Hannah's Blog

Guantanamo Captives

The Associated Press has released 2000 pages of documents relating to captives in Guantanamo.

The can be found here:
http://wid.ap.org/documents/detainees/list.html

The Associated Press - Washington in Depth

A list of detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, and home countries where available, whose cases before U.S. military tribunals are detailed in records in a federal court.

Abd Al Aziz Sayer Uwain Al Shammeri, Kuwait

Abdul Khaled Ahmed Sahleh Al Bedani, Saudi Arabia

Abdul Aziz Adbullah Ali Al Suadi, Yemen

Abdullah Saleh Ali Al Ajmi, Kuwait

Abdullah Al-Noaimi, Bahrain

Abdullah Kamel Abudallah Kamel, Kuwait

Abdul Latif El Banna, Jordan, lived in Great Britain

Adil Kamil Abdullah Al Wadi, Bahrain

Juma Mohammed Abdul Latif Al Dosari

Adil Said Al Haj Obeid Al Busayss

Mustafa Ait Idr

Jamal Muhammad Alawi Mar'i

Mahmoud Abd Al Aziz Abd Al Mujahid

Mohammed Mohammed Hassen

Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab

Allal Ab Aljallil Abd Al Rahman Abd

Boudella Al Hajj

Mohammad Nechle

Bashir Nashir AI-Marwalah

Saeed Ahmed Mohammed Abdullab Sarem Jarabh

Ali Yahya Mahdi Al Raimi

Khaled Qasim

Jalal Salam Awad Awad

Fahmi Abdullah Ahmed

Bisher Amin Khalil Al-Rawi

Adil Zamil Abdull Mohssin Al Zamil

Sa'ad Madhi Sa'ad Ha Wash Al-Azmi

Fouad Mahoud Hasan Al Rabia

Mohammed Fenaitel Mohamed Al Daihani

Omar Rajab Amin

Jarallah al Marri

Faruq Ali Ahmed

Sabir Mahfouz Lahmar

Majid Mahmud Abdu Ahmad

Muktar Yahya Najee Al Warafi

Sadeq Muhammad Sa'id Ismail

Issa Ali Abdullala Al Murbati

Atag Ali Abdoh Al-Haj

Ali Husayn Abdutlah Al Tays

Musab Omar All Al Mudwani

Emad Abdalla Hassan

Ali Ahmed Mohammed Al Razehi

Adil Zamil Abdull Mohssin Al Zamil

Nasir Najr Nasir Balud Al Mutayri

Fouzi Khalid Abdullah Al Awda

Khalid Bin Abdullah Mishal Thamer Al Hameydani

Faiz Mohammed Ahmed Al Kandari

Saifullah Paracha

Salah Abdul Rasul Ali Abdul Rahman Al Balushi, Bahrain

Salem Abdul Salem Ghereby, Libya

Salman Ibrahim Al Khalifa, Bahrain

Salman Yahya Hassan Mohammed Rabeii, Yemen

Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed Uthman, Yemen

Yasin Qasem Muhammad Ismail, Yemen

Zohair Abdul Mohammed Al-Shorabi

These five men are known to have appeared before tribunals and been freed:

Feroz Ali Abassi

Mamdouh Ibrahim Ahmed Habib

Martin Mubanga

Moazzam Begg

Richard Dean Belmar

Pond Report

Our oldest pond, the duck pond, had a dramatic winter. Over the last couple of years, the cattails had filled in almost two-thirds of the surface and open water was getting scarce. One was tempted to schedule a renovation--to drain it down, dig out the cattails and make a fresh start.

No need. While the pond was mostly frozen solid, a clan of muskrats moved into the bank and kept themselves well-fed by feasting on the cattail roots. So, while nothing appeared to have happened in the pond, when the ice melted, all the cattail stalks fell down and there isn't a one left standing. There's hardly any left in the pond by the house either since, having devoured everything at home, the muskrats had tunnelled under the snow and ice to feast there, as well. When the ice melted, the water level dropped through the holes they had left in the bank, but Gypsy's efforts to unearth them obviously sped their departure and the filled-in holes have not been opened again. So, there are still a few cattails left for the red wing blackbirds to nest in.

Of course, there are also plenty down in the marsh, but the red wings seem to like nesting close to the house. Perhaps it's easier to catch bugs. A swarm of swallows were swooping over the pond the other morning, scooping up mosquitos or may flies. But, they were tree swallows--white belly, blue/black backs--rather than the barn swallows we'd like to see nesting in the garage. Though a nest has been started, the swallows have not been much in evidence. No mosquitos either. So. perhaps, May was just too cold.

Sun's out today. We are keeping our fingers crossed.

Freedom to Buy

Under the dispensation of the Old World Order, when some powerful group, usually a well armed nation or state, wanted something that some other group or region claimed for itself, the accepted method of acquisition was to just move in and take it.

Under the dispensation of the New World Order, partly as a result of the liberation of currency from its ties to rare metals, the accepted method of acquisition is to buy what one wants. While this seems to be an eminently preferable strategy, holding out the promise of much less conflict and bloodshed, the fly in the oinment seems to be what happens when those who have what others want, don't want to sell.

That's the question that has led me to reconsider the West's historical opposition to communism and socialism. The Western rhetoric was always couched in expressions of concern for individual freedom, the rule of law and human rights in general, even though, strictly speaking, communism and socialism refer to the allocation and ownership of a community's assets and resources.
Now, while it is perhaps accurate to equate the recognition of human rights and the rule of law with an individual's ability to have and own property--i.e. to claim a share of the community's assets as his own--having things (ownership) is not necessarily equivalent to or a sign of individual autonomy. For example, by all accounts, those who were held as slaves on plantations before the Civil War were provided with the necessities of life and, if anything, their caloric intake was higher than that of those they served and, except for the possibility of being sold off and forcibly removed, their access to sustenance was actually more secure than that of those they served. The latter not only faced the constant threat of bankruptcy but generally lacked the practical skills to sustain themselves.

I only use this as an example of the fact that material well-being cannot be taken as a sign of individual freedom.

So, what's my point? Well, I'm beginning to think that the justification for opposing communism and socialism (that they deprived individuals of their human rights) was a fraud. The real object of the opposition, as events since the demise of the Soviet Union seem to reveal, was the principle of communal ownership of the resources and assets that the people of a particular region need to survive. In other words, the real objection was to the refusal to make available for sale what the people of a particular community consider to be their own.

And, of course, that's what privatization is all about isn't it? The selling off of a people's assets, regardless of whether they want them sold and exploited by someone else or not. And isn't that exactly what happening with our own national assets, the forests and wildlands, and even the minerals under ground? Everything is to be parcelled out to favored individuals. Which, of course, means that they are off-limits to everyone else.

Of course, if this interpretation is accurate, then it's more than ironic that communist China, which resists having its natural resources bought up, is quickly acquiring the capacity to acquire by purchase any part of our country they want. That's because, under the rubric of "free trade" what we are really promoting is "freedom to purchase" and those who don't want to sell what they have are going to be most able to take advantage of that.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

A close review of the documents released by the FBI in response to the Freedom of Information Act requests relating to what went on at Guantanamo, makes it possible to conclude a number of things.

http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/052605/

1) Even three years after taking office, the highest levels of the Justice Department had not been appropriately staffed by the Bush Administration. At least, that's what I conclude from the fact that the Integrity in Government/Civil Rights Section was still headed by an Acting Chief.
Moreover, the fact that this person, having little clout in an "acting" position, was responsible for supervising prison abuse, contract fraud and oil for food, provides clear evidence that the Department of Justice was not serious about problems in any of these areas.

2) The FBI, as an arm of the Department of Justice, makes it clear in its training of agents and investigators that they understand the following:
a) Information is not to be extracted by force because experience has shown that coerced information leads almost automatically to aborted prosecutions and cases being thrown out of court.

b) Information that is extracted by force has been proven to be largely unreliable. Which, of course, is why it leads to cases being thrown out.

c) Since the primary mission of the Department of Justice is to bring the prosecution of law breakers to a successful conclusion, any behavior which subverts this effort has to be considered as official misconduct and imposes an obligation on those who witness or become aware of such misconduct to report it up the chain of command.

Note that these considerations are driven entirely by the needs of the organization. They have nothing to do with human or civil rights considerations.

3) When members of the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime were dispatched to Guantanamo to evaluate the operation and make recommendations to improve data collection, they found themselves between a rock and a hard place.
Because what they witnessed and were informed about was behavior that clearly conflicted with their training and would, under normal conditions, require the filing of misconduct reports.
However, they were also informed or made aware of an Executive Order, issued by the President of the United States, which appeared to make prohibited behaviors legal, at least when the behaviors were engaged in by representatives of the Department of Defense. So, the question arose whether this Executive Order issued to the DoD was sufficient to relieve representatives of the Department of Justice of the obligation to report the misconduct they observed.

For the record, according to the information provided in the redacted emails, the behaviors that led to these concerns included the following:

sleep management (a euphemism for sleep interruption?)
military working dogs (a euphemism for being threatened by snarling dogs?)
stress positions (obviously including being hung by one's wrists, as some dead prisoners in Afghanistan attest)
environmental manipulation (excessive heat, cold, noise)
sensory deprivation (solitary confinement and being hooded)
stripping (removal of all clothing for other than medical reasons)

That the Executive Order which permitted these behaviors and appeared to provide legal cover for representatives of the DoD was subsequently rescinded did not make the FBI's position any easier. That behaviors were illegal one day, legal (for some people) the next, and then suddenly illegal again provided no guidance about when and by whom misconduct was to be reported, and TO whom.

Talk about a flip-flop. This one obviously left agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigations in an impossible situation. Because, of course, reporting is one of their primary tasks and a failure to report is misconduct itself, if not a crime. (Compare to Catholic Bishops who have failed to report that their subordinates are habitual abusers of boys and girls).

The question we seem to be left with is whether the gross incompetence demonstrated by this Administration at the highest levels is to be dismissed as simple inexperience or should it be considered as an intentional violation of the law?

Tonya Payne of Pittsburgh

The Third DFA-List: Tonya Payne

When Tonya Payne's City Council member stopped listening to her and her fellow citizens, she did the only thing she could: she ran against him—and won by nearly 10 points.

Tonya has run a truly grassroots campaign in her bid for City Council. After making the decision to run, this Pittsburgh Meetup-endorsed candidate put her shoe leather to good use and began knocking on hundreds of doors in an effort to tell people face to face what she would do for them if elected to City Council.

Tonya went talked to citizens about the tough issues Pittsburgh is facing and presented real solutions for taking on the economy, racial unity and making Pittsburgh safe for all its citizens. After knocking on doors, calling people, shaking hands and going through several pairs of shoes, Tonya is now the Democratic nominee for Pittsburgh City Council, District six.

Visit Tonya on her website and learn more about this great progressive voice.

http://www.tonyapayneforcouncil.com/

Nice!!!!!!!

Blog Mambo #5

By Demetrius

First, Second, Third Fourth, Fifth
Everybody on the blog. You know who you're with
Who's here keeping score? New thread of comments
The boys seem to want to pick a feud
Community it la-ments
Dust-up like we had last week
I must stay deep 'cause talk is so cheap
Phil*from*Iowa, Lenny, too. Jonesy and Keli
Grassroots brushfire burns hot in the belly
What to do 'bout trolls short of beggin' HQ?
Just let me know when new software is due
Let it all fly. Here is where you can trumpet
Ready? Set? Now dump it.

A little bit of Monica in my life
A little bit of Fred and his Pro-Life
A little Puddleriver's recipes
A little bit of graphics, that's JC's
A little bit of Subway's songs to croon
A little bit of Oscar's late cartoons
A little bit of mainefem, she's Pro-Choice
A little Jessica, My Vote My Voice

(Musical interlude)

Scroll up and down and shout with the crowd
Shake your head to the sound but then you Laugh Out Loud
As one steps to the Left and one steps Right
Under the wing as we say Good Night
Click "post" only once but preview it twice
Can't say d!ck to BlogNanny 'less you spell it just right

A little bit of LZ XRAY specs
A little bit of Toscha (Poemless)
A little bit of Donna in Evanston
A little bit of Kimmy, just for fun
A little from Ohio TeaTimeTim
A little bit of Bill, can't ignore him
A little bit in all caps KEVIN SCHMIDT
A little bit of sunlight but that's not it

Trumpet, y'all. Trumpet!
Blog Mambo No. 5
(Trumpet solo)

A little bit of Listener in my life
A little bit Renee ('cuz she's my wife)
A little bit of Carol in Santa Fe
A little bit of cHeRyL! (Spelled it her way)
A little Charlie Grapski (Welcome back)
A little bit of GA's Deaniac
A little bit of Bob, and 'tell you what
A little bit of Robert if he's here or not

I do all to fall in love with a blog like you
You can lurk and leave you'll try.
You'll be back bloggin' by and by.

A Wilmshurst Minute

A minute dated 18 March 2003 from Elizabeth Wilmshurst (Deputy Legal Adviser) to Michael Wood (The Legal Adviser), copied to the Private Secretary, the Private Secretary to the Permanent Under-Secretary, Alan Charlton (Director Personnel) and Andrew Patrick (Press Office):

I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution to revive the authorisation given in SCR 678. I do not need to set out my reasoning; you are aware of it. My views accord with the advice that has been given consistently in this office before and after the adoption of UN security council resolution 1441 and with what the attorney general gave us to understand was his view prior to his letter of 7 March. (The view expressed in that letter has of course changed again into what is now the official line.) I cannot in conscience go along with advice - within the Office or to the public or Parliament - which asserts the legitimacy of military action without such a resolution, particularly since an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances which are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law.

I therefore need to leave the Office: my views on the legitimacy of the action in Iraq would not make it possible for me to continue my role as a Deputy Legal Adviser or my work more generally. For example in the context of the International Criminal Court, negotiations on the crime of aggression begin again this year. I am therefore discussing with Alan Charlton whether I may take approved early retirement. In case that is not possible this letter should be taken as constituting notice of my resignation.

I joined the Office in 1974. It has been a privilege to work here. I leave with very great sadness.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst
Deputy Legal Advisor to the Foreign Office
March 18, 2003

Church + State=0 individual freedom

As regards religion and politics, let me just put in my two cents.

The reason there's separation of church and state in the organizational structure of this country is because both institutions have the same goal, to control the behavior of their members, and when they behave in concert, individual freedom doesn't have a chance.

Why?

Well, I begin with the assumption that human existence is confronted by a fundamental conflict--the urge to direct the behavior of others while remaining free to behave autonomously, to do one's own thing without any cognizance of what others want. The conflict is one that cannot be permanently resolved because, if others are to follow directions, then each individual has to be willing to follow directions as well.

There are actually a couple of strategies for resolving this conflict temporarily. The easiest is for individuals to just take turns giving and taking direction. Of course, that requires not only conscious memory but a certain amount of stability within a group so the members can be assured that individual members will be available later to take their turn at doing what they are told.

Another strategy for resolving the conflict is to pretend that the direction of behavior is actually coming from somewhere else. In a secular society, such as this nation has been set up to be, the source of "correct" behavior is located in the laws and legal system that has been constructed out of the consensus of the community as a whole. The problem with this construct, however, is that it is very easy to manipulate and to manipulate it to such an extent that the consensus or agreement on which it is based can be destroyed by a small number of people in a relatively short period of time. And when that happens, when the people no longer agree to have their behavior directed according to law and legal precedent, then the backup system usually relied on to 'force' compliance is the power of the gun.

Another alternative available to resolve the conflict is to ascribe the source of direction to a higher, extra-social power. We usually refer to this as religion when it is organized into a formal body of directives. What happens when religious directives become too onerous is that the individual can respond by rejecting the directives, while the social group whose adherence to authority is challenged has the option of either expelling the recalcitrant members or, in some cases, putting him/her to death. It is the use of this option by some fundamentalist Islamic societies which we in the West are inclined to object to. The execution of individuals who fail to conform their daily behavior to the god-given directives as interpreted by men violates our sense of individual autonomy and freedom most severely.

What makes the enforcement of some religious directives different from the directives enshrined in Western legal systems, is that individuals can be exterminated in the former for failing to fulfill some obligation--i.e. for not doing as they are directed--while the Western legal system generally reserves execution for individuals who do something they've been told not to do.

The reason many people prefer a body of directives that are assumed to have an extra-social source is actually two-fold. On the one hand, it enables individuals to disclaim any responsibility for the directives they utter (it's not my will, but the Lord's that's ordering your life). On the other, resistance to the orders is not personal. That is, an individual is free to resist complying by arguing that the interpretation of the religious directives is flawed.

Another reason for the preference for extra-social or religious directives to be favored by many people has to do with the assumption that humans are incapable of doing 'good'--i.e. behaving an a socially acceptable manner--unless they are directed by a body of rules and regulations. In this case, the natural conflict inherent in the inclination to give direction but to act autonomously is taken as evidence that the human individual is by nature 'evil' and must be forced to conform his/her behavior to social directives. In other words, disobedience is ipso facto evidence of man's "fallen" nature or evil ways.

For whatever reason, the temporary resolution of conflicting interests by taking turns hasn't been generally recognized as a viable strategy. Perhaps that's because an awareness of time and the relevant sequence of events has only recently evolved in the human brain. That it's not a critical faculty may well be attested by the fact that conscious memory is rather late to develop in the process of human maturation and rather likely to disappear as individuals age. On the other hand, it's actually possible an awareness of time and sequential behavior isn't ever universally present--perhaps only peculiar to some.

100 Lies?

TThe 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie

by Dr. David Ray Griffin
Posted: 9/11 Visibility Project -- Sunday, May 22, 2005

In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been ?a 571-page lie.? (Actually, I was saying ?a 567-page lie,? because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.

Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique?s subtitle, ?Omissions and Distortions.? It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated ?distortions? can be considered lies.

It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning. But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention ?to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11.? They are also lies insofar as the Commission could avoid telling an explicit lie about the issue in question only by not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the case in at least!
 most instances.

Given these two types of lies, it might be wondered how many lies are contained in The 9/11 Commission Report. I do not know. But, deciding to see how many lies I had discussed in my book, I found that I had identified over 100 of them. Once I had made the list, it occurred to me that others might find this summary helpful. Hence this article.

One caveat: Although in some of the cases it is obvious that the Commission has lied, in other cases I would say, as I make clear in the book, that it appears that the Commission has lied. However, in the interests of simply giving a brief listing of claims that I consider to be lies, I will ignore this distinction between obvious and probable lies, leaving it to readers, if they wish, to look up the discussion in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. For ease in doing this, I have parenthetically indicated the pages of the book on which the various issues are discussed.

Given this clarification, I now list the omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission?s claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).
he 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie

by Dr. David Ray Griffin
Posted: 9/11 Visibility Project -- Sunday, May 22, 2005

In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been ?a 571-page lie.? (Actually, I was saying ?a 567-page lie,? because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.

Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique?s subtitle, ?Omissions and Distortions.? It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated ?distortions? can be considered lies.

It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning. But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention ?to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11.? They are also lies insofar as the Commission could avoid telling an explicit lie about the issue in question only by not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the case in at least!
 most instances.

Given these two types of lies, it might be wondered how many lies are contained in The 9/11 Commission Report. I do not know. But, deciding to see how many lies I had discussed in my book, I found that I had identified over 100 of them. Once I had made the list, it occurred to me that others might find this summary helpful. Hence this article.

One caveat: Although in some of the cases it is obvious that the Commission has lied, in other cases I would say, as I make clear in the book, that it appears that the Commission has lied. However, in the interests of simply giving a brief listing of claims that I consider to be lies, I will ignore this distinction between obvious and probable lies, leaving it to readers, if they wish, to look up the discussion in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. For ease in doing this, I have parenthetically indicated the pages of the book on which the various issues are discussed.

Given this clarification, I now list the omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission?s claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

|3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was ?a hollow steel shaft?---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the ?pancake theory? of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein?s statement that he and the fire department commander decided to ?pull? Building 7 (28).

12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30).

14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani?s statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

15. The omission of the fact that President Bush?s brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing?s façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).

22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld?s reference to ?the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]? (39).

23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).

24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).

25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).

26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).

27. The omission of David Schippers? claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).

28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).

29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).

30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).

31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America?s ?most wanted? criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).

32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).

33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).

34. The omission of Gerald Posner?s account of Abu Zubaydah?s testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).

35. The Commission?s denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).

36. The Commission?s denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar?s wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).

37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).

38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).

39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).

40. The omission of Coleen Rowley?s claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).

41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright?s charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).

42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui?s computer (91-94).

43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds?-testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).

44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan?s intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).

45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).

46. The Commission?s claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).

47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).

48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan?s Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).

49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).

50. The omission of Gerald Posner?s report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).

51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be ?coming down? (114).

52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as ?opportunities? (116-17).

53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that ?a new Pearl Harbor? would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).

54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).

55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks?-Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).

56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).

57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).

58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).

59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).

60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld?s conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).

61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that ?the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein? (133-34).

62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).

63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD?s Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).

64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).

65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).

66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane?s transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military?s radar to track that plane (166-67).

67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD?s response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).

68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).

69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).

70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD?s earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).

71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).

72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175?s hijacking (183-84, 186).

73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).

74. The omission, in the Commission?s claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).

75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI?s counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).

76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military?s radar (191-92).

77. The failure to explain, if NORAD?s earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was ?incorrect,? how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).

78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).

79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).

80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke?s videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).

81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because ?none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department?---although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).

82. The Commission?s claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke?s videoconference---although Clarke?s book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).

83. The endorsement of General Myers? claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke?s contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke?s videoconference (213-17).

84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke?s account of Rumsfeld?s whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld?s own accounts (217-19).

85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta?s testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).

86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).

87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a ?high-speed dive?) and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).

88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from ?Phantom Flight 11,? were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).

89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).

90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93?s hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).

91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).

92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).

93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).

94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC?s Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).

95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).

96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).

97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).

98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).

99. The omission of Clarke?s own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).

100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).

101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).

102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).

103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).

104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).

105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).

106. The endorsement of General Myers? claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).

107. The endorsement of General Myers? claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).

108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).

109. The failure to probe the issue of how the ?war games? scheduled for that day were related to the military?s failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).

110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).

111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).

112. The failure to point out that the Commission?s claimed ?independence? was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).

113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).

114. The failure to point out that the Commission?s chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).

115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report ?without dissent,? to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of ?looking at information only partially,? had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).

I will close by pointing out that I concluded my study of what I came to call ?the Kean-Zelikow Report? by writing that it, ?far from lessening my suspicions about official complicity, has served to confirm them. Why would the minds in charge of this final report engage in such deception if they were not trying to cover up very high crimes?? (291)

http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-05-22-571pglie.php

Dam Beavers

The Law is the Law

This is an actual letter sent to a man named Ryan DeVries by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, State of Michigan.

SUBJECT: DEQ File No.97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Montcalm County


Dear Mr. DeVries:


It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity:


Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond. A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department's files shows that no permits have been issued.


Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, annotated.


The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the stream channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 2003.


Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request or any further unauthorized activity on the site may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action. We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.


Sincerely, David L. Price District Representative Land and Water Management Division





** This is the actual response sent back: **





Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Montcalm County.


Dear Mr. Price,


Your certified letter dated 12/17/02 has been handed to me to respond to. I am the legal landowner but not the Contractor at 2088 Dagget, Pierson, Michigan. A couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood "debris" dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, authorize, nor supervise their dam project, I think they would be highly offended that you call their skillful use of natures building materials "debris." I would like to challenge your department to attempt to emulate their dam project any time and/or any place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic. As to your request, I do not think the beavers are aware that they must first fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity. My first dam question to you is:


(1) Are you trying discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers or


(2) do you require all beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, through the Freedom of Information Act, I request completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994 being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, annotated.


I have several concerns. My first concern is, aren't the beavers entitled to legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said representation, so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department's dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event causing flooding is proof that this is a natural occurrence, which the Department is required to protect. In other words, we should leave the Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling their dam names. If you want the stream "restored" to a dam free-flow condition please contact the beavers, but if you are going to arrest them, they obviously did not pay any attention to your dam letter... they being unable to read English. In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream. They have more dam rights than I do to live and enjoy Spring Pond. If the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection lives up to its name, it should protect the natural resources
(Beavers) and the environment (Beavers' Dams). So, as far as the beavers and I are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more elevated enforcement action right now. Why wait until 1/31/2003? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then and there will be no way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them then.


In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention a real environmental quality (health) problem in the area. It is the bears! Bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The bears are not careful where they dump!) Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office.





- Thank You, Ryan DeVries & The Dam Beavers

 


 

Grover's Quislings

"Grover's Quislings" That's what the state senators and representatives who have pledged their allegiance to Grover Norquist instead of the people they've been elected to represent should be called.

Democracy for New Hampshire has identified who those people are in my state.

Legislators, District
Robert Boyce S-4
Robert Clegg S-14
Robert Flanders S-7
Ted Gatsas S-16
Andre Martel S-18
Sheila Roberge S-9
Laurie J. Boyce Belknap-5
Carolyn Brown Carroll-1
Howard C. Dickinson, Jr. Carroll-1
J. Lisbeth Olimpio Carroll-5
Donald P. Philbrick Carroll-2
John R.M. Alger Grafton-6
Bob Barker Grafton-6
Edmund Gionet Grafton-3
Robert J. Giuda Grafton-5
Margie Maybeck Grafton-8
Michael G. Biundo Hillsborough-15
Ralph G. Boehm Hillsborough-27
J. Gail Barry Hillsborough-16
Peter L. Batula Hillsborough-19
Paul A. Brassard Hillsborough-17
Robert Brundige Hillsborough-19
David Buhlman Hillsborough-27
Jim Carew Hillsborough-1
Lawrence Emerton, Sr. Hillsborough-7
Bea Francoeur Hillsborough-26
John M. Gibson Hillsborough-19
Pete R. Goyette Hillsborough-27
Raymond Hebert Hillsborough-17
Ken Hawkins Hillsborough-18
Ryan Hansen Hillsborough-6
Peyton Hinkle Hillsborough-19
Bruce Hunter Hillsborough-7
William J. Infantine Hillsborough-13
Eugene Kelly, Jr. Hillsborough-20
Karen McRae Hillsborough-7
Robert D. Mead Hillsborough-4
Pamela Manney Hillsborough-7
William L.O'Brien Hillsborough-4
Leo P. Pepino Hillsborough-11
Sandra Reeves Hillsborough-8
Lee Slocum Hillsborough-6
Stephen Stepanek Hillsborough-6
Maurice Villeneuve Hillsborough-18
James E. Wheeler Hillsborough-6
William Field Merrimack-7
Stephen L'Heureux Merrimack-9
Richard Marple Merrimack-9
Tony F. Soltani Merrimack-8
Elbert Bicknell Rockingham-1
Kevin L. Camm Rockingham-8
Sharon Carson Rockingham-3
Dudley Dumaine Rockingham-3
John W. Flanders, Sr. Rockingham-8
Robert Fesh Rockingham-5
Mary Griffin Rockingham-4
Karen K.Hutchinson Rockingham-3
Paul Hopfgarten Rockingham-5
Robert Introne Rockingham-3
Rogers J. Johnson Rockingham-13
George N. Katsakiores Rockingham-5
Phyllis M. Katsakiores Rockingham-5
Rudolph J. Kobel Rockingham-1
Howie Lund Rockingham-5
Norman L. Major Rockingham-8
Ronald J. Nowe Rockingham-9
Anne Priestley Rockingham-4
Paul Smith Rockingham-3
Russell Albert Strafford-1
Sam Cataldo Strafford-3
Duncan Chaplin Strafford-3
Timothy Easson Strafford-3

But there are very likely similar quislings in other states. Or, perhaps they're DeLay's minions and tied to the agenda of the heartland Institute. Since their main agenda seems to be to undermine the established governments of our communities and states, it seems fair to say that these are the new subversives--dedicated to the destruction of our democratic functions.

Of course, if we had real campaign finance reform which limits candidates for public office to accepting money from people who can actually vote for them, the influence of these subversive organizations, as well as corporate lobbyists of every stripe, would be non-existent.

HD on MTP

Howard Dean will be Tim Russert's guest on Meet the Press for the full
hour tomorrow morning.  The reactionary pundits are beside themselves,
making predictions about his tendency to speak bluntly.

No doubt there will be an effort to get Dean to retract his suggestion
that Tom Delay should go to jail for his crooked dealings--for buying
the votes of fellow legislators with contributions from his Political
Action Committees.

That Al Sharpton has once again come out of the woodwork with
accusations about an insufficient number of blacks having been hired by
the DNC is also par for the course and just as ill-informed as in the
past.

Meanwhile, Democracy for New Hampshire has documented that a good
percentage of state legislators have been subverted by Grover Norquist's
AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM, persuaded in exchange for some minimal
campaign contributions to pledge allegiance to Norquist, rather than the
New Hampshire communities they represent.
New Hampshire legislators are probably not the only targets of these
subversive groups, whose ultimate goal is to shrink all government so it
can be "drowned in a bathtub."  An outfit which calls itself the
Heartland Institute, for example, has legislators in all fifty states on
its roster.  And then, of course, there's DeLay's Republican Majority
PAC whose contributions to other law-makers are nicely catalogued at
http://www.indelayspocket.com/...

In case you haven't noticed, "reform" is the latest euphemism for
"destroy."  So, "reform" of Social Security, the judicial system, the
private pension system and, of course, income taxes are all designed to
do away with rules and regulations that predatory capitalists don't
like.  They peddle "free markets" but what they are really after is the
opportunity to do exactly as they like without any social restraints.
Something to keep in mind as we start gearing up for the 2006
congressional elections.

Meanwhile, there's Memorial Day to have a picnic and later in the month,
on June 23, we'll want to schedule house parties to keep DFA energized.
In some parts of the country, DFAers are going to be paying particular
attention and working with the Service Employees International Union
(SEIU) to make Wal-Mart more responsive to the income requirements and
health care coverage of its employees.  It's my personal position that
if corporations don't want to be involved in providing health care, they
should mobilize themselves and help us set up a national program.  I
agree that in an age of specialization it doesn't make much sense for a
producer of widgets to be worrying about health care coverage.  But
somebody has to do it.

Finally, after trips to Oregon, Maryland and a number of red states,
Howard Dean is scheduled to visit Boston for a fund-raiser on Monday,
June 20.
https://www.democrats.org/support/boston.htm

Evil is Banal

In February of 2002, the President of the United States issued a memorandum, unilaterally abrogating the nation's responsibilities towards captives as outlined in the Geneva Conventions, to which it had been a party since 1949. There seems to have been no consultation with other signatories before the memorandum was issued. Nor does the Secretary of State seem to have been involved in the deliberations, despite the fact that it was a matter of international law.

Significantly, the memorandum is silent on how a Taliban or al Qaeda detainee is to be defined. And, in fact, it now turns out to be the case that the great majority of those taken into custody had no knowledge of or connection to those organizational entities.
That some of these captives have been abused even unto death is a stain on our nation that will never be erased.

Finally, let me just observe that "humane treatment" is behavior that describes human behavior towards creatures that are not. Which may well be where the trouble in this instance lies.

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

February 7, 2002

MEMORANDUM FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT
THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS
CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

SUBJECT: Humane Treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees

1. Our recent extensive discussions regarding the status of al Qaeda and Taliban detainees confirm that the application of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949 (Geneva) to the conflict with al Qaesa and the Taliban involves complex legal questions. By its terms, Geneva applies to conflicts involving "High Contracting Parties," which can only be states. Moreover, it assumes the existence of "regular" armed forces fighting on behalf of states. However, the war against terrorism ushers in a new paradigm, one in which groups with broad, international reach commit horrific acts against innocent civilians, sometimes with the direct support of states. Our Nation recognizes that this new paradigm--ushered in not by us, but by terrorists--requires new thinking in the law of war, but thinking that should nevertheless be consistent with the principles of Geneva.

2. Pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of the United States, and relying on the opinion of the Department of Justice dated January 22,2002, and on the legal opinion rendered by the Attorney General in his letter of February 1, 2002, I hereby determine as follows:

a. I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world because , among other reasons, al Qaeda is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva.

b. I accept the legal conclusion of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time. Accordingly, I determine that the provisions of Geneva will apply to our present conflict with the Taliban. I reserve the right to exercise this authority in this or future conflicts.

c. I also accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either al Qaeda or Taliban detainees, because, among other reasons, the relevant conflicts are international in scope and common Article 3 applies only to "armed conflict not of an international character."

d. Based on the facts suplied by the Department of Defense and the recommendations of the Department of Justice, I determine that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants and, therefore, do not qualify as prisoners of war under Article 4 of Geneva. I note that, because Geneva does not apply to our conflict with al Qaeda, as Qaeda detainees also do not qualify as prisoners of war.

3. Of course, our values as a Nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment. Our nation has been and will continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva and its principles. As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropirate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.

4. The United States will hold states, organizations, and individuals who gain control of United States personnel responsible for treating such personnel humanely and consistent with applicable law.

5. I hereby reaffirm the order previously issued by the Secretary of Defense to the United States Armed Forces requiring that the detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.

6. I hereby direct the Secretary of State to communicate my determination in appropriate manner to our allies, and other countries and international organizations cooperating in the war against terrorism of global reach.

signature of George Bush?

Ahlam Al-Hassan

Her name is Ahlam Abt Al-Hassan. Yesterday was the one year anniversary of when
she was shot twice in the head by member of the Mehdi army while waiting for a
taxi to go to her job with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR)
in Diwaniyah.

After nearly three months of work searching women as they entered one of the US
bases in Diwaniyah, she was paid a total of $475 from KBR. In return she has
lost her eyesight, had to move from Iraq and cant return because of threats
from the Mehdi Army. Her ex-employers will not return any of her calls or
requests for assistance.

From Diwaniyah herself, shed finished her studies at the university as an
Arabic teacher.

Of course there were no jobs, so my friend told me I could work for KBR and
they hired me when I went to them, she tells me today in Amman.

The 25 year-old sits wearing dark sunglasses, her black hijab wrapped around her
head with her hands resting in her lap as she tells her story inside an
organization funded by a Saudi group who gives assistance to training blind
Arab women.

My two bosses at KBR, Mr. Jeff and Mr. Mark were very good and gentle with me,
she explains, They told me it wasnt dangerous to work for them.

Living with her aunt and cousin, she had to work since she was the sole
supporter.

We needed many things, so I wanted the job, she says softly, Many people were
working with the Americans so I felt it would be ok.

But the militia of Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr had long since warned Iraqis of
collaborating with the occupiers, and said they would not allow anyone to do
so. The situation in her area degraded enough for her bosses to tell her to
stay home for two weeks.

After this, I went back to work because my bosses told me the security was
better, she adds, But after Id been back to work one week, at 7:30am I was
waiting for a taxi as I always did to go to my job, and I felt as if I was
thrown to the ground but I felt nothing else. My bosses had told me it was
secure now.

After a short time someone came up and held her hand.

I asked him why he did this to me, and he told me he didnt do it and he would
take me to the hospital.

She asked him if she was going to die. Two bullets passed through her head,
taking her eyesight before exiting.

He took me to the hospital in Hilla, she explains softly, And when I was
there I told people I worked for KBR. Someone at KBR told the people at the
hospital they would come to visit me.

But they never came.

After being transferred to two more hospitals in Baghdad, there was still no
word from them.

But then Mr. Jeff called by his translator after I was in Baghdad for 45 days,
and Mr. Jeff told the hospital worker that I was in a hospital inside the Green
Zone, she tells me before holding out her hands as if to ask why. She raises
her voice for the first time, But I was not in the Green Zone!

She had just had surgery on her injured cheek in an area where one of the
bullets passed through, and was unable to speak on the phone. She had her
friend tell her boss that she wasnt able to talk because of the pain.

After this, they have made no attempts to contact me, she says.

After her accident, as she puts it, she has lost everything. Her sight, her
family has had to move, and now she has nothing and lives in the Saudi funded
house, not knowing what her future will bring when her training as a telephone
operator ends in 10 days.

I dont know what to do now, she explains, I cant go back to Iraq because it
is too dangerous.

Within a couple of months of her accident, the security deteriorated to a
point where, as Ahlam knew of it, KBR moved from the area and let all the other
employees go. She had worked at one of the two US bases in Diwaniyah, located
inside a medical university. US Marines had taken over the area after the
Spanish contingent withdrew from Iraq.

Before they left, I asked my friend who was still working for KBR to get the
full name of my bosses, phone numbers, or an email, but they were unable to
obtain this information.

She tells me that as an employee she was never given this information, and knew
no other Iraqi there who had it.

I ask her if she was ever made to sign anything with KBR, or if they offered any
benefits.

The only time I was ever asked to sign my name for them, it was only to pick up
my paycheck.

When she was hired, there was no contract to sign, and of course no benefit
package.

She was told by friends that her bosses at KBR told everyone that she was
alright, But neither Mr. Jeff nor Mr. Mark every called me again, and nobody
ever asked about me.

I am so annoyed now, she says while leaning forward, I was very good with
them: always on time, never left early, and they were happy with me. But when I
needed them the most, they were not there.

She is crying now.

The doctors told me my right eye is gone, but there is hope for my left eye if
it can be cleaned internally, she says after taking off her sunglasses.

Her right eye stares straight ahead, covered by a grayish hue while her left eye
constantly looks at the ground.

Ahlam speaks English well. The college graduate has now completed a computer
course at the assistance home where she lives, and soon will finish her
training as a telephone operator. After that, she does not know if she will be
allowed to stay in her room.

Right now, I dont know my future, and this is very difficult for me.

Abu Talat, my photographer colleague, Linda (who is a friend of Ahlam), and I
sit in the uncomfortable silence. Linda then asks Ahlam if we can go outside to
take some pictures.

Outside in the small courtyard, after some photos, Ahlam hugs Linda for a long
time.

I give my email to Ahlam, a feeble attempt to provide some sort of comfort as I
dont know what else to do. Another friend of Lindas is working to get Ahlam
to the states for medical treatment, but so far the visa is up in the air.

I thank Ahlam for her time and tell her Ill write her story. I look for some
words I can give her. Some hope.

I promise you I will write your story Ahlam, I say awkwardly, And maybe
someone will read it and be able to help you.

She hugs Linda again. Abu Talat offers to take her back inside but she tells him
she can do it herself.

Abu Talat watches her as she gingerly walks towards the stairs. He stands
watching as she slowly climbs them.

We walk to the street and stand for a moment. There are no words as we stand
under the hot sun. I stare at a minaret of a distant mosque.

How many others are there like her, Abu Talat asks, not necessarily to me.

Iraqi Dispatch

AMMAN, May 19 (IPS) - As with the siege of Fallujah six months back,
U.S. claims over the siege of the Iraqi town Al Qa'im are being
challenged now by independent sources.

The U.S. military claims a ?successful? end to the weeklong operation
earlier this month around Al-Qa'im, a town about 320km west of Baghdad
close to the Syrian border. The operation was launched against what the
U.S. military saw as the presence of Al-Qaeda fighters in the town.

Iraqi civilians and doctors in the area say no foreign fighters were
present in the town. Al Qa'im and surrounding areas have suffered great
destruction, and many in the town population of 110,000 were killed,
they say.

Abu Ahmed, a resident of Al-Qa'im, told IPS on telephone that ?all the
fighters here are Iraqis from this area.?

He said continuing violations by U.S. soldiers had provoked people into
confronting the occupying forces. He said troops had been raiding homes,
sending women into the streets without their hijabs and entering areas
where women sleep.

?The fighters are just local people who refuse to be treated like dogs,?
he said. ?Nobody wants the Americans here.?

Abd al-Khaliq al-Rawi, head of communications for the local government
in Al-Qa'im said on Al-Jazeera television that the fighters were all
local Iraqis. ?We have not seen any outsiders. The fighters are from the
area. They are resisting the occupation.?

Al Qa'im and surrounding areas were besieged by U.S. forces for a week
by about 1,000 troops backed by warplanes, tanks and helicopters as a
part of 'Operation Matador'. The U.S. military claims the operation was
a success in that 125 ?militants? were killed in an effort to search for
followers of the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
But accounts of the operation from non-governmental organisations
(NGOs), Iraqi doctors and civilians differ greatly from those put
forward by the military.

?Qa'im is still surrounded by the MNF (Multinational Forces), and we've
yet to get any humanitarian workers into the city,? Daunia Pavone,
programme manager for the Italian NGO consortium Solidarity told IPS in
Amman, Jordan. The bombing had stopped, she said, but they did not know
when it might resume and were unable therefore to send aid workers into
the area.

?The Americans said they could not get inside the city,? Pavone said.
?Once the Americans surrounded the city nobody was able to get out. So
we are very concerned that there are a large number of civilian
casualties inside the city.?

Pavone said that about 12,000 Iraqis had left Al-Qaim, and that the rest
had remained trapped inside. ?I think there will be lots of civilian
casualties,? she said.

At least nine soldiers were killed and more than 40 wounded during the
siege, according to the U.S. military.

The U.S. military has made no statement on civilian casualties, but
witnesses say scores of innocent Iraqis were killed.

The city centre ?has been almost completely destroyed,? the director of
Al-Qa'im hospital Dr. Hamdi Al-Alusi told Al-Jazeera television. He said
the casualties included many women, children and elderly people, and
appealed to humanitarian organisations to intervene quickly.

?Ambulances were prevented from moving and the medical teams have left
the city centre because it has been destroyed,? Al-Alusi said during the
siege. Water and electricity networks have been destroyed and ?there are
scores of wounded people and scores of victims who cannot reach the
hospital or anywhere else. We pray to god and implore the whole world to
look into what happened to Al-Qa'im and adjacent cities.?

Rafa Asahab, a Syrian who lives in Abu Kemal village on the Syrian
border told IPS he saw some of the effects of the siege. ?At least 100
civilians in Al-Qa'im have been killed,? he said. U.S. warplanes also
entered Syrian airspace many times, he said.

Eyewitnesses said U.S. jets and helicopters also attacked surrounding
Al-Karabilah, Al-Jazirah and Al-Quaydat towns. ?Medical staff confirmed
the killing of civilians by helicopter gunfire,? Dr. Muhammad Abud
reported on Al-Sharqiyah television. He said ambulance crews had
difficulty retrieving some bodies that had been ripped apart.

Adil al-Rawi, an eyewitness in Al-Qa'im said on Al-Arabiya television
during the siege that U.S. forces had shelled the hospital. ?They are
using warplanes, mortar shells and tanks to shell the city
indiscriminately, hurt citizens and bomb the houses with warplanes.?

Many people in the towns need medical aid, and the thousands of
residents who fled need water, food, tents and blankets, Pavone said.

The siege came as violence and bloodshed continue to escalate in Iraq
amidst rising opposition to U.S. forces. Tensions rose further when
anti-occupation Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr made another demand Monday
that the United States withdraw from Iraq. Al-Sadr had launched a bloody
Intifadah (militant uprising) against occupation forces last summer in
Najaf, Hilla and the Sadr City area of Baghdad.

Last week the new Iraqi government announced a continuation of the state
of emergency (excepting in the Kurdish region in the north). Emergency
was declared on Nov. 7, 2004. Most of the country has remained under
martial law ever since, despite elections in January this year.

Iraq Bluff

[http://www.cagle.com/working/050517/signe.jpg]

Galloway Speaks Truth

"Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader. and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one - and neither has anyone on my behalf.

"Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice.

I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction.

I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda.

I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001.

I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.

Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.

"Now I want to deal with the pages that relate to me in this dossier and I want to point out areas where there are - let's be charitable and say errors. Then I want to put this in the context where I believe it ought to be. On the very first page of your document about me you assert that I have had 'many meetings' with Saddam Hussein. This is false.

"I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, once in 1994 and once in August of 2002. By no stretch of the English language can that be described as "many meetings" with Saddam Hussein.

"As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defense made of his.

"I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas. I used to demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy when British and American officials were going in and doing commerce.

"You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other member of the British or American governments do.

"Now you say in this document, you quote a source, you have the gall to quote a source, without ever having asked me whether the allegation from the source is true, that I am 'the owner of a company which has made substantial profits from trading in Iraqi oil'.

"Senator, I do not own any companies, beyond a small company whose entire purpose, whose sole purpose, is to receive the income from my journalistic earnings from my employer, Associated Newspapers, in London. I do not own a company that's been trading in Iraqi oil. And you have no business to carry a quotation, utterly unsubstantiated and false, implying otherwise.

"Now you have nothing on me, Senator, except my name on lists of names from Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of your puppet government in Baghdad. If you had any of the letters against me that you had against Zhirinovsky, and even Pasqua, they would have been up there in your slideshow for the members of your committee today.

"You have my name on lists provided to you by the Duelfer inquiry, provided to him by the convicted bank robber, and fraudster and conman Ahmed Chalabi who many people to their credit in your country now realize played a decisive role in leading your country into the disaster in Iraq.

"There were 270 names on that list originally. That's somehow been filleted down to the names you chose to deal with in this committee. Some of the names on that committee included the former secretary to his Holiness Pope John Paul II, the former head of the African National Congress Presidential office and many others who had one defining characteristic in common: they all stood against the policy of sanctions and war which you vociferously prosecuted and which has led us to this disaster.

"You quote Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Well, you have something on me, I've never met Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Your sub-committee apparently has. But I do know that he's your prisoner, I believe he's in Abu Ghraib prison. I believe he is facing war crimes charges, punishable by death. In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram Airbase, in Guantanamo Bay, including I may say, British citizens being held in those places.

"I'm not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything you manage to get from a prisoner in those circumstances. But you quote 13 words from Dahar Yassein Ramadan whom I have never met. If he said what he said, then he is wrong.

"And if you had any evidence that I had ever engaged in any actual oil transaction, if you had any evidence that anybody ever gave me any money, it would be before the public and before this committee today because I agreed with your Mr Greenblatt [Mark Greenblatt, legal counsel on the committee].

"Your Mr Greenblatt was absolutely correct. What counts is not the names on the paper, what counts is where's the money. Senator? Who paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars of money? The answer to that is nobody. And if you had anybody who ever paid me a penny, you would have produced them today.

"Now you refer at length to a company names in these documents as Aredio Petroleum. I say to you under oath here today: I have never heard of this company, I have never met anyone from this company. This company has never paid a penny to me and I'll tell you something else: I can assure you that Aredio Petroleum has never paid a single penny to the Mariam Appeal Campaign. Not a thin dime. I don't know who Aredio Petroleum are, but I daresay if you were to ask them they would confirm that they have never met me or ever paid me a penny.

"Whilst I'm on that subject, who is this senior former regime official that you spoke to yesterday? Don't you think I have a right to know? Don't you think the Committee and the public have a right to know who this senior former regime official you were quoting against me interviewed yesterday actually is?

"Now, one of the most serious of the mistakes you have made in this set of documents is, to be frank, such a schoolboy howler as to make a fool of the efforts that you have made. You assert on page 19, not once but twice, that the documents that you are referring to cover a different period in time from the documents covered by The Daily Telegraph which were a subject of a libel action won by me in the High Court in England late last year.

"You state that The Daily Telegraph article cited documents from 1992 and 1993 whilst you are dealing with documents dating from 2001. Senator, The Daily Telegraph's documents date identically to the documents that you were dealing with in your report here. None of The Daily Telegraph's documents dealt with a period of 1992, 1993. I had never set foot in Iraq until late in 1993 - never in my life. There could possibly be no documents relating to Oil-for-Food matters in 1992, 1993, for the Oil-for-Food scheme did not exist at that time.

"And yet you've allocated a full section of this document to claiming that your documents are from a different era to the Daily Telegraph documents when the opposite is true. Your documents and the Daily Telegraph documents deal with exactly the same period.

"But perhaps you were confusing the Daily Telegraph action with the Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor did indeed publish on its front pages a set of allegations against me very similar to the ones that your committee have made. They did indeed rely on documents which started in 1992, 1993. These documents were unmasked by the Christian Science Monitor themselves as forgeries.

"Now, the neo-con websites and newspapers in which you're such a hero, senator, were all absolutely cock-a-hoop at the publication of the Christian Science Monitor documents, they were all absolutely convinced of their authenticity. They were all absolutely convinced that these documents showed me receiving $10 million from the Saddam regime. And they were all lies.

"In the same week as the Daily Telegraph published their documents against me, the Christian Science Monitor published theirs which turned out to be forgeries and the British newspaper, Mail on Sunday, purchased a third set of documents which also upon forensic examination turned out to be forgeries. So there's nothing fanciful about this. Nothing at all fanciful about it.

"The existence of forged documents implicating me in commercial activities with the Iraqi regime is a proven fact. It's a proven fact that these forged documents existed and were being circulated amongst right-wing newspapers in Baghdad and around the world in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi regime.

"Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.

"I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.

"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.

If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth.

"Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Halliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money of the American taxpayer.

"Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.

"Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government."

Newsweek on the Block

Dear Editor,

Any journalist with an ounce of common sense would have seen right away that the report of a Koran being flushed down a toilet wasn't accurate. A toothbrush or a turban, maybe. A prayer book with hard covers, impossible.
Never mind that the cages at Gauntanamo weren't outfitted with flush toilets anyway.
None of which changes the fact that desecration of their holy books and disrespect for their religion has been reported by the captives coming out of Guantanamo for months, if not years. And, quite frankly, I find reports of books being thrown into cages and "just happening" to land in the buckets used for waste more disturbing than the idea that a book was flushed. After all, such a conscious act at least recognizes the importance of what is being abused.
But the bigger question this incident raises is why a "faith-based" administration would countenance the use of another person's faith to harass, terrorize and abuse him?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701315_2.html

Yesterday, several former detainees said they witnessed military police and guards at Guantanamo Bay throwing their copies of the Koran on the ground, stomping on them with their feet, and tossing them into buckets and areas used as latrines.

Former detainee Abdallah Tabarak told a Moroccan newspaper in December that he saw guards throw Korans in the toilet, according to a BBC translation of the article.

"When I wanted to pray, they would burst into my cell with police dogs to terrorize me and prevent me from praying," he said. "They also would trample the Koran underfoot and throw it in the urine bucket. We staged protests in the prison about the desecrating of the Holy Koran, so the management promised us that they would issue orders to the American soldiers not to touch the copies of the Koran again."

The Pentagon issued those rules on Jan. 19, 2003, requiring that the Koran not be placed on "the floor, near the toilet or sink, near the feet, or dirty/wet areas."

Save Our Houses

In the interest of getting out ahead of things, most people probably haven't noticed that the next thing Bush and cronies are out to destroy is owner-occupied houses.

Does that surprise you? Didn't you hear Bush say that his is the ownership society? Didn't you also hear him say that his program is to "save" social security? And did you finally conclude that what he meant was that the money saved for old age in the federal retirement program should be turned over to the private sector financiers to play with. (That's because "savings" in the terminology of economists and accountants is money that is turned over to someone else to manage).

Specialized definitions apply to houses occupied by their owners, as well. From an economist's perspective, whatever value they have gained through years of occupancy and improvement, represents a capital gain that is in need of being "liberated" for use by the market.

Actually, the assault on traditional owner-occupied housing (that serves more than one generation) has been going on for some time. Oddly enough, the removal of the capital gains tax on owner-occupied housing was part of the scheme to persuade people to cash in their gains by selling their houses and then borrowing to buy a more expensive replacement. The economic argument behind this was that the taxes on the sales expense and the increased revenue that title companies, mortgagors, surveyors, etc would bring in more in taxes than would be lost because people weren't inclined to sell out and pay a capital gains tax.

Currently, the scam is to persuade elderly people to cash out their equity by taking a reverse mortgage to pay their medical expenses and make up for reduced pensions. That there will be nothing left to leave to their heirs when they finally pass may seem to conflict with the promised benefits of "personal accounts" but a scam doesn't have to be consistent, it just has to sound good. Besides, when people are confronted with conflicting information, they tend to conclude that one must be right and one wrong and pick the one that fits their situation to be the right one.

I would bet that all over red America there are people who have already experienced the loss of the family homestead and most of them probably think it was their own fault. After all, hasn't the government been promoting home-ownership for decades? So, those who still lost their's must have been doing something wrong, right? Wrong. The government has been promoting the "acquisition" of houses because people who own their own houses are a constant and predictable source of tax reveneu, especially if they don't hold on to them too long. Of course, if they can be persuaded to trade up, even more taxes can be collected?not to mention increased revenues for a whole slew of middle-men

Anyway, what I want to suggest is that we start collecting stories from people about their experience with owning a house, about raising a family, starting a business, learning basic skills like carpentry and plumbing, and, more recently, the prospect of having to "liquidate" their equity in order to have enough food and medecine in their old age.

See, I think red America was even more deceived about traditional family housing in which multiple generations were raised, than they were about social security being "reformed" in their favor. Certainly, there can be no question that the emphasis on relocating American manufacturing and production assets overseas has had the effect of depopulating middle America.

We need to talk about that.

It wouldn't surprise me to discover, if we ask them, that many people deep down feel really threatened by the pictures of bull-dozers destroying the houses of Palestinians and the bombs wiping out the cities in Iraq. The propaganda coming out of the Pentagon tries to paint a picture of troops bringing benefits, like water and sewer lines, to people who didn't have them before. But the fact is that these facilities are lacking because they were willfully destroyed by American bombardment in Gulf I & II. It almost seems like there's the same expectation as there was about our urban renewal program that when the slum housing is destroyed, people will simply build something new and better in its place. But, we know from experience that's not how it works. When something is finally built to replace destroyed housing, it's never for the people that were displaced. When people's housing is destroyed, the fabric of their community is irreparably rent.

Of course, if one is completely cynical, then one might think that the assault on people's houses, like that on their guaranteed pension, is simply intended to make them fearful and maleable.

Certainly, I'd be fearful if I were one of those 50% of California new home buyers whose monthly payments cover the interest on their loans only. What happens when they go to sell and suddenly discover that any equity they have is negative, that they owe more than the house is worth? There won't even be reverse mortgages for them when they grow old.

But that's just speculation on my part. What are the real stories?

DFA Handbook

The DFA Handbook is available at this site in pdf format:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/features/DFA_Group_Guide.pdf

For those who have difficulty accessing this format, the following offers a somewhat redacted version of the document.

DFA

Taking Your DFA Coalition Group
to the Next Level

I.Introduction
Welcome! As a DFA grassroots leader, you play a critical role in Democracy for America. We've compiles this guide to help you take your DFA group to the next level. Feedback from successful DFA Meetups and coalition groups inspired most of the information included in this packet.
In the coming months, we can rbuild our country and the Democractic Party from
the bottom up. Together we can:

Transform the democratic process by focusing on socially progressive and fiscally responsible candidates in local races.
Sponsor activist trainings.
Recruit and endorse quality candidates and build and maintain a network of volunteers that are helping elect local candidates.
Grow and promote our grassroots network in local communities and engage them in the political process.
The suggestions in this guide are based on recent experiences and the wealth of information that has been shared among the committed grassroots, but also recognize that one-size-does-not-fit-all. In other words, your specific organizational goals and where you want to place your energy may differ from othere, and, for that reason, some of these suggestions may apply to you and others may not. It's up to you to decide how to best grow to the next level. DFA can try to help you achieve this, but we certainly cannot tell you what to do.

II.General Organizing Tips for Local Groups
This section describes basic best practices bo build your local Democracy for America organization. This information is based on feedback from successful DFA groups around the country.

A. Form a Steering Committee for Your Group
If your group doesn't have a steering committee yet, the next few months are a good time to form one. Many successful DFA groups have found this step to be a critical building block for their organization.
The steering committee should set the agenda for the Meetups and hold at least one “business meeting” each month between Meetups. After the initial steering committee is formed, it is important to enable new volunteers to step into a leadership role by joining the steering committee.

Forming a steering committee is likely to have a variety of benefits:
It will enable your group to get more done by distributing the workload among several people.
It will enable you to develop new leadership over time by bringing new people into the leadership group.
It will keep more members of your group invested the the group's continuation and growth.

B. Stay Active Between Meetups and Events
Meetups only take place once a month. To grow your group and build a vibrant DFA community in your area, you should take steps to make sure your group stays active between Meetups.

Stay Active Online: There are several different tools you can use to help your Meetup group stay connected with each other and discuss issues in you community on an ongoing basis.
o Form a Yahoo Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/
o Form a listserv or mailing list
o Use the Meetup.com forum tool: http://dfa.meetup.com
o From a group blog using Civic Space Labs, Moveable Type, www.blogspot.com or another software program.

Stay Active Offline: There are a variety of great ways you can keep your group mobilitzed by holding offline events.
o Working on local campaigns.
o Working with other groups on local initiatives. For instance, your group might work with the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) on environmental protection initiatives.
o Holding community service events in your community (DFA Corps)
o Tabling at the local grocery store or town square
o Holding steering committee meetups at least once a month between Meetups.

C. Give People a Variety of Options and Let Them Run with It
One of the best ways to develop stronger volunteers is to give member of your group support when they have ideas that they're excited about. For instance, if a member of your group is excited about tabling at the local grocery store, you should take steps to enable them to quickly set up tabling events in your community and solicit the group for other volunteers to help in their efforts.
You should also be careful to avoid volunteer burnout. Remember there are
limits on everyone's time and we have a long road ahead to take our country back.

D. Keep in Touch with Other Groups in your Area
For the DFA community to be effective over the long-haul, we need to build coalitions among all the Meetup groups in your region. This will enable you to share best practices and coordinate your efforts with other groups to maximize your impact.

DFA Coalition Groups: Many regions and states have formed DFA coalition groups to coordinate their efforts. You can check http://www.blogforamerica.com to see if your state has a DFA Coalition group. If there is a DFA coalition group in your state (e.g., Democracy for Colorado or Change for Kentucky), reach out to them to find out what other groups in the state are doing. If there is not a DFA coalition group, or your state's group has gone dormant, consider starting one.
Yahoo! Groups and Regional Mailing Lists: A Yahoo! Group of regional mailing list can be a great way to share best practices and organizing tips. Many states already have a Yahoo! Group or mailing list set up. If there isn't one in your state, consider starting one. You can also touch base with Meetup hosts across the country at: http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/DFAMeetupHosts/.

E. Build a List of your Members
You should use every opportunity to build your list of members. At a minimum, the list should include every member's name, e-amil address, mailing address, phone number, and interests. Do not depend on other organizations (e.g., Meetup.com) to provide you with a list. Your group will be much more effective if you build and maintain your own list that you can use without restrictions imposed by other organizations.

F. Publicize your Group
Remember, not everyone in your community is conected to the internet!
The challenge we face as DFA organizers is to engage those member of our community both online and offline--the old fashioned way!
Flyers: Post the flying in high-traffic areas all over town-- especially near the venue--and distribute it at local gatherings/events.
Online: Post reminders about your groupsl Meetups to you local DFA listservs and DFA coalition groups' websites.
Offline: List the Meetup in your community calendar or local Democratic calendar. Many public access radio or television stations will include information about local meetings.
Phone: Recruit a volunteer to start a phone tree to remind people about the upcoming Meetup and invite new people.
Personal: Email and phone all of your friends and coworkers to let them know about your Meetup!
Outreach: Consider inviting community leaders who would be interested in joining other committed citizens. You should also reach out to other grassroots organizations in your area and invite their members to attend your Meetup.
Accessibility: Make your Meetup more accessible. Think about why some people may not be able to attend even if they want to.
Invite Speakers: Candidates and representatives from other progressive organizations (union, environmental groups, etc) make great speakers. Include speaker announcement in your publicity.

III.Using E-mail to Build Your Group
Many DFA groups have used Web sites very effectively to grow their groups. However, e-mail is also an incredibly effective tool for building your organization. In particular, an effective e-mail strategy can help build your membership, increase your visibility, recruit volunteers for events, and potentially raise money. While there is no universal strategy that will be effective for every group, there are some simple best practices that will help your group use e-mail more effectively.

A. Process
Target your message. Consider sending different e-mails to your strong volunteers than you would send to your general membership.
Develop a voice. Write your e-mail in a casual, personal tone, and send them from a specific person. Don't put an amorphous organization name in the “from” line. A good rule of thumb is to imagine writing the e-mail to a perticular person rather than the entire list.
Give content precedence over form. In general, graphics do not make much difference unless they serve a specific purpose (e.g. a contribute button, photo, or image summarizing the message).
Use a strong subject line. Whether someone opens your e-mail will largely be determined by the subject line. We have received the strongest results with action-oriented subject lines that are less than 50 characters in length. For example, “Come help us” is not as strong as “Betty Castor Needs Your Help this Saturday.”
Ask for something specific. Many groups use a newsletter format that lists many upcoming events and volunteer opportunities. While this format may work well for some groups, in most cases you will get a stronger response by simplifying the email and focusing on one or two priorities. The email should make a strong “ask” for these priorities and be very clear about how volunteers can get involved in them.
Timing! You will get the strongest results if you send e-mails early in the week during normal business hours. You eant your e-mail to arrive at a time when people are paying attention to their e-mail. Most people don't check e-mail over the weekend or in the evening. As a result, the most effective time to send e-mails is during business hours, Monday - Thursday.
Develop an e-mail calendar for your group. The calendar should provide enough flexibility to enable your group to act on unplanned events as they arise. However, try to keep your communications as consistent as possible. For example, if you send e-mails on the same two days each week, your list will anticipate updates on those days and be ready to follow through.
Develop a strategy to grow your list. Remember that most e-mail lists shrink over time unless you actively take steps to attract new members. In many areas, you can use both offline and online methods to grow your list. For instance, tabling in your community can be a very effective way to sign-up new people offline. On the Internet, petition drives and online advertising can help you attract new members. Please note that many existing lists could be subject to proprietary claims, property rights, or even election laws, so it's highly recommended that your grow your list through new sign ups . (and hide the names when you send messages in bulk in order to protect the privacy of your members)
Develop a Privacy Policy. If you are using or collecting data, your group has an obligation to post and adhere to a privacy policy. The privacy policy should describe how you will use personal information and how people can unsubscribe from your list. The policy should be publicly available on your Web site. DFA's privacy policy is available at http://www.democracyforamerica.com/privacypolicy
Do not spam. Limit yourself to two e-mails per week.

B. Technology

Find the tool that suits your list's needs. If your e-mail list is over 50 member, there are a variety of commercial services that allow you to upload a list and send e-mails. Two examples are http:/www.listbox.com and http://www.democracyinaction.com.
You can also obtain software that you can install on your own server to send e-mails. One free e-mail system you can obtain is called PHP List. There are a variety of commercial options, including http://www.lyris.com, http://www.britemoon.com, http://www.whatcounts.com and others.

IV.Forming an Organization Structure
The next step towards building a long-term organization is to put in place a formal organizational structure. A strong organizational structure will enable your group to move forward in a stronger position into 2005 and 2006.

There is no one-size-fits-all strategy that will work everywhere. However, there are
some best practices that are like to make your group stonger. This section describes
the process used by some of DFA's most successful doalition groups to determine
their structure.

In addition, there are legal considerations to be taken into account when
deciding what structure is best suited for your goals. Because these
considerations can vary widely, we have not attempted - nor do we intend - to
provide any legal advice by virtue of this guide. However, we are more than
happy to put you in touch with DFA's counsel to assist you in navigaing these
complicated and often conflicting rules.

A. Define your mission
As a political organization, you must first decide WHAT you want to do. Is
your primary goal to work for candidates or do you want to educate people
on important political issues? Do you want to provide community service
or do you want to register people to vote? Do you want to raise money to
help a campaign or do you want to raise money to run issue advertisements?
These are very important questions, because the answers will define not only
the goals and objectives of your organization, but will also determine the legal
rules that apply to you as well as the organizational structure that you choose.

B. Match your mission to the organization type

There are five primary types of political advocacy organization:

Volunteer group without a fundraising apparatus
Federal Political Action Committee (PAC)
http://www.fec/gov/brochures/shtml
State Political Action Committee
http://changeforkentucky.com/yourpac.html
IRS 527 non-profit political organization
http://www.irs.gov/charit