Global Pulse: Tortured Words (video)

Dandelion Salad


(February 13, 2008) Interrogation or torture, trial or travesty – news media around the world used their own perspectives to judge the upcoming trial of key 9/11 suspects by military tribunal. What you call it matters, shaping public opinion in the U.S. and worldwide. Especially revealing are the differences in images and words between U.S. and international broadcasters – of 9/11, and of waterboarding.

SOURCES: BBC, U.K.; TVE, Spain; NBC News and Fox News, U.S.; Press TV, Iran; Al Jazeera English, Qatar.

Vodpod videos no longer available. from posted with vodpod



Military Tribunals and You by Cindy Sheehan

Torture, tribunals and the death penalty (video)

Is this Justice? US accused of using ‘Kangaroo Court’ to try Men accused of Role in 9-11 Attacks by Andrew Gumbel

If Only We Were Nazis

Global Pulse: FTA: For Free or For Sale?

Dandelion Salad

Guess Bush didn’t hear about the huge beef recall.  ~ Lo


See More at
(February 15, 2008) Global Pulse looks at news from Korea and Colombia – two nations where the U.S. fought hard to establish free trade agreements – discovering that many people are less enthusiastic about the agreements than their leaders. And guess what? The same is true in the United States.

SOURCES: RCN, Columbia; Globovision, Venezuela; KBS, Korea; CNN, U.S.

Vodpod videos no longer available. from posted with vodpod



Doreen the Downer cartoon by Mark Fiore

Outsourcing Will Ultimately Lead to Fascism in America by Richard Backus

9/11: Insider Trading by Davis Fleetwood (video)

Dandelion Salad

for 9/11 research, start here:
connect on facebook fan page-…
or new facebook profile:…

Title sequence by GLENNPW

Continue reading

If Kosovo, why not Palestine? + MIR: Kosovo is not Palestine (vid)

Dandelion Salad

By John Whitbeck
02/22/08 “Al-Ahram Weekly

It is time for the Ramallah-based Palestinian leadership to challenge the international community on Palestinian independence

As expected, Kosovo has issued its unilateral declaration of independence, the United States and most European Union countries, with whom this declaration was coordinated, rushing to extend diplomatic recognition to this “new country”. This course of action should strike anyone with an attachment to either international law or common sense as breathtakingly reckless. Continue reading

Has Bush Been Spying, Blackmailing Congressional Democrats? By Paul Craig Roberts

Dandelion Salad

By Paul Craig Roberts
February 19, 2008

President George W. Bush and his director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, are telling the American people that an unaccountable executive branch is necessary for their protection. Without the Protect America Act, Bush and McConnell claim, the executive branch will not be able to spy on terrorists, and we will all be blown up. Terrorists can only be stopped, Bush says, if Bush has the right to spy on everyone without any oversight by courts.

The fight over the Protect America Act has everything to do with our safety, only not in the way that Bush and McConnell assert.

Bush says the Democrats have put our country “more in danger of an attack” by letting the Protect America Act lapse. This claim is nonsense. The 30 year old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act gives the executive branch all the power it needs to spy on terrorists.

The choice between FISA and the Protect America Act has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism, at least not from foreign terrorists. Bush and his brownshirts object to FISA, because the law requires Bush to obtain warrants from a FISA court. Warrants mean that Bush is accountable. Bush and his brownshirts argue that accountability is an infringement on the power of the president.

To escape accountability, the Brownshirt Party came up with the Protect America Act. This act eliminates Bush’s accountability to judges and gives the telecom companies immunity from the felonies they committed by acquiescing in Bush’s illegal spying.

Bush began violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in October 2001 when he spied on Americans without obtaining warrants from the FISA court.

Bush pressured telecom companies to break the law in order to enable his illegal spying. In court documents, Joseph P. Nacchio, former CEO of Qwest Communications International, states that his firm was approached more than six months before the September 11, 2001, attacks and asked to participate in a spying operation that Qwest believed to be illegal. When Qwest refused, the Bush administration withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Nacchio himself was subsequently indicted for insider trading, sending the message to all telecom companies to cooperate with the Bush regime or else.

Bush has not been held accountable for the felonies he committed and for leading telecom companies into a life of crime.

As the lawmakers who gave us FISA understood, spying on people without warrants lets a political party collect dirt on its adversaries with which to blackmail them.

As Bush illegally spied a long time before word of it got out, blackmail might be the reason the Democrats have ignored their congressional election mandate and have not put a stop to Bush’s illegal wars and unconstitutional police state measures.

Perhaps the Democrats have finally caught on that they cannot function as a political party as long as they continue to permit Bush to spy on them. For one reason or another, they have let the Orwellian-named Protect America Act expire.

With the Protect America Act, Bush and his brownshirts are trying to establish the independence of the executive branch from statutory law and the Constitution. The FISA law means that the president is accountable to federal judges for warrants. Bush and the brownshirt Republicans are striving to make the president independent of all accountability. The brownshirts insist that the leader knows best and can tolerate no interference from the law, the judiciary, the Congress, or the Constitution, and certainly not from the American people who, the brownshirts tell us, won’t be safe unless Bush is very powerful.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison saw it differently. The American people cannot be safe unless the president is accountable and under many restraints.

Pray that the Democrats have caught on that they cannot give the executive branch unaccountable powers to spy and still have grounds on which to refuse the executive branch unaccountable powers elsewhere.

Republicans have used the “war on terror” to create an unaccountable executive. To prevent the presidency from becoming a dictatorial office, it is crucial that Congress cease acquiescing in Bush’s grab for powers. As the Founding Fathers warned us, the terrorists we have to fear are the ones in power in Washington.

The al Qaeda terrorists, with whom Bush has been frightening us, have no power to destroy our liberties. Compared to the loss of liberty, a terrorist attack is nothing.

Meanwhile, Bush, the beneficiary of two stolen elections, has urged Zimbabwe to hold a fair election.

America gets away with its hypocrisy because no one in our government has enough shame to blush.

Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider’s Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


What Do We Stand For? By Paul Craig Roberts

Does The Brownshirt Party Have Aces Up Its Sleeve? By Paul Craig Roberts

Keith Olbermann Special Comment: Mr Bush You Are A Fascist!



Mosaic News 2/21/08: World News from the Middle East

Dandelion Salad



This video may contain images depicting the reality and horror of war and should only be viewed by a mature audience.


“US Rendition Flights Used UK Indian Ocean Island,” Al Jazeera English, Qatar
“Terrorist Cell in Morocco Dismantled,” Dubai TV, UAE
“Pakistani Opposition Parties Form Coalition,” Al Jazeera TV, Qatar
“Kuwaity Embassy in Lebanon Threatened,” Al Arabiya TV, UAE
“Kenya’s Orange Movement Threatens Violence,” Al-Alam TV, Iran
“IAEA Report on Iran Will be Disappointing,” IBA TV, Israel
“Baradi Under Severe Western Pressure,” IRIB2 TV, Iran
“Death Sentence in Gaza,” Al Aqsa, Gaza
“Popular Market in Mecca,” Saudi TV, Saudi Arabia
Produced for Link TV by Jamal Dajani

Vodpod videos no longer available. from posted with vodpod



U.K. used for Extraordinary Rendition Flights! (vid) + CIA confirms rendition flights to Brits

Olbermann: Scandal In The Wind + The Nexus Of Politics & Terror + Post-Debate Special

Dandelion Salad


February 21, 2008

Scandal In The Wind

Keith speaks with Howard Fineman.

The Nexus Of Politics & Terror

Keith goes over number 1 to 7 of the nexus of politics & terror.

Please Judge for your self.

The Nexus Of Politics & Terror

Keith goes over number 8 to 13 of the nexus of politics & terror.

Please Judge for your self.

Post-Debate Special

Keith speaks with Richard Wolffe.

Keith speaks with Eugene Robinson.


Olbermann: Right Wingers to McCain’s Defense + Punk’D

Keith Olbermann Hillary vs Obama Debate Recap Quickie

Olbermann: McCain “Cheats” on Wife (video) + For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk



In Texas debate, Obama counters Clinton attack by asserting his readiness to use military force

Dandelion Salad

by Barry Grey
Global Research, February 22, 2008

Thursday’s televised debate in Texas between the Democratic presidential contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, like all such events, was directed at two basic audiences—the voting public and the corporate-financial elite that controls both major US parties.

The debates are part of the process by which the ruling elite sizes up and vets the top personnel who are to administer its affairs for the next four or eight years.

While both candidates indulged in populist rhetoric aimed at winning votes in the crucial March 4 primary elections in Texas and Ohio, they sought to reassure the corporate and military establishment of their readiness to defend, by both diplomacy and military force, the global interests of American imperialism.

The debate, held at the University of Texas in Austin and broadcast by CNN, took place in the context of a foundering Clinton campaign that desperately needs victories in Texas and Ohio, following eleven straight Obama primary wins since the “Super Tuesday” contests on February 5. The latest Obama victory came the day of the debate, when he won the primary for Americans living abroad with 65 percent of the vote.

According to some estimates, Obama currently has a lead of 150 delegates over Clinton, a margin that could be overcome only by Clinton securing decisive victories in the major remaining primaries and winning most of the unelected superdelegates to this August’s Democratic National Convention.

Polls released on Thursday reported that Clinton’s lead in Texas had evaporated to the point of a statistical dead heat (48 percent for Clinton to 47 percent for Obama), while her double-digit advantage in Ohio had shrunk to a 7-point lead (50 percent to 43 percent).

There are indications that the Clinton campaign is considering conceding the race to Obama should the New York senator fail to win both states, with 334 delegates between them, on March 4. On Wednesday, Bill Clinton, campaigning for his wife in Texas, told his audience that she could not win the nomination if she failed to win the two major primaries next month. Vermont and Rhode Island also hold primary contests on March 4.

When asked in Thursday’s debate whether she thought the nomination should be decided by the superdelegates, Clinton said, “I think that will sort itself out… We will have a nominee, and we will have a unified Democratic Party…”

Since Obama’s 17-point victory over Clinton in the Wisconsin primary last Tuesday, Clinton has sought to challenge the readiness of the first-term senator from Illinois to assume the role of “commander in chief,” suggesting that he lacks both the experience and the toughness to pursue US interests internationally with sufficient ruthlessness.

In what was billed as a major policy speech, given at New York’s Hunter College on Wednesday, Clinton declared that the American people “need a president ready on Day One to be the commander in chief of the United States military.”

She continued: “One of us is ready to be commander in chief in a dangerous world. Everyday around the world, situations arise that present new threats and new opportunities—situations like the change of leadership in Cuba and the elections in Pakistan. I’ve served on the Senate Armed Services Committee; I’ve represented you and our country in more than 80 countries around the world. I’ve worked with leaders. I’ve stood up to the Chinese government on women’s rights and human rights.”

The crucial point in Thursday’s Texas debate came when one of the moderators, Jorge Ramos, asked Clinton directly whether she was suggesting that Obama lacked the experience to be commander in chief.

Clinton dodged a direct reply, but reiterated her Hunter College remarks, adding that she was “one of the leaders in the Congress on behalf of homeland security” and including in her list of international crises Kosovo’s declaration of independence and the attack by Serbian protesters on the US embassy in Belgrade. In relation to the latter, she issued an implicit threat, saying she “would be moving very aggressively to hold the Serbian government responsible with their security forces to protect our embassy.”

Obama seized the opportunity to assert his credentials as the future commander in chief and leader of American imperialism. “I wouldn’t be running if I didn’t think I was prepared to be commander in chief,” he declared. “And my number one job as president will be to keep the American people safe. And I will do whatever is required to accomplish that, and I will not hesitate to act against those that would do America harm. Now, that involves maintaining the strongest military on earth…”

This response, no doubt prepared in advance, was calculated to reassure the ruling elite that his opposition to the US invasion of Iraq and his call for more flexible diplomacy are entirely from the standpoint of the defense of the interests of American imperialism. He underscored this point by attacking Clinton’s vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq as a blunder on “the single most important foreign policy decision of this generation,” mainly because it “diverted attention from Afghanistan” and resulted in the strengthening of Al Qaeda.

To emphasize his support for the so-called “war on terror,” Obama began his opening remarks by declaring that “our nation is at war.”

Both candidates continued to pose as opponents of the war in Iraq, and were not challenged by the questioners on their repeated votes to fund the US occupation and their earlier pledges to keep thousands of “non-combat” troops in Iraq for an indefinite period.

On another foreign policy issue, the US response to Castro’s retirement, Obama reiterated his earlier statements that he would be willing to meet as president with the leaders of countries with which the US is at odds. He said he would be prepared to meet with the putative new Cuban leader, Raoul Castro, without preconditions, while Clinton insisted that the Cuban regime would first have to meet certain benchmarks, including releasing political prisoners and “opening up the economy.”

Defending his tactical difference with Clinton, Obama said, “I do think this is important, precisely because the Bush administration has done so much damage to American foreign relations that the president should take a more active role in diplomacy than might have been true 20 or 30 years ago.”

Here Obama was speaking for those forces within the US foreign policy establishment who have swung behind his campaign because they see him as a figure who could help change the image of the United States around the world, badly damaged by the policies of the Bush administration, reverse Washington’s isolation and declining political and diplomatic influence, and promote US interests with a more judicious mixture of diplomacy and military force.

On domestic issues, both candidates engaged in demagogic appeals to the deep-seated social grievances of working people, with particular emphasis on immigrants. Texas has a large Mexican-American population that could provide the decisive margin in the upcoming primary election.

When it came to specific proposals, however, neither went beyond health care proposals that left untouched the domination of the insurance and pharmaceutical giants, pledges to roll back Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and modest tax cuts and rebates for working people. Obama, for example, boasted of his plan to offset payroll taxes for people earning less than $75,000, which would mean “a thousand extra dollars in the pockets of ordinary Americans.”

Clinton repeated her call for a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures and a five-year freeze on mortgage interest rate increases.

None of these proposals, even assuming the highly unlikely eventuality of their being enacted into law, would begin to address the social crisis engulfing tens of millions of American families or reverse the immense growth of economic inequality in the US.

Clinton made a point of pledging to close the massive US budget deficit and impose a regime of “fiscal responsibility,” without explaining how such austerity policies could be reconciled with her supposed commitment to progressive social change.

Obama insisted at one and the same time that “lobbyists and special interests have a stranglehold on the agenda in Washington,” and that the solution is to end partisan bickering by “bridging differences” and “bringing the country together.” How the American people can end the grip of corporate interests by uniting with their political representatives, he did not say. contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries:
© Copyright Barry Grey,, 2008
The url address of this article is:

Hillary Clinton vs Barack Obama Texas Debate

Keith Olbermann Hillary vs Obama Debate Recap Quickie



McCain’s Ethics by Josh Sidman


by Josh Sidman
Dandelion Salad
featured writer
Josh’s Blog Post
Feb. 22, 2008

As usual, the mainstream media is completely missing the point as it relates to John McCain’s alleged “improper” relationship with a female lobbyist. The main topic of conversation today on the campaign trail was an article in the New York Times which raised the possibility that McCain may have had a romantic relationship with Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist with clients whose businesses fall under the purview of Senate committees that John McCain sits on. Personally, I don’t give a rat’s ass if McCain was getting it on with a lobbyist. What I care about is whether the man can be taken at his word or whether he is for sale to the highest bidder like most members of Congress. And, between all of the sensationalistic nonsense that the New York Times chose to make such a big deal of, I think I found my answer.

By way of providing background, the article reprised the story of the Keating Five scandal that cost three Senators their jobs and nearly ended John McCain’s career. According to the Times, during McCain’s years in the House of Representatives, he became friendly with Charles Keating, Chairman of Lincoln Savings & Loan. Among other things, McCain received large campaign donations from Keating, took free flights on Keating’s private jet (a violation of ethics rules which McCain later claimed was an oversight), and vacationed with Keating in the Bahamas. In addition, the year McCain was elected to the Senate, his wife invested in an Arizona shopping mall along with Mr. Keating. (McCain claimed that there was no conflict of interest due to the fact that he and his wife had a prenuptial agreement dividing their assets.)

During the 1980’s, Keating’s S & L was using federally insured deposits to bet on risky real estate and other investments. McCain and other law makers used their positions to prevent federal regulators from probing the bank’s investments and intervened on behalf of Keating in 1987, shortly before the bank went bust costing taxpayers $3.4 billion. In his memoirs, McCain acknowledged his mistakes and said, “Its recollection still provokes a vague but real feeling that I had lost something very important. I still wince thinking about it.”

So, now fast-forward a decade, and like a reformed-alcoholic-turned-aggressive-teetotaler, John McCain has successfully redefined himself as a crusader against special interests and a champion of campaign finance reform. Another suggestion has now arisen about whether he might have improperly used his position to benefit clients of a lobbyist he is connected with. Obviously whether or not any allegations of an affair are true will boil down to he-said-she-said, and we’ll never know the whole truth. However, there was one line in the NYT article that told me all I need to know about John McCain. When questioned about whether he had acted improperly on behalf of the lobbyist’s clients, McCain told the Times, “I have never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that.” Um, excuse me?

Once again, my purpose in raising all of this is not to argue about whether McCain acted improperly in relation to Ms. Iseman’s clients. I have no idea whether he did or not. What concerns me is that he is willing to tell a bald-faced lie to the American people. It is demonstrably false that John McCain has “never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that.” He could have said that he didn’t do anything improper in these circumstances, or he could have said that he hasn’t betrayed the public trust since the mid-80’s, but that’s not what he said. He said, “I have never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that.” By his own admission, that is a lie. And that tells me all I need to know.

John McCain, like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton, and probably the majority of elected officials in Washington, is willing to tell the American people flat-out, demonstrable lies if he thinks it will serve his purposes. Anyone who is capable of such behavior should be immediately disqualified from the presidency. Therefore, even if I wasn’t already opposed to McCain’s candidacy on the basis of his support of the Iraq War, the fact that he is a confirmed liar means that he does not deserve to be President – end of story.

Olbermann: Right Wingers to McCain’s Defense + Punk’D

Olbermann: McCain “Cheats” on Wife (video) + For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk



Potential Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods by Stephen Lendman

Dandelion Salad

by Stephen Lendman
Global Research, February 22, 2008

This article discusses the potential health risks of genetically engineered foods (GMOs). It draws on some previously used material because its importance bears repeating. It also cites three notable books and highlights one in particular – Jeffrey Smith’s “Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods.” Detailed information from the book is featured below.

Genetically engineered foods saturate our diet today. In the US alone, over 80% of all processed foods contain them. Others include grains like rice, corn and wheat; legumes like soybeans and soy products; vegetable oils, soft drinks; salad dressings; vegetables and fruits; dairy products including eggs; meat, chicken, pork and other animal products; and even infant formula plus a vast array of hidden additives and ingredients in processed foods (like in tomato sauce, ice cream, margarine and peanut butter). Consumers don’t know what they’re eating because labeling is prohibited, yet the danger is clear. Independently conducted studies show the more of these foods we eat, the greater the potential harm to our health. Continue reading

State Irresponsibility + Experiments in full responsibility (anthrax; soldiers)

Dandelion Salad

by Rela Mazali
Jewish Peace News
February 21, 2008

A February 20 editorial by Haaretz calls a current stage of a High Court case in Israel “a small but important step”. In a petition against the state for trying out an anti-anthrax vaccine on 800 misinformed soldiers, the state has admitted that, “The defense establishment bears full responsibility for  [their] care”. Hearings are still ongoing but Haaretz calls this an achievement already attained by the 34 plaintiffs, though the practical implementation of the declaration has yet to be proven.

Previously, the state denied responsibility as well as the causal link between the experiments and the (ex-)soldiers’ conditions. Obviously, it is only the activism of these young people that has achieved the admission. It’s a response, says Haaretz, “which does not evade a fundamental discussion of the question of experiments on human beings in general, and on IDF soldiers as a ‘captive audience’ in particular, [but] arouses hope that the defense establishment will finally grasp the importance of human rights.” Given the record of horrendous and ongoing IDF violations of the human rights of Palestinian and Lebanese people, this seems vastly overstated. Nevertheless, I think the case is important, among other things as an instance of the state’s abuse and indifferent exploitation of its own “captive audience”.

Though I believe each soldier to be individually accountable for her or his personal actions, soldiers are also young people placed at the disposal of the state by law and by a consenting society, including their parents. This social and parental consent implies a strong assumption that the state will deploy its captive conscripts with care, endangering them only if vitally necessary; refraining from the misuse, abuse or waste of their lives and health. As partly reflected in the rising numbers of young people who resist the draft, this assumption has been negated by a long series of incidents and practices in the military that have come to light in recent years in Israel.

Ranging from extremely severe to relatively minor, a tiny sample of these are the two cases below, coincidentally featured in Haaretz on just one day. One of them concerns pharmaceutical experimenting on soldiers, with grave health consequences; the other concerns exploitation of soldiers as a low-cost, skilled workforce, for private advancement. The first was conducted by and on behalf of the military establishment; the second was an alleged case of individual criminal misconduct. In an institution condoning and practicing the former, though, the inevitable, almost logical consequence would seem to be the latter.

Pertaining to “others” rather than “our own”, the last item is consistent with the state’s evasion of accountability and responsibility. In this case, though, more than one state was implicated. According to the BBC, in 2005, British police refrained from executing a warrant for the arrest of Doron Almog, formerly head of Israel’s southern military command, on charges of “the destruction of a home in Rafah . the killing of a nine-month pregnant woman in March 2003; the firing of a ‘Flechette’ antipersonnel shells at three Gaza youths and killing them in December 2001; and dropping a missile on a house in Gaza in July 2002, killing a senior Hamas man along with 14 Palestinian civilians”. The charges had been pressed by Palestinian activists. The report claims that UK police were afraid of “a shootout with Israeli security officials” and, moreover, that “the British foreign secretary issued an apology for the incident.”

While there’s a “gentlemen’s club” intact ensuring their impunity, whether in or outside the country, Israel’s top military officers and security officials can continue irresponsibly exploiting, abusing and violating the human rights of more than one kind of “captive audience”. I view the activism that challenges this, time and again, in many ways, as vital and sometimes effective in holding them accountable.


Experiments in full responsibility

By Haaretz Editorial
February 21, 2008 Adar1 15, 5768

The state’s response to a High Court of Justice petition by soldiers who were subjected to medical experiments with anti-anthrax drugs (the experiments known as Omer 2) is a small but important step on the road to regulating one of the most neglected human rights issues in Israel. Admittedly, the state – in contrast to the soldiers – claims that the experiments were performed in accordance with accepted medical and ethical norms, and that there was nothing wrong with them. Nevertheless, it also stated, “The defense establishment bears full responsibility for the care of the soldiers who were harmed.”

This announcement includes two important points: an admission of the causal link between the experiments and the damage to the soldiers’ health, and an assumption of full responsibility for the soldiers’ care and treatment.


FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Willie Nelson on Farm Aid, Biodiesel, Marijuana Laws, Impeachment & 9-11

Dandelion Salad

Democracy Now!
Feb. 21, 2008

Musical Legend Willie Nelson on Farm Aid, Biodiesel Fuel, Outlaw Country Music, Marijuana Laws, the Impeachment of President Bush, the 9/11 Attacks & More

Country music legend Willie Nelson joins us for the hour to talk politics and to play some songs, including “A Moment of Forever,” “On the Road Again,” “You’re Always on My Mind” and “To All the Girls I’ve Loved Before.” [includes rush transcript]

Real Video Stream

Real Audio Stream

MP3 Download



The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.