De Bush Bende 34

'In Search of a Criminal: Donald Rumsfeld's Name Tops the List of Accused of War Crimes.
By Alexia Garamfalvi
Legal Times

No one thinks that Donald Rumsfeld will end his days in a German prison. Or that there is any real chance he will have to face trial in Germany over allegations that he authorized policies leading to the torture of prisoners at U.S. detention facilities in Iraq and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
But that doesn't mean that a complaint filed in Germany last month won't have some ripple effects. The complaint asks a federal prosecutor there to begin an investigation, and ultimately a criminal prosecution, of the former secretary of defense and other U.S. officials for their roles in the abuses.
"Rumsfeld is no longer untouchable," says Wolfgang Kaleck, the German lawyer who filed the complaint along with the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights and the International Federation for Human Rights. "He is now deeply connected with claims of abuses and torture. We have taken the first step to begin the legal discussion on his accountability."
The complaint against Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet, and other senior civilian and military officials, was filed in mid-November on behalf of 11 Iraqis who had been detained at Abu Ghraib prison and Mohammed al-Qahtani, a Saudi detained at Guantánamo. It alleges that the defendants ordered, aided, and abetted war crimes and failed to prevent the commission of war crimes by their subordinates. In international law, war crimes are defined as grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, including torture and inhuman treatment.
Rumsfeld has said the abuse that occurred at Abu Ghraib was the work of a few low-level soldiers and the prisoners affected were mostly not the subject of interrogations, but just "common criminals" who were also detained. "It's pretty clear that on the midnight shift, for a period of some weeks, there were people there who were behaving in a way that was fundamentally inconsistent with the president's instructions to treat people humanely [and] my instructions that they were to treat people humanely," Rumsfeld said in a Dec. 15 television interview.
But the plaintiffs claim that the torture that occurred at detention centers in Iraq and Guantánamo were not isolated incidents or the product of a few soldiers gone bad, but rather was widespread and systemic, having been ordered from the top levels of the military and the Defense Department. "The interrogational torture applied by the United States was not an accident, not a mistake, not a secret action," the complaint states. (Pentagon and Department of Justice spokesmen declined to comment for this article.)
Stymied in their call for high-level accountability in the United States, the groups thought their best shot was to bring a case in a country, like Germany, that has a strong universal-jurisdiction law, says Michael Ratner, the CCR's president.
The CCR has been involved in much of the litigation challenging the Bush administration's post-Sept. 11 policies on the treatment of detainees in the context of the war on terror, including the landmark case Rasul v. Bush, which challenged the indefinite detention of foreign nationals at Guantánamo.
German law recognizes the principle of universal jurisdiction, whereby some crimes, such as torture, war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, are considered so heinous they can be prosecuted anywhere, regardless of where they took place or the residence or nationality of the victims or perpetrators.
But legal experts predict that the Bush administration is sure to vigorously oppose the case and that Germany will be reluctant to take it. Under Germany's universal-jurisdiction statute, the prosecutor has the discretion to decline to take a case.
"It's quite risky for Germany to do this," says Eric Posner, an international law professor at the University of Chicago. "The danger of backlash is quite real. Congress, even a Democratic Congress, could very well retaliate if a serious prosecution went forward."
Moreover, the filing could also strengthen the position of those in the government who oppose the International Criminal Court, says Lee Feinstein, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former Defense Department and State Department official during the Clinton administration.
But human rights lawyers contend that even if the case doesn't result in the prosecution of a specific defendant, it could reopen a debate in the United States about Rumsfeld's responsibility. They also say filing cases abroad under universal-jurisdiction laws may catalyze domestic efforts to open investigations and push for accountability.'

Lees verder:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010207M.shtml Of:
http://www.law.com/jsp/dc/PubArticleDC.jsp?id=1166522799501

The Empire 115

'A Healthy New Year.
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times
Monday 01 January 2007

The U.S. health care system is a scandal and a disgrace. But maybe, just maybe, 2007 will be the year we start the move toward universal coverage.
In 2005, almost 47 million Americans - including more than 8 million children - were uninsured, and many more had inadequate insurance.
Apologists for our system try to minimize the significance of these numbers. Many of the uninsured, asserted the 2004 Economic Report of the President, "remain uninsured as a matter of choice."
And then you wake up. A scathing article in yesterday's Los Angeles Times described how insurers refuse to cover anyone with even the slightest hint of a pre-existing condition. People have been denied insurance for reasons that range from childhood asthma to a "past bout of jock itch."
Some say that we can't afford universal health care, even though every year lack of insurance plunges millions of Americans into severe financial distress and sends thousands to an early grave. But every other advanced country somehow manages to provide all its citizens with essential care. The only reason universal coverage seems hard to achieve here is the spectacular inefficiency of the U.S. health care system.
Americans spend more on health care per person than anyone else - almost twice as much as the French, whose medical care is among the best in the world. Yet we have the highest infant mortality and close to the lowest life expectancy of any wealthy nation. How do we do it?
Part of the answer is that our fragmented system has much higher administrative costs than the straightforward government insurance systems prevalent in the rest of the advanced world. As Anna Bernasek pointed out in yesterday's New York Times, besides the overhead of private insurance companies, "there's an enormous amount of paperwork required of American doctors and hospitals that simply doesn't exist in countries like Canada or Britain."
In addition, insurers often refuse to pay for preventive care, even though such care saves a lot of money in the long run, because those long-run savings won't necessarily redound to their benefit. And the fragmentation of the American system explains why we lag far behind other nations in the use of electronic medical records, which both reduce costs and save lives by preventing many medical errors.
The truth is that we can afford to cover the uninsured. What we can't afford is to keep going without a universal health care system.'


Lees verder: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010207L.shtml

The Empire 114

'Heather Wokusch: Bush and the F-word in 2006: Police State or Progressivism in 2007?

'"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - attributed to Benito Mussolini, Italian dictator
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Hermann Goering, Hitler's propaganda chief
It's not overstating the case to say that 2007 could be make or break for US democracy.
The Bush administration's cutbacks and rollbacks in 2006 were so frequent and so egregious that many Americans stopped paying attention, gave up hope or else failed to see the onslaught as part of a larger pattern.
Which brings up the f-word.In 2003, Laurence W. Britt wrote a seminal article comparing fascist regimes, such as Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy, to life under Bush. While the term fascism has been widely overused (in August, Rumsfeld even accused war critics of "a new type of fascism") Britt's analysis eerily resonated back then and is worth a second look today.
This two-part series recaps Bush's record in 2006 under the framework of Britt's "fourteen common threads" of fascism and makes predictions for 2007.
***The examples below are more indicative than exhaustive; Project for an Old American Century has a comprehensive links page spanning Bush's presidency.
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
In July, Bush signed the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act so Americans could "express their patriotism here at home without burdensome restrictions."
What burdensome restrictions?
With similar fanfare, he issued a "proclamation" in October noting that patriotism "can help our children develop strength and character."
Less than two weeks later, he authorized the building of 700 miles of double-layered fencing along the US-Mexican border.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.'

Lees verder: http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/669

Wijsheid 13

'Nothing the Great Mystery placed in the land of the Indian pleased the white man, and nothing escaped his transforming hand. Wherever forests have not been mowed down, wherever the animal is recessed in their quiet protection, wherever the earth is not bereft of four footed life - that to him is an "unbroken wilderness." But, because for the Lakota there was no wilderness, because nature was not dangerous but hospitable, not forbidding but friendly, Lakota philosophy was healthy - free from fear and dogmatism. And here I find the great distinction between the faith of the Indian and the white man. Indian faith sought the harmony of man with his surroundings; the other sought the dominance of surrounding. In sharing, in loving all and everything, one people naturally found a due portion of the thing they sought, while, in fearing, the other found need of conquenst. For one man the world was full of beauty; for the other it was a place of sin and ugliness to be endured until he went to another world, there to become a creature of wings, half-man and half-bird. Forever one man directed his Mystery to change the world He had made; forever this man pleaded with Him to chastise his wicked ones; and forever he implored his God to send His light to earth. Small wonder this man could not understand the other. But the old Lakota was wise. He knew that lack of respect for growing, living things soon led to lack of respect for humans, too. So he kept his children close to nature's softening influence.'

Chief Luther Standing Bear. Oglala Sioux.

Happy New Year!!!

Krazy Kat and I wish you all a Happy New Year!!!

The Empire 113

Reuters bericht:

'Arab haj pilgrims outraged at Saddam execution.

MECCA, Saudi Arabia (Reuters) - Arab pilgrims in Mecca expressed
outrage on Saturday that Iraqi authorities had chosen to execute
former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein on a major religious holiday,
saying it was an insult to Muslims.

Sunni Arabs at the haj were shocked at Saddam's hanging which
followed his conviction for crimes against humanity against Iraqi
Shi'ites.

"His execution on the day of Eid ... is an insult to all Muslims,"
said Jordanian pilgrim Nidal Mohammad Salah. "What happened is not
good because as a head of state, he should not be executed."

The Eid al-Adha, or Feast of the Sacrifice, marks biblical patriarch
Abraham's willingness to kill his son for God. Muslim countries often
pardon criminals to mark the feast, and prisoners are rarely executed
at that time.

The death could harden hatred for Shi'ite Muslims in Saudi Arabia, a
bastion of Sunni Islam whose Islamic orthodoxy -- known as Wahhabism
-- regards Shi'ites as virtual heretics.

"This timing was chosen to turn our joy during Eid to sadness. I
don't say this for grief over Saddam ... but we must ready ourselves
for a new enemy from the East," a user on an Islamist Web site said,
referring to Shi'ites in Iran.

Saddam, a Sunni, was admired by many Arabs for standing up to the
United States. Haj authorities fear his death could stoke tensions
between Sunni and Shi'ite pilgrims.

Eid falls during the 5-day haj, when more than 2 million Muslims from
around the world follow ancient rites at the Islamic Muslim holy city
of Mecca in Saudi Arabia.

"I don't want to believe it. Saddam cannot die. Is this the good news
we get on our Eid?" said Saudi Nawaf al-Harbi.

But many Shi'ites regard Saddam's death as a gift from God.

"Congratulations, this is like two Eids! I hope God will not have
mercy on him," Iraqi Nadir Abdullah said amid a group of jubilant
pilgrims.

PREOCCUPIED

Security was already heightened for this haj season because of
sectarian strife between Sunnis and Shi'ites in Iraq and elsewhere in
the region.

Haj pilgrims dress in simple white garments that can disguise
differences of sect and nationality. Many come from outside the
Middle East and on Saturday most were preoccupied with the next stage
of the rites, the symbolic stoning of the devil at the Jamarat Bridge.

But many felt Saddam's execution would only worsen sectarian violence
in Iraq.

"This is unbelievable. Things will not improve in Iraq now that
Saddam is dead," said a Syrian pilgrim, Abu Mostafa. "There will be
more violence and more Arab anger towards the West."

For Iraqi Kurds like Aladdin Suleiman Mohammad, the execution was a
"fair decision" regardless of timing, though it dashed hopes of
justice for crimes against Kurds.

Saddam's second trial on charges of war crimes against Iraqi Kurds in
what is known as the "Anfal" or "Spoils of War" campaign, had been
due to resume next month.

But many Arabs said if anyone should be put on trial it was the
Shi'ite-led Iraqi government that backed the U.S. invasion of Iraq in
2003, which overthrew Saddam.

"They are American collaborators, those in Iraq. They should be
executed, not Saddam Hussein." said Mohammad Mousa, on haj from
Lebanon. "Saddam Hussein is the most honourable of all of them. He is
the most honourable Arab. They will go to hell, he will go to heaven."'

De International Herald Tribune:

'Muslims criticize timing of execution.

Muslim leaders around the world espressed dismay Saturday that Saddam Hussein was executed at the time of Id al-Adha, an important holiday considered a time of forgiveness and compassion.
Muslim countries often pardon criminals to mark the occasion, and prisoners are rarely executed at that time.
The most important date in the Islamic calendar, Id al-Adha, or Feast of the Sacrifice, honors the biblical patriarch Abraham's willingness to kill his son Isaac for God before God decided to spare Isaac's life.
Id al-Adha also falls during the five- day hajj, the pilgrimage when more than two million Muslims from around the world follow ancient rites at the Islamic holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia.
The Saudis were among those criticizing the holding of the execution during Id al-Adha.
"There is a feeling of surprise and disapproval that the verdict has been applied during the holy months and the first days of Id al-Adha," a presenter on the official Al Ikhbariya TV said after programming was broken to read a statement.
"Leaders of Islamic countries should show respect for this blessed occasion," said the statement, which was attributed to the political analyst of the official press agency SPA.
In Indonesia, the world's most populous Islamic nation, the government said it respected the sentence and trial.
"This execution is not surprising as a legal process has been conducted, despite its imperfection, and Saddam Hussein has been given a chance to defend himself," said Desra Percaya, an Indonesian government spokesman. "Indonesia hopes the execution doesn't separate conflicting parties further in the efforts to realize a national reconciliation, which is a requirement for the return of Iraq's sovereignty."
Masdar Mas'udi, a co-chairman of Nahdlatul Ulama, Indonesia's biggest Islamic organization, said the execution was "right by law, but it is not wise."
"People can already predict what the reactions of Saddam's supporters will be," Masdar Mas'udi said. "There may be more bloodshed."'

Lees verder: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/30/news/web.1230feast.php

The Empire 112

'Blog: NYT to Ignore White House, Run "Classified" Op-Ed.

Over at the Washington Note, we see that the New York Times is set to reject a White House-led effort to block publication of an essay critical of its foreign policy. Last week the paper was set to publish an op-ed piece by Flynt Leverett, a former Bush Administration official who worked at the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of State, and on the National Security Council, which criticized the White House for its disastrous diplomatic approach towards Iran.
The CIA reviewed the article and cleared it for publication, but the White House put the brakes on it, saying it contained classified information that the CIA missed. Leverett cried foul: "All of my publications on Iran -- and, indeed, on any other policy matter on which I have written since leaving government -- were cleared beforehand by the CIA's Publication Review Board to confirm that I would not be disclosing classified information."
Now Steve Clemons, a friend of Leverett's, reports on his blog (ed.: see editorial note below) that tomorrow the Times will run the op-ed "with redacted lines 'blacked out.'" Clemons told me by phone that the Times will instruct readers where they can find the omitted information in other (unclassified) publications -- like, for instance, in Leverett's paper on the same topic called "Dealing with Tehran," published through the Century Foundation.
The information the White House had redacted, according to Leverett, "include Iran's dialogue and cooperation with the United States concerning Afghanistan in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and Iran's offer to negotiate a comprehensive "grand bargain" with the United States in the spring of 2003."
(ed.note: After this post was written, the post by Steve Clemons, which we referenced above, was taken down from his site, The Washington Note. The post which subsequently took its place contains some of the same information but not the key points referenced above --jmm.)'

Zie: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002214.php