Peter Watts was NOT found guilty of assault!

Unbelievable, that all the newspapers will copy-paste from each other, turning a blatant untruth into fact.
He was found guilty of  “failure to comply with a lawful order”, near as I could figure out in the muddled reporting of his trial and aftermath.

Peter Who?
A talented SciFi writer who had the misfortune of crossing the US/Canada border and ran head-first into furious aggression fuelled by paranoia. The laws in the USA are such that not instantly obeying, or asking what the problem is, could end you up with felony charges. As happened with him.

The whole story can be found on his blog. (while there, nose around a bit and download some of his writing - it's free and really good).

He is to be sentenced today. He might end up spending time in jail for getting beaten up by the US border guards.

And to think, I will be visiting the USA soon, and will be crossing into Canada at the same border crossing. It's almost enough to make me want to cancel the trip.






Update: No prison time for Peter Watts. After a rambling sermon from the judge, Watts and quite a bundle of his money parted company and he left for Canada. A convicted felon, which tag will remain on his back for life. Try travelling over the world with that! Any future science fiction awards will probably arrive in his hands via the mail. This, from the land of the free. Shameful.

The Iraq war and accountability

I have been watching the Chilcot inquiry in the UK unfold. I have been listening and reading and hearing what people said. What a craven spectacle it is!

Counter to what some politicians seem to believe, most of their constituents don't have the attention span of a gnat. I remember very well what was said and done, years ago - and to me, it does not matter that it happened many years ago. And it should not, in such matters. Many agree with this way of thinking, which is why a 90-year old Nazi criminal had to stand trial in Germany for WW2 war crimes! Even after all that time, it is just to prosecute such crimes.

If the rule of law has to mean anything, it has to be blind. These days, it is not. If people can waltz all over international laws prohibiting wars of agression and never have to be held accountable (even with this inquiry, I see Blair is going to give evidence in secret. Par for course, isn't it?), then the law itself is useless. The entire concept of democracy and a just society based in law is a joke.

This was a war of choice, Blair is increasingly open about it:

"I would still have thought it right to remove him. Obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments, about the nature of the threat," he said.
"I can't really think we'd be better with him and his two sons still in charge but it's incredibly difficult."

And still as unapologetic as ever.

The Independent's headline this morning read "Untouchable". Yes, it seems so. The evidence that has come out of this inquiry makes clear there was no case to go to war. Period.

I am beyond angry and disgusted. It seems there will be no consequences for anyone. No accountability. If so, I hope they will just drop the masks. I hope that when the next war of choice is started, our politicians won't bother with the horse and pony show. Just say "hey we don't like this person, so we are going to bomb the country to smithereens". And then go out and do it. I for one would at least appreciate the honesty.

Vomit.

Seriously!!


A. I do not want a European president. DO.NOT.WANT!!! I do not want a United States of Europe. DO.NOT.FUCKING.WANT!!!!!

Far too many Euro states are too far removed from the ideology we have in the Netherlands. Example: the rampant homophobia in the outer reaches of Europe. Lithuania made it into law, but there are too many other EU states where being gay is a terrible way to live, thanks to that society. We fought long and hard for gay acceptance and rights in the Netherlands, now too many really right leaning countries are going to have some say in that??!! This is unacceptable.

The "new" Euro states that Bush loved to much, lean so far right that I cannot find myself in any of their points of view. Not Any. Now these people have a voice and are getting an increasing say about what happens in my country. This is unacceptable.

And then the "old Europe", that's not much better. For instance, just look at Italy and that dictatorish clown Berlusconi... I'm not sure one could even call that a democracy any more. And they will have a major say in what happens in my country? This too, is unacceptable.

There's of course good as well as bad in all countries but dammit we are all different and so we should stay!!! My country's not perfect but I want US to be the stewards in how we develop and not a huge congealed heap of shoved together, unrelated states. I do not like, no, that's too weak: I am fucking furious that this is happening, that this excuse for a democratic government of mine pushed the Lisbon treaty European constitution through, against the wishes of the people. Why do you think Geert Wilders is winning so many votes in the Netherlands? This is one of the top reasons: he is outspokenly, rudely against a federal Europe. In that, we agree.

B. Blair. Man, he's a zealot. He's a criminal, in my mind: he should be charged for the entire Iraq war together with Bush. They engineered the world into this conflict and caused death and destruction on an unforgivable scale. He carries that on his conscience, and yet I'm sure he sleeps well at night. The sleep of the righteous.


Far as I'm concerned, we can step out of the EU right now. I used to be pro-Europe, but not any more. This is not what it was set up to be. This is power hungry fools pushing us where we do not want to go, and it will backfire. History predicts, violently.

I'm madder than a wet hen, can you tell?

Obama has disappointed me! (part 2)

More than any of the other candidates, I expected of Obama that he would put an end to Guantanamo and the dubious tribunals that are such an offense to the sense of justice and human rights. Especially since it comes from America, who always put themselves up there as bastion of freedom...

This is a very deep disappointment.
A man of law, I had very high expectations.

He let himself down, he let his country down, he let down many people all over the world who pinned their hopes on the new broom sweeping clean all the abuses and excesses of the Bush era.

It makes no difference to me that the defendants now have a slightly improved legal protection. The entire process is flawed and should have been eliminated down to the last detail.

I expected better of him.

Obama vs Bush: How tribunals compare

DIFFERENT

*A ban on all evidence gleaned through cruel or inhumane means, including waterboarding

*More leeway for detainees to select their defence, although still restricted to military lawyers

*No prejudice against defendants if they choose not to testify

SAME

*Guantanamo to remain trial venue

*Military lawyers will still provide defence services for the detainees

*Accused will still not have access to all evidence used against them

*Detainees will still not have access to the two traditional branches of US law, the civilian court system and the Uniform Code of Military Justice

source

Obama has disappointed me!

The pictures of torture and degradation - refusing to release them even though the courts said he must.
Emperor Obama? Shades of Bush.
I say put it all out in the open, of this wound will fester forever.



The argument he used, that this was done to protect soldiers overseas in dangerous regions, and that the pictures will be released when this threat is gone, does not hold water. Any fool can see that Americans will remain in these trouble spots indefinitely, probably even spreading out like an oil stain as the production of oil peaks, and huge displacement of populations start due to climate change messing up their climate and food/water sources. To me, at least, this is blindingly obvious. A country does not build up such a huge military machine and then leave soldiers in barracks and weapons rusting in storage. The logical thing is to employ them to protect your own interests. This is what will happen, barring a social or physical disaster akin to the yucatán meteorite.

From today, if I want to visit the USA

I, Dutch citizen, have to ask permission first, online, before I'll be allowed on the plane.
(warning, clicking on the link could invite the American Homeland Security to snoop all over your ass)

Really.
I hope the new guy turns all this shit back because there is no way I'll jump through all these hoops just to visit a country.
Imagine. One of the questions ask whether you've ever done/planned terrorist activities.
For sure, you will say yes if you are coming over to blow up some shit.
Sure...

Just another paper mountain that gives a false sense of security.

The hawks have the power right now in Israel

The UN can resolute all it wants, it is far from over.
There's a huge pile of new weapons heading over from the USA to Israel.
(it cannot be any clearer than this, can it)

LONDON, Jan 9 (Reuters) - The U.S. is seeking to hire a merchant ship to deliver hundreds of tonnes of arms to Israel from Greece later this month, tender documents seen by Reuters show.

The U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command (MSC) said the ship was to carry 325 standard 20-foot containers of what is listed as "ammunition" on two separate journeys from the Greek port of Astakos to the Israeli port of Ashdod in mid-to-late January.

A "hazardous material" designation on the manifest mentions explosive substances and detonators, but no other details were given.

"Shipping 3,000-odd tonnes of ammunition in one go is a lot," one broker said, on condition of anonymity.

"This (kind of request) is pretty rare and we haven't seen much of it quoted in the market over the years," he added.

The U.S. Defense Department, contacted by Reuters on Friday in Washington, had no immediate comment.

The MSC transports armour and military supplies for the U.S. armed forces aboard its own fleet, but regularly hires merchant ships if logistics so require.

The request for the ship was made on Dec. 31, with the first leg of the charter to arrive no later than January 25 and the second at the end of the month.

The tender for the vessel follows the hiring of a commercial ship to carry a much larger consignment of ordnance in December from the United States to Israel ahead of air strikes in the Gaza Strip.

A German shipping firm which won that tender confirmed the order when contacted by Reuters but declined to comment further.

This at least makes clear, that the invasion of Gaza was not a reaction to an incident but was thoroughly planned in advance.

I wonder if the new shipment also contains phosphorus weapons from the USA.
Like those weapons they have been using up to now:

The Times has identified stockpiles of white phosphorus (WP) shells from high-resolution images taken of Israel Defence Forces (IDF) artillery units on the Israeli-Gaza border this week. The pale blue 155mm rounds are clearly marked with the designation M825A1, an American-made WP munition. The shell is an improved version with a more limited dispersion of the phosphorus, which ignites on contact with oxygen, and is being used by the Israeli gunners to create a smoke screen on the ground.

We make laws, treaties, declare what are war crimes, while the masters of war do what they like.
I'm sure, down the road, if necessary, there will be a captain or colonel to scapegoat.
Meanwhile, it happens, they are doing it.

Congratulations, America!

Americans never cease to surprise me.
They did, when they elected Bush for the first time.
They did it a second time and that was more horror than surprise...

And now, to my amazement, they elected Obama. Thank goodness!!!
(though I do realise that with a slightly stronger Republican candidate and a slightly less kooky potential vice president, he would most certainly not have won).

Obama said during his electioneering that he'd increase the effort in Afghanistan and wants his allies to do the same. I hope he retreats from that because I am vehemently against that - and especially now, watching the European economy go down the toilet, that's the last bottomless hole I'd be wanting to pour money into. So, unless he has a very short-term and very clear agenda, I would vociferously oppose him. No matter honeymoon period and no matter how much I like the new American president. We all need to get out of that country and let them work things out for themselves. Even if (when) the results won't be to our liking.

He has a lot of fixing to do. I hope he concentrates mightily on that.

Buh bye, Bush. Good riddance!
(I wonder who he will pardon as he leaves...)

Waarom gaan wij hierin mee??!!

Wij volgen slaafs de Amerikanen die door een ware propaganda-oorlog ervoor hebben gezorgd dat de meeste mensen in Amerika EN in Europa nu geloven dat de Russen Georgië zijn binnen gevallen terwijl het juist Georgië was die Zuid-Ossetië had aangevallen...

Nu gedragen we ons of Georgië de slachtoffer is, en alsof dit land lid zou zijn van de EU en NATO. Niets is minder waar... dit is doelbewust Rusland provoceren, en wij spelen hier stroman voor de Amerikanen. Ik ben het hier niet mee eens!

EU-ministers van Buitenlandse Zaken hebben maandag tijdens overleg in Brussel definitief besloten ongeveer tweehonderd waarnemers naar Georgië te sturen.
ANP

Vanaf 1 oktober zullen ze in beginsel gedurende een jaar toezien op vrede in de bufferzones rond Zuid-Ossetië en Abchazië. De EU wil de waarnemers ook in de twee afvallige regio's laten werken, maar daarover is nog meer overleg met Rusland nodig, dat de onafhankelijkheid van de twee gebieden heeft erkend.

Nederland is net als een tiental andere EU-landen bereid waarnemers te sturen. De Europese Commissie wil 500 miljoen euro geven aan Georgië voor de wederopbouw van het land. De Commissie hoopt dat de EU-lidstaten eenzelfde bedrag op tafel leggen.

bron

Iraq's $79 billion surplus

I've been reading a lot of chatter over this on the various sites I visit and at some point I posted this opinion (which I'm rewriting slightly and reposting here):


Iraq did not ask for this war and should not be obliged to finance it or provide reparations to Iraqis or to Americans. That money belongs to the Iraqi people and should be seen totally separate from war costs. Like Powell said, you break it, you own it. That's how the game works; after Iraq had invaded Kuwait and was routed from the country by Bush senior's coalition, they had to pay whopping reparations to Kuwait and to any corporation who suffered damages because of the war. I believe they were still paying towards these reparations at the time Saddam's body was buried.

Though politically, it's attractive to link the Iraqi budget surplus to America's budget deficit, America's financial woes are of no consequence to the Iraqi people and neither should it be. The cause of the deficit is not something they have had any influence over, it is entirely the USA's doing. These two issues are not linked in any way.

Yes, reconstruction of the damage caused is costing America an arm and a leg. that's what you get when you put profiteers in charge of that kind of stuff. They have milked the American taxpayer for every cent they could, and then took some more. These are the people to get angry at, not the benighted people of that region left with almost no law, order, infrastructure or civil society. There are many sharks in the water feeding off Iraq's corpse right now... and who in fact would greatly benefit from the country remaining ungovernable for as long as possible. Halliburton is a huge company with many subsidiaries who are making obscene amounts of money in the region, then there is Blackwater and a number of smaller but no less greedy fish.

That surplus money sitting in the bank, the amount is as high as it is because of the oil price. Iraq has had no influence on that. Fact is, much of this money is earmarked in the budget that this puppet government simply cannot get passed because of political shenanigans. But hey, you don't install a puppet government and then get angry at them for being good puppets. Good puppets tend to do this: Fuck the good of the people, how can i get the most out of this for myself!!?? And in the end, even if they wanted to, the systems and manpower for good government are simply not in place. They could not even begin to reconstruct the country themselves right now, it is in such shambles. Catch 22.

This is smoke and mirrors. Americans are being manipulated into being angry at the wrong people for the wrong reasons. Elections coming up, right? Right.



I also added the following:

Here is another way of looking at the finances, if one were to consider the angle of reparations, and who owes what to whom (this is from 2006)

Economic View: War cut Iraq's national income 40%
War cut Iraq's national income 40%
By Anna Bernasek
Published: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2006

NEW YORK: What has been the economic cost of the Iraq war for Iraq? Several studies have dealt with the war's cost to Americans, but few have studied the other side.

The loss of human life has always been evident. Recently, the United Nations estimated that 100 Iraqis were dying each day, on average, as a result of the war. Other observers, like The Lancet, the British medical journal, have put the death toll as much as five times higher, amounting to the implied loss of 2 percent of Iraq's population since the invasion in March 2003.

The economic cost has been less visible. Published information on the subject is very limited, although one economist, Colin Rowat, has made some preliminary calculations. Rowat, a specialist on the Iraqi economy at the University of Birmingham in Britain, relied mainly on data from the International Monetary Fund to estimate the war's overall effect on the Iraqi economy. His calculations are a work in progress, but what he has found so far is sobering: the cost amounts to a cut of at least 40 percent in Iraq's national income.

Rowat looked at the six-year stretch from 2000 to 2005 and divided it into thirds. During the first period, 2000 to 2001, United Nations trade sanctions against Iraq were beginning to crumble; the Security Council lifted the cap on Iraqi oil sales to the rest of the world, and the Iraqi government was becoming adept at getting around the remaining trade restrictions. The second period, 2002 to 2003, covers the buildup to war and the invasion itself. The last period, 2004 to 2005, covers post-invasion years when sanctions were removed.

Rowat made several kinds of calculations. First, he estimated the actual change in the size of Iraq's economy. Then he considered the economic effects of foreign aid in 2005, much of it from the United States. (Because foreign aid is regarded as temporary and is expected to taper off, he said, excluding it reveals Iraq's underlying economic performance.)

Finally, he estimated how the economy might have performed had the war never happened. This last estimate, of course, depends on a host of assumptions, as Rowat would be the first to say. He assumed, for example, that in the absence of war, Iraq's economy would have been driven by the price of oil. Oil prices are, in fact, crucial to Iraq, representing 60 percent of the total economy, according to the World Bank. Rowat also assumed that the economy would have grown from 2002 to 2005 as it did from 2000 to 2001 - at a pace equal to 71 percent of the rate of increase in world oil prices.

Of course, some of the oil-price increase in recent years must be attributed to the Iraq war itself, which Rowat acknowledged but did not factor in.

Looking first at the actual Iraqi economy, he calculated that it may have grown 3.1 percent a year, on average and after adjusting for inflation, from 2000 through 2005. When he subtracted foreign aid from that total, however, he found that the economy actually contracted 0.2 percent a year over the same period.

Finally, based on the steep rise in oil prices, he estimated that without a war and with steady oil production, Iraq would have grown 12 percent a year after adjusting for inflation. That rate would have made Iraq one of the fastest- growing economies in the world, albeit one that was expanding from a very small economic base.

How realistic is this projection? It is hard to say, because so much of it depends on oil economics. Still, the IMF forecasts that the Iraqi economy will grow an average of better than 10 percent annually over the next five years.

Using Rowat's calculations, what might the economic cost of the war be for Iraq? If there had been no war, Iraq's economy in 2005 might have amounted to $61 billion in today's dollars, compared with the actual $37 billion, he estimated. That amounts to a 40 percent cut in gross domestic product per capita - an average loss of around $900 for each Iraqi in 2005.

Rough estimates of the war's overall cost to Americans are in the neighborhood of $1 trillion over a 10-year period. That works out to around 1 percent of the nation's income during that period.

For Iraq, there is no doubt that continuing violence and turmoil are hurting the economy. The IMF said in August that Iraq's oil production has not yet returned to prewar levels due to the violence, which is preventing much- needed investment, and to infrastructure problems.

While Rowat's calculations represent just one economist's efforts to wrestle with extremely limited data, his work may encourage others to follow. Assessing the war's economic cost for Iraq, of course, doesn't provide an answer to whether the war is worthwhile in the long run. But it does provide a clue.
Source

If America were to be subjected to the same rigid reparation accounting standards as Iraq was after the invasion of Kuwait, it would hurt. The above is a first attempt at quantifying the loss of income, but I doubt it will ever go much further than that. The USA is much more powerful than Iraq and won't ever face (or allow itself to be held to) a UN resolution such as number 687.


Finally, here is an article by Naomi Klein, about the war reparations that Iraq had to pay for the very short Kuwait war. Note the beneficiaries...

Reparations in Reverse

by Naomi Klein
October 14 2004

Next week, something will happen that will unmask the upside-down morality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. On October 21, Iraq will pay $200-million in war reparations to some of the richest countries and corporations in the world.

If that seems backwards, it’s because it is. Iraqis have never been awarded reparations for any of the crimes they have suffered under Saddam, or the brutal sanctions regime that claimed the lives of at least half a million people, or the U.S.-led invasion, which United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Anan recently called “illegal.” Instead, Iraqis are still being forced to pay reparations for crimes committed by their former dictator.

Quite apart from its crushing $125-billion sovereign debt, Iraq has paid $18.8-billion in reparations stemming from Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion and occupation of Kuwait. This is not in itself surprising: as a condition of the ceasefire that ended the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam agreed to pay damages stemming from the invasion. More than fifty countries have made claims, with most of the money awarded to Kuwait. What is surprising is that even after Saddam was overthrown, the payments from Iraq have continued.

Since Saddam was toppled in April, Iraq has paid out $1.8-billion in reparations to the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), the Geneva-based quasi tribunal that assesses claims and disburses awards. Of those payments, $37-million have gone to Britain and $32.8-million have gone to the United States. That’s right: in the past 18 months, Iraq’s occupiers have collected $69.8-million in reparation payments from the desperate people they have been occupying. But it gets worse: the vast majority of those payments—78 per cent—have gone to multinational corporations, according to statistics on the UNCC website.

Away from media scrutiny, this has been going on for years. Of course there are many legitimate claims for losses that have come before the UNCC: payments have gone to Kuwaitis who have lost loved ones, limbs, and property to Saddam’s forces. But much larger awards have gone to corporations—of the total amount the UNCC has awarded in Gulf War reparations, $21.5-billion has gone to the oil industry alone. Jean-Claude Aimé, the UN diplomat who headed the UNCC until December 2000, publicly questioned the practice. “This is the first time as far as I know that the UN is engaged in retrieving lost corporate assets and profits,” he told the Wall Street Journal in 1997, and then mused: “I often wonder at the correctness of that.”

But the UNCC’s corporate handouts only accelerated. Here is a small sample of who has been getting “reparation” awards from Iraq: Halliburton ($18-million), Bechtel ($7-million), Mobil ($2.3-million), Shell ($1.6-million), Nestle ($2.6-million), Pepsi ($3.8-million), Philip Morris ($1.3-million), Sheraton ($11-million), Kentucky Fried Chicken ($321-thousand) and Toys R Us ($189,449). In the vast majority of cases, these corporations did not claim that Saddam’s forces damaged their property in Kuwait—only that they “lost profits” or, in the case of American Express, experienced a “decline in business,” because of the invasion and occupation of Kuwait. One of the biggest winners has been Texaco, which was awarded $505-million in 1999. According to a UNCC spokesperson, only 12 per cent of that reparation award has been paid, which means hundreds of millions more will have to come out of the coffers of post-Saddam Iraq.

The fact that Iraqis have been paying reparations to their occupiers is all the more shocking in the context of how little these countries have actually spent on aid in Iraq. Despite the $18.4-billion of U.S. tax dollars allocated for Iraq’s reconstruction, the Washington Post estimates that only $29-million has been spent on water, sanitation, health, roads, bridges, and public safety—combined. And in July (the latest figure available), the Department of Defense estimated that only $4 million had been spent compensating Iraqis who had been injured, or who lost family members or property as a direct result of the occupation—a fraction of what the U.S. has collected from Iraq in reparations since its occupation began.

Rest here

I don't think anything more needs to be said. This is a non-issue.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

Bush today:

"America stands in firm opposition to China's detention of political dissidents, human rights advocates, and religious activists."
source

America, yesterday:

A jury of six U.S. military officers convicted Osama bin Laden's former driver of supporting terrorism but cleared him of conspiracy Wednesday in the first war crimes trial at Guantanamo Bay.

The Pentagon-selected jury deliberated for about eight hours over three days before returning its split decision against Salim Hamdan, who held his head in his hands and wept when a Navy captain on the jury read the verdict.

The jury reconvened hours later for a sentencing hearing in the hilltop courtroom on this U.S. base in southeastern Cuba. Hamdan, who is from Yemen and is about 37, faces life behind bars, though it is unclear where he would serve his time.

Defense lawyers had feared a guilty verdict was inevitable in the first war-crimes trial since the aftermath of World War II, saying the tribunal system's rules were designed to achieve convictions.

"I don't know if the panel can render fair what has already happened," Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer, Hamdan's Pentagon-appointed attorney, said as the jury deliberated.

But the Bush administration said Hamdan enjoyed a zealous defense and called the verdict fair.
source

He really leaves me speechless.
The whole situation around the USA does...

The disappeared...

Monbiot writes about them.

No, this is not some dictatorship in an underdeveloped country... this is the USA.

Of course we know of this, it was researched by the EU and some reports were written, brimming with condemnations and deplorations and concerns.
After that, nothing.

This has been known and reported on, for years

Everyone is very carefully not talking about this.

Do you think Obama will dismantle this? Do you think he can?
I am doubtful.


I could scream.

IF Obama becomes president

... his job is going to be near impossible.

Just consider the following deal which the Bush administration is trying hard to get signed, sealed and delivered before the changeover. By the time (IF) he becomes president, he'll have no choice in the matter... forget about troop withdrawal, eh.

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.
Source

How the pressure is applied?
Well, like this, for instance:

The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq's money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.

US negotiators are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal, details of which were reported for the first time in this newspaper yesterday.

Iraq's foreign reserves are currently protected by a presidential order giving them immunity from judicial attachment but the US side in the talks has suggested that if the UN mandate, under which the money is held, lapses and is not replaced by the new agreement, then Iraq's funds would lose this immunity. The cost to Iraq of this happening would be the immediate loss of $20bn. The US is able to threaten Iraq with the loss of 40 per cent of its foreign exchange reserves because Iraq's independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. This means that Iraq is still considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. The US negotiators say the price of Iraq escaping Chapter Seven is to sign up to a new "strategic alliance" with the United States.

Source

Scott McClellan

So now all of a sudden, he sees the light.
Uh huh. Big deal.

I don't forgive, I'm still furious at the man, at all of them.
I think that he and the others who colluded and conspired to lie and mislead the American public, the world in fact, should be charged and brought to trial.
If this behaviour is not criminal, then it should be.

And now he will be making money off it too?
I hope, I really hope, that family from war casualties, injured, soldiers etc, will sue the bejezus out of him so all the money goes to a fund to treat and take care of victims, next of kin and so on. Something like that.
A person should not be allowed to profit from his or her crime, and in my opinion a crime it definitely was.

Prisoner 345

= Sami al-Haj.
In Guantanamo for 2096 days now, that's more than five years.

Rumoured to be released end of this month of March, 2008. Hopefully. But you never know, do you. He has no rights, he could just as well still be there a year from now...


He's a journalist, and it's never been clear why he was held in the first place, and why he had to remain in Guantanamo for so long.
You hardly ever hear about him any more. You see, after a while, this kind of thing becomes normal.

I thought, in response to Bush's veto of the waterboarding legislation, I'd take the time today to remember at least one of the people in Guantanamo.
(I really hope the veto is overturned, but I would not count on it. The USA is no longer the country it was - imperfect but striving towards being a force for good in the world)

Is the man guilty of anything? I don't know and I don't care. He's been held without any form of legal representation for over five years, and during that time he has been subjected to the most inhuman treatment. This has deeply affected his life and psyche, and surely his wife and child suffered greatly as well.

There is no justification at all for this.
That the USA does this, is unacceptable. Unacceptable.


More information

Turkey invades northern Iraq

So, it finally happened.
This should not be a huge surprise to anyone, right? It was one of the nightmare scenarios held up by anti-war wimps even before the USA invaded Iraq.
Those poor poor bastards living in those mountains, like their lives are not hard enough already.

Turkey has lately been softening up public opinion and the news media by the sorties and bombings in northern Iraq and lo and behold, they barely caused a ripple in the press. Very positive for the hawks!

Now they went in all guns blazing. Thousands of troops. This is a full-on invasion.

There go the Kurds... I wonder if their fierce loyalty to the USA is about to be rewarded now.
(I'm being cynical here - I don't expect Turkey did this without getting the okay from the USA first)

The US and the Iraqi government are eager to play down the extent of the invasion. Rear Admiral Gregory Smith, a US spokesman for Iraq, said: "We understand [it] is an operation of limited duration to specifically target PKK terrorists in that region." The Iraqi Foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, claimed that only a few hundred Turkish troops were in Iraq.
Source

A few hundred troops. Riiiight.

How can they possibly hold this trial?

How can they possibly justify holding a trial by military tribunal over the 9-11 attacks??? With people who have been imprisoned without representation for so many years! Who were interrogated without any kind of oversight.
At least one of them were waterboarded, it was admitted. Who knows, what has not been admitted yet...

I swear, it totally cheapens the lives of all the people who died on that day or afterwards, as a result of that terrible attack.
It's so offensive, it's worthy of a banana republic, this kind of justice.
Not of the USA.

I get so mad when i read this kind of thing
It's propaganda, nothing more.

One official who has been briefed on the case said the military prosecutors were considering seeking the death penalty for Mr. Mohammed, although no final decision appears to have been made.

Story source

Yes. That is the Mr. Mohammed that they admitted to have subjected to waterboarding.

Offensive is too good a word.

Is waterboarding now a legal interrogation method in USA?

Looks that way to me, if I read through the waffle correctly.

I understand this briefing to say that IN America, if you are suspected of terrorist activities, it is acceptable for you to be waterboarded during interrogation. Depending on the circumstances (undefined, of course), that is.

Q And earlier you suggested that it would not be ruled out for possible use in the future?

MR. FRATTO: Again, I think I'd refer you to the testimony yesterday where the intelligence chiefs didn't rule anything out. What I did talk about was the process whereby the administration would consider any enhanced interrogation techniques. And that process includes the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency bringing a proposal to the Attorney General, where a review would be conducted to determine if the plan would be legal and effective. At that point, the proposal would go to the President, the President would listen to the determinations of his advisors, and make a decision.

If he made a decision to authorize a specific interrogation technique, part of that process also involves going to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and the Chairmen and ranking members of the Judiciary Committees, and to inform them that a change in the program has taken place.

Q But the fact the process exists suggests that it could be used again; you're not ruling it out.

MR. FRATTO: I'm not speculating at all on what circumstances in the future would cause the Director of the CIA to make a proposal in that way. That's something for Director Hayden to address.

What we do know is that they are taking -- they take this, the interrogation program, very seriously. They understand that it must be done with safeguards and under the rule of law. Every interrogation technique used in this program was brought to the Department of Justice, and Department of Justice made a determination as to its lawfulness, and that allowed the Central Intelligence Agency to move forward with their program. Any change would follow the process that I just outlined.

Q But does the administration maintain that waterboarding is not torture, or that any method of interrogation that it uses is not torture?

MR. FRATTO: Yes, torture is illegal. We don't torture -- we maintain and as we have said many times that the programs have been reviewed, and the Department of Justice has determined them to be legal.

Q But the General, himself, said in a recent interview that he thinks it's probably torture, and he has said that we have used it.

MR. FRATTO: I don't think that's accurate.

Q Yes, well, he said it seemed like it would be to him.

MR. FRATTO: I'm sorry, to Director McConnell?

Q McConnell, sorry, not --

MR. FRATTO: In The New Yorker -- and I think Director McConnell in his testimony yesterday in a conversation with Senator Feinstein I think explained those comments, and explained how they were out of context.

Q General Mukasey has been -- in his confirmation hearing was so adamant about not talking about this, and all of a sudden yesterday and today the administration is willing to talk about it. Why is that?

MR. FRATTO: Well, I think it is unfortunate. The Attorney General, Mukasey, he made a commitment to the Senate Judiciary Committee to talk about the legality and his review of the current program. And so that's what he did. He conducted a thorough review. He looked at the legal memoranda, and how the program works, and what components of the program are currently authorized. That is what the Attorney General discussed in his testimony, and that's what he had committed to do.

What the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency did was talk about the specific use of an interrogation technique. And again, as a reminder, he also talked about the intelligence that was gathered from this program, the valuable intelligence that was actionable that allowed us to locate al Qaeda operatives, to locate their plans, and to greatly increase how much knowledge we had of how this organization works in ways that help us to prevent attacks and to find other leaders in the organization.

Q So is waterboarding currently authorized?

MR. FRATTO: No, it's not. It's not, and I think that was mentioned yesterday, and the Attorney General Mukasey last week also made clear it is not currently authorized in this program.

Mike.

Q But, Tony, if a big enough fish is captured, the President could authorize the intelligence community to waterboard based on the belief that there may be actionable intelligence there; is that accurate?

MR. FRATTO: What I have said is -- first, I'm not going to speculate on what the President may or may not do or on what proposal the Director of the CIA will bring to the Attorney General and to the President.

What I have said is that any change in the enhanced interrogation techniques that may be used will follow the process that I outlined, which includes a legal review and notification of Congress.

Q Just to clarify, so you're saying that it's not torture and you're saying it's effective -- then why is it not currently authorized, waterboarding?

MR. FRATTO: General Hayden addressed that, he talked about any technique that you use, you use it under certain circumstances. It was something that they felt at that time was necessary and they sought legal guidance to make sure that it was legal and that it was effective. What he has said is that the program has evolved and the knowledge of the enemy has evolved. And their knowledge of how to interrogate in effective ways has evolved also.

So they're the professionals, they determine what is effective and what gets the information that we need to keep the nation safe. So it is a decision that the agency made. I could refer you to them, to see if they can explain it further; but it was their decision, they're the professionals.

Q Tony, Senator Durbin, who has been talking about this on the floor says, look, this technique has been used since the Spanish Inquisition; for five centuries it's been known as torture, American prosecutors actually obtained convictions against Japanese after World War II because of what they did to American captives. What about it makes it not torture now? Is it just the circumstances?

MR. FRATTO: I don't think that's a question I can answer. But that is a question that the Department of Justice answered on behalf of the CIA when they reviewed the components of the program. So I don't -- I wouldn't purport to be an expert on the technique and how it's used and the legal backing, so I would refer you to DOJ on that. But they did go through a process of determining the legality of it.

Q So they have basically changed the definition of torture because of the requirements of U.S. --

MR. FRATTO: I don't think that's accurate, no.

Q -- of the moment?

MR. FRATTO: No, I don't think that's the case at all, and I don't think that's the way DOJ would explain it. I think they -- going back again to the Attorney General's testimony last week, what the Attorney General said was that any use of any enhanced interrogation technique depends on the circumstances: who is carrying out the interrogation; who the target of interrogation is; what the threat environment is; what is the information that you're attempting to seek.

These are all the kinds of things that factor into how they make a decision as to which technique is appropriate to use. And then there is a review in terms of the legality of it. And that has been reviewed a number of times by a number of different people at the Department of Justice, and it was a determination that they made that it was legal.

Q So it -- just one more. Senator Durbin has asked for an investigation. You don't think it's necessary?

MR. FRATTO: I leave that decision to the Department of Justice. I think they have carried out their review and they have spoken to the issue.

Source

In 1947, a Japanese officer was sentenced to 15 years hard labor for the crime of waterboarding an American citizen.
During the Vietnam war, an American soldier would (and were!) be court-martialled if he or she used this torture method.
(source)

How times change....

Holy shit at WHAT point are these people to be brought to account?
Or is it not possible to do so any more?
The coming elections won't do it. People generally don't give up power once they acquired it. I think the signing statements will carry on merrily no matter who is the winner of the coming elections, it's a handy tradition for a king president who does not like the decisions of the people. Human nature being what it is, this torture method will be used. And outside of America, damn right it will be eagerly used as excuse.

I believe, our world changed, right here, for the worse. Again.
That seems to have happened a lot, these past years.
(how easily it went)
I wonder what comes next, training manuals for police?

And so the truth comes out about the CIA secret prisons

I wonder if Condy will come by here and apologise to our minister Bot for her baldfaced lies...

I wonder these days about the kids who are growing up in the middle of all this, what code of morals they will hold to when they are adults.
What are we teaching them...

Everyone knew the prisons were there because the EU investigated and found clear evidence. That in of itself is plenty cause for anger. What makes me extra angry is not that Rice lied so easily, it's that the Euro ministers swallowed it so easily, so willingly.

What makes me even more angry is the ease with which the truth finally came out. Carelessly, as an aside, with not even a whisper of a blush.
It's not important, see: in two days, it will be gone from the headlines.
Nothing is important any more.

I'll just wait for the next Amnesty report then, shall I?
The next EU special investigator report?
The next Human Rights watch report?
The next news report?

I am so tired of all this.
I feel so infuriated because I am powerless.
I cannot imagine how the people in the Middle East must feel.
We are building up a huge hate credit, it's going to come and bite us in the ass.
Or our kids.
Thanks to our dear leaders.

President Bush acknowledged what many already knew: The United States has interrogated hardened terrorists in secret CIA jails around the world.

But even Bush conceded it wasn't much of a secret. A few hours before disclosing the CIA interrogation program, the president said in a televised interview, "Everybody knows that, but I'm now formally announcing it."
source

Fuck em all.

The Americans voted

and they chose for Bush.



No more cute T-shirts, no more funny labels saying forgive us we did not vote for this fool.... this time round, they did.



America made a firm swing to the right. There wont be any coming back from that for a long time. The Republican party have the majority everywhere, soon also in the Supreme Courts.



This is it. You make your bed, you lie in it.