US Admits to Torture

US acknowledges torture at Guantanamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan says the UN. This according to an AFX New Report on Forbes.com.

"The acknowledgement was made in a report submitted to the UN Committee against Torture, said a member of the ten-person panel, speaking on on condition of anonymity. 'They are no longer trying to duck this and have respected their obligation to inform the UN,' the Committee member said. 'They they will have to explain themselves (to the Committee). Nothing should be kept in the dark,' he said. UN sources said this is the first time the world body has received such a frank statement on torture from US authorities. "

The Jury says: GUILTY

The World Tribunal on Iraq heard testimony from 54 witnesses from around the world.
Printed versions of many of the testimonials are available on the WTI website:
http://www.worldtribunal.org

I watched the highlights on Free Speech TV and have read many of the testimonials.
The testimony include a wide range of topics including the deceit practiced by the US and UK governments, the lack of WMDs in Iraq, effects of UN sanctions, destruction of Iraqi infrastructure, devastation of the Iraqi state and society, the ecological destruction and contamination, the 100,000 dead civilians, the 60,000 being held in US custody without charges, the thousands of people that have disappeared, torture and mistreatment of prisoners, the privatization of the Iraq economy, and much much more.

The WTI jury has found that the US and UK governments conducted “a war of aggression in contravention of the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles”, that “Intelligence was manufactured to willfully deceive the people of the US, the UK, and their elected representatives”, that attacks on the Iraqi civilian population and infrastructure was in violation of the Geneva Conventions as well as the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, that the US and UK used “Using disproportionate force and indiscriminate weapon systems, such as cluster munitions, incendiary bombs, depleted uranium (DU), and chemical weapons,” “Failing to safeguard the lives of civilians during military activities and during the occupation period thereafter,” “Imposing punishments without charge or trial, including collective punishment, on the people of Iraq, in violation of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Geneva Conventions, and customary international law requiring due process,” “Subjecting Iraqi soldiers and civilians to torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in violation of the Geneva Conventions, the ICCPR, other treaties and covenants, and customary international law. Degrading treatment includes subjecting Iraqi soldiers and civilians to acts of racial, ethnic, religious, and gender discrimination, as well as denying Iraqi soldiers Prisoner of War status as required by the Geneva Convention”, “Willfully devastating the environment, contaminating it by depleted uranium (DU) weapons, combined with the plumes from burning oil wells, as well as huge oil spills, and destroying agricultural lands,” “Redefining torture in violation of international law, to allow use of torture and illegal detentions, including holding more than 500 people at Guantánamo Bay without charging them or allowing them any access to legal protection, and using “extraordinary renditions” to send people to torture in other countries known to commit human rights abuses and torture prisoners,” and much, much, much more.

The WTI jury recommends “1. The immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the coalition forces from Iraq; 2. That coalition governments make war reparations and pay compensation to Iraq for the humanitarian, economic, ecological, and cultural devastation they have caused by their illegal invasion and occupation; 3. That all laws, contracts, treaties, and institutions established under occupation which the Iraqi people deem inimical to their interests, should be considered null and void; 4. That the Guantanamo Bay prison and all other offshore US military prisons be closed immediately; that the names of the prisoners be disclosed, that they receive POW status, and receive due process; 5. That there be an exhaustive investigation of those responsible for crimes of aggression and crimes against humanity in Iraq, beginning with George W. Bush, President of the United States of America; Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; and other government officials from the coalition of the willing; 6. That we initiate a process of accountability to hold those morally and personally responsible for their participation in this illegal war, such as journalists who deliberately lied, corporate media outlets that promoted racial, ethnic and religious hatred, and CEOs of multinational corporations that profited from this war; 7. That people throughout the world launch actions against US and UK corporations that directly profit from this war. Examples of such corporations include Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle, CACI Inc., Titan Corporation, Kellog, Brown and Root (subsidiary of Halliburton), DynCorp, Boeing, ExxonMobil, Texaco, British Petroleum. The following companies have sued Iraq and received “reparation awards”: Toys R Us, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Shell, Nestlé, Pepsi, Phillip Morris, Sheraton, Mobil. Such actions may take the form of direct actions such as shutting down their offices, consumer boycotts, and pressure on shareholders to divest. 8. That soldiers exercise conscience and refuse to enlist and participate in an illegal war. Also that countries provide conscientious objectors political asylum. 9. That the international campaign for dismantling all US military bases abroad be reinforced. 10. That people around the world resist and reject any effort by any of their governments to provide material, logistical, or moral support to the occupation of Iraq.”

They even present evidence of active participation in the corporate media in spreading deliberate falsehoods and failing to adequately investigate the government’s misinformation.

I find it disturbing that American corporate media have given no coverage to the WTI proceedings. There has been plenty of coverage in other parts of the world. Run a Google or Yahoo news search, the results are telling. And the position of our corporate media in America is apparent—their silence speaks very loudly to those who take the time to sample news coverage from other countries.

US Bigger Killer Than Saddam says WTI

From the Gulf Times of Qatar:

Published: Saturday, 25 June, 2005, 12:02 PM Doha Time
ISTANBUL: The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI), a grouping of NGOs and intellectuals opposed to the war in Iraq, yesterday accused the United States of causing more deaths in Iraq than ousted president Saddam Hussain.

“With two wars and 13 years of criminal sanctions, the United States have been responsible for more deaths in Iraq than Saddam Hussain,” Larry Everest, a journalist, told hundreds of anti-war activists gathered in Istanbul.

Founded in 2003, the WTI is modelled on the 1960s Russell Tribunal, created by the British philosopher Bertrand Russell to denounce the war in Vietnam. It has held about 20 sessions so far in different locations around the world.

World Tribunal on Iraq

The World Tribunal on Iraq http://www.worldtribunal.org
is holding its final sessions in Istanbul. This is the culmination of 2 years of investigation documenting violations of international law and human rights by the United States and its allies before, during and after the invasion of Iraq.

Coverage will be broadcast on Free Speech TV June 24 - 28th.
It will also be streamed via the Internet at http://www.deepdishtv.org

"The World Tribunal on Iraq is collecting a definitive body of evidence on the illegality of the invasion and occupation that will be indispensable to the global anti-war movement, to conscientious objectors, and to students of history for years to come. Americans who oppose the war have a duty to support and participate in this crucial international effort to stand up to U.S. government lawlessness and impunity." -- Naomi Klein

Republicans Bury Gun in the Closet

The Republicans can bury the gun in a closet, but it is still smoking.

Congressman John Conyers held a hearing to learn more about the Downing Street Memos last week. The Republican leadership did everything they could to keep the hearing from taking place: They refused to let Conyers have a hearing room, forcing them to meet in a basement storeroom. And then they called a large number of votes during the time the hearing was taking place.

Here is a message from Mr. Conyers, who drafted a letter to the President asking for a response and clarification from the White House about the Downing Street Memos:

"On Thursday, I led a hearing about the Downing Street Minutes to receive testimony from former Ambassador Joe Wilson, 27-year CIA veteran Ray McGovern, constitutional lawyer John Bonifaz, and Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son in Iraq.
Despite desperate attempts by Republicans to disrupt the proceedings, 32 Members of Congress attended this hearing. We were forced to use a cramped room in the basement of the Capitol little bigger than a closet, even though plenty of larger hearing rooms were available. The Republican Leadership also scheduled votes for nearly two straight hours in an unprecedented attempt to limit the ability of Democratic Members of Congress to participate in this hearing.
Thanks to your help, and the more than 560,000 individuals who signed this letter, the mainstream media felt compelled to cover this event. The room was packed with television cameras and there was significant coverage in national newspapers and radio networks. After the hearing I hand delivered the list of signatures along with a letter to the president signed by 122 Members of Congress demanding answers, and led a rally outside the White House.
We still have much more to do to make President Bush answer the questions raised by the Downing Street Minutes. Much work remains for us to bring this issue to the attention of all Americans."

You can go to http://johnconyers.com to learn more about what Congressman Conyers is doing to get answers about this issue.

Much is at stake here.

Smoking Gun II

This picture represents the extent of the Free Press in America.
The UK, on the other hand, still publishes articles critical of their government.
London’s Sunday Times published the text of another Top Secret UK Memo dated July 21, 2002 (two days prior to the date on the Downing Street Memo).
Read it: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758_1,00.html
And the original Downing Street Memo at: http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html

Again it is noted that evidence for Weapons of Mass Destruction are “thin” and that “desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.”

"U.S. views of international law vary from that of the U.K. and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law...Legal bases for an invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable...but would be difficult to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and proportionality. "

"US military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination if Iraqi WMD. It is however, by no means certain, in the view of UK officials, that one would necessarily follow from the other. Even if regime change is a necessary condition for controlling Iraqi WMD, it is certainly not a sufficient one. "

Even though the British felt that the US plan was insufficient to result in a stable Iraq, and even though the legalities of military action were not being observed, the UK felt it had to go along, that Austrailia “would be likely to participate on the same basis as the UK” and that Russia and China might stay out of the way “if sufficient attention were paid to their legal and economic concerns.” (That means keep paying them.) But the British bottom line was that “In practice, much of the international community would find it difficult to stand in the way of the determined course of the US hegemon.”

The Determined Course of the US Hegemon. Sounds like the subtitle to a book about the Bush Administration. Bush’s War On Terror: The Determined Course of the US Hegemon. Of course George W Bush probably has never used the word hegemon or hegemony in a complete sentence, so let me disassemble it for you:
Hegemon, n. One that exercises hegemony.
Hegemony, n, The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.

In other words, the British couldn’t legally justify invading Iraq, but they would go along and so would many other countries because the US is a big bully and will use their power to get what they want.

If somebody on the Congressional Judiciary Committee does not call for an investigation then there is something seriously wrong with our government. They will attempt to impeach a sitting president for lying about a blow job, but they won’t investigate a president for lying about his reasons and timing for going to war.

Fair and Balanced Clubbing of the Left

Scott Norvell is London bureau chief for Fox News, you know that "Fair and Balanced" organization that pretend to present the news. Fox has long protested that allegations of being a right wing public relations organization were unfair and unbalanced, despite the fact that anyone watching the Fox News Network knows who they are batting for with in five minutes. Well Scott forgot to preach the "Fair and Balanced" creed when he talked to the Wall Street Journal Europe on May 20:

• 
  "Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.
  Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it."

Even though the pen is mightier than the sword, Fox as opted to use clubs. So it is okay to be completely biased and unbalanced as long as your company is privately funded, but if your organization receives any public money--like the BBC or PBS or NPR--then actual fairness and actual balance are required. I guess all those tax breaks and special FCC licenses received due to millions of dollars worth of lobbying in Washington DC don't count as receiving public money.

Oh well, at least the continual beating that the Left takes from Fox will be easier to tolerate now that Fox is being a little more honest about how they treat liberals.

Thanks to Timothy Noah at Slate for passing this one on to us. You can read his article HERE.

I also find it interesting that while Fox is being more honest about their conservative bias, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting--who was appointed by George W Bush--has stepped up his attacks on the liberal bias of PBS and specifically Bill Moyers. In fact, Tomlinson paid a consultant $10,000 to monitor Moyers' show on PBS, Now, and watch for liberal bias. Then he refused to make the consultant's report public even though it was paid for with tax payer dollars. You know that public funding that Fox is so concerned about. He probably pulled the report because it found that PBS coverage is more balanced than most other news sources. PBS seems left biased only if you take right leaning clubs like Fox News as the self-professed "Fair and Balanced" center of the news spectrum.

Meanwhile, PBS which receives only 15% of its money from taxpayers, denies Tomlinsons allegations.

Also, Bill Moyers gave a great speech about PBS recently to the National Conference for Media Reform in St. Louis, Mo, where he said, "A free press is one where it's OK to state the conclusion you're led to by the evidence. " You should read the transcript.

I wish more of the press were interested in evidence and logical conclusions rather than clubbing people who disagree with them to death and feeding the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. But at least I can take solace in the fact that I am subsidizing Bill O'Reilly's bombast through FCC concessions and tax breaks to the "news" broadcasters.

WMD WTF W?

Smoking Gun? Maybe.
I'm sure the administration will use every distraction possible to keep people from paying attention to what the British knew before the war in Iraq. What did the British know?

Well the British Government knew that President Bush had already made up his mind to go to war in Iraq in July of 2002 even though in March of 2002 he was still saying that "We are doing everything we can to avoid war." And the British Government was concerned that there was no legal justification for an invasion of Iraq. And the head of UK's foreign intelligence (SIS) said that the US didn't have a strong case for war, "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

And now you can, and should, read all about it in The Downing Street Memo.

When will somebody in the Bush administration step forward and admit that they lied about WMD, about connections between Iraq and 911, and they did everything they could to justify an unprovoked military invasion of a country that posed no threat to the United States?