not going to Honduras to negotiate." Instead, he said, he was going to urge the new government to relent and reinstate the ousted president, Manuel Zelaya, before the O.A.S. made good on its threat to suspend Honduras from its ranks.

Meanwhile, some diplomats say that Zelaya's role in his arrest and deportation to Costa Rica has to be acknowledged:

"The coup was certainly an affront to the region, but there is a context in which these events happened," said Peter Kent, Canada's minister of foreign affairs, noting that Mr. Zelaya was a highly polarizing figure who clashed with the Supreme Court, Congress and army. "There has to be an appreciation of the events that led up to the coup."

It is unclear how this "appreciation" fits into a resolution of the problem. Perhaps it means that the golpistas should be given amnesty.

In response to the threat of sanctions and a unified OAS position on the coup, one which the US is supporting and following, Micheletti and the golpistas have mentioned moving the presidential election forward as a way to resolve the crisis. That idea appears to have gained little traction.

You'll also notice that if the coup and the nation's reaction to it was on the front page of the Trad Media^TM, it wasn't there for long. It's not there today. A reason, apart from US inattention to events in this hemisphere, might be the degree to which the coup has effectively suppressed information about diplomacy and demonstrations in Honduras:

Many Hondurans have a limited view of the crisis since the interim government has interrupted television transmissions and closed some stations loyal to Mr. Zelaya since his ouster.
Local journalists have claimed harassment, and the Committee to Protect Journalists, citing the army's brief detention of seven international journalists on Monday, has asked the authorities to allow all media "to report freely and without fear of reprisal."
Mr. Micheletti, in a news briefing on Wednesday, said media restrictions were put in place to control public order because some organizations were urging Mr. Zelaya's backers "to go and do what they did, breaking windows, hitting people, assaulting."
But Esdras Amado López, the owner of a television station, Channel 36, called the government hypocritical: "This is against the Constitution that the new government says it is protecting. I have a license. I have a right to inform the people. This is an unconstitutional order."

WSJ reports that the coup government has actually taken control of some media in the country.

Meanwhile, the curfew and withdrawal of rights continues in Honduras, as does what appears to be a continuing press embargo.

-----------------
cross-posted from The Dream Antilles