The Russians Are Back, by Gaither Stewart

Gaither Stewartby Gaither Stewart
Featured Writer, Dandelion Salad
July 25, 2008

(Rome) “With Russia it’s always like that,” writes contemporary Russia’s most read author, Viktor Pelevin. “You admire it and you cry, but when you look at what you admire up close, it can make you vomit.” That’s Pelevin, and others of the young generation. A mixture of compassion and fury. The rage of a young Russian against the post-Communist society that missed the curve and stuck the country in a repugnant swamp. But it’s also compassion for the Old Russia that he defends against superficial criticism and despite his violence he is solidary with its misery and its grandeur.

Continue reading

Countdown: The In-House Network + Judiciary Hearing + Worst

Dandelion Salad

July 25, 2008

videocafeblog

The In-House Network

Keith reports on the admission by Scott McClellan on Hardball that the White House sends talking points and propoganda over to Fox News so they can repeat them. Rachel Maddow weighs in.

Continue reading

Kucinich Testifies on Abuses of Executive Power (text)

Dandelion Salad

by Dennis Kucinich
Washington, Jul 25, 2008

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) testified about President Bush’s culpability for leading the country to war today at a House Judiciary Committee hearing entitled “Executive Power and its Constitutional Limitations.”  The full text of the statement follows:

Our country has been at war in Iraq, and has occupied the streets and villages of Iraq for five years, four months, and 6 days.  The war has caused the deaths of 4,127 American soldiers and the deaths of as many as one million innocent Iraqis.  The war will cost the American people upwards of $3 trillion and is the main contributing factor to the destruction of our domestic economy.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to enter S.J. Res. 45 into the record.  The primary justifications for going to war, outlined in the legislation which the White House sent to Congress in October of 2002, have been determined conclusively to be untrue:

• Iraq was not “continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States”
• Iraq was not “continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability. . .”
• Iraq was not “actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability”
• Iraq did not have the “willingness to attack, the United States”
• Members of Al Qaeda were not “known to be in Iraq”
• Iraq had not “demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction. . .”
• Iraq could not “launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces”
• Therefore there was not an “extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack”
• The aforementioned did not “justify the use of force by the United States to defend itself”
• Iraq had no connection with the attacks of 9/11 or with al Qaeda’s role in 9/11
• Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction to transfer to anyone
• Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and therefore had no capability of launching a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces and no capability to provide them to international terrorists who would do so

However, many Members of Congress relied on these representations from the White House to inform their decision to support the legislation that authorized the use of force against Iraq.  We all know present and former colleagues who have said that if they knew then what they know now, they would not have voted to permit an attack upon Iraq.

The war was totally unnecessary, unprovoked and unjustified.  The question for Congress is this: what responsibility do the President and members of his Administration have for that unnecessary, unprovoked and unjustified war?  The rules of the House prevent me or any witness from utilizing familiar terms.  But we can put two and two together in our minds.  We can draw inferences about culpability.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to enter H. Res. 333, H. Res. 1258, and H. Res. 1345 into the record.  I request that each Member read the three bills I have authored, bills which are now awaiting consideration by the Judiciary Committee. I am confident the reader will reach the same conclusions that I have about culpability.

What, then, should we do about it?

The decision before us is whether to honor our oath as Members of Congress to support and defend the Constitution that has been trampled time and again over the last seven years.

The decision before us is whether to stand up for the checks and balances designed by our founding fathers to prevent excessive power grabs by either the judicial, legislative or executive branch of government.

The decision before us is whether to restore faith in government, in justice, and in the rule of law.

The decision before us is whether Congress will endorse with its silence the methods used to take us into the Iraq war.

The decision before us is whether to demand accountability for one of the gravest injustices imaginable.

The decision before us is whether Congress will stand up to tell future Presidents that America has seen the last of these injustices, not the first.

I believe the choice is clear.

I ask this committee to think, and then to act, in order to enable this Congress to right a very great wrong and to hold accountable those who have misled this Nation.

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.

see

Hearing on Limits of Executive Power: Vincent Bugliosi

Executive Power & the Bush Administration (hearing) Part 1

Rep Kucinich Takes Phone Caller Questions on Impeachment

Cindy Sheehan: Impeachment

It’s not even an impeachment hearing! Conyers screws us AGAIN

Why Bush Impeachment Is Necessary By Ed Ciaccio

Impeach

Mosaic News – 7/24/08: World News from the Middle East

Dandelion Salad

Warning

.

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

linktv

For more: http://www.linktv.org
“Sudanese President Vows Peace in Darfur,” Al Arabiya TV, UAE
“Ahmadinejad Praises Positive Step Taken by US,” Al Jazeera TV, Qatar
“Turkish Forces Launch Attacks in Northern Iraq,” Dubai TV, UAE
“Guantanamo Prison Trials,” Al Jazeera English, Qatar
“British Government Bans Hezbollah,” Future TV, Lebanon
“Jerusalemite Family Faces Eviction,” Palestine TV, Ramallah
“Israel Approves a New Settlement,” Press TV, Iran
“Oud-Making in Iraq,” Abu Dhabi TV, UAE
Produced for Link TV by Jamal Dajani.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

ACLU Obtains Key Memos Authorizing CIA Torture Methods

Dandelion Salad

ACLU
(7/24/2008)

Memo Instructed CIA To Document Both Torture Techniques And Agents Participating In Interrogations

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today obtained three redacted documents related to the Bush administration’s brutal interrogation policies, including a previously withheld Justice Department memo authorizing the CIA’s use of torture. The government was ordered to turn over the documents in response to an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit brought in 2004 by the ACLU and other organizations seeking records on the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody overseas.

“These documents supply further evidence, if any were needed, that the Justice Department authorized the CIA to torture prisoners in its custody,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. “The Justice Department twisted the law, and in some cases ignored it altogether, in order to permit interrogators to use barbaric methods that the U.S. once prosecuted as war crimes.”

One of the documents obtained by the ACLU today is a redacted version of a previously undisclosed Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion from August 2002 that authorizes the CIA to use specific interrogation methods, including waterboarding. The memo states that interrogation methods that cause severe mental pain do not amount to torture under U.S. law unless they cause “harm lasting months or even years after the acts were inflicted upon the prisoners.” Initially, the CIA took the position that it could not confirm or deny the existence of this memo; it dropped that position after President Bush disclosed in September 2006 that the CIA had been operating detention centers overseas.

The other two documents, from 2003 and 2004, are memos from the CIA related to requests for legal advice from the Justice Department. The 2003 memo shows that CIA interrogators were authorized by OLC to use torture practices known as “enhanced interrogation techniques.” The memo also indicates that, for each session in which these techniques were used, the CIA documented, among other things, “the nature and duration of each such technique employed” and “the identities of those present.” The documentation relating to the CIA’s torture sessions, including the names of agents who participated, is still being withheld.

The 2004 memo shows that CIA interrogators were told that the Justice Department had concluded that certain interrogation techniques, including “the waterboard,” did not constitute torture. The document also indicates that, after the Supreme Court ruled in June 2004 that courts can decide whether foreign nationals held in Guantánamo Bay were rightfully imprisoned, CIA interrogators were told to take into account the possibility their actions would ultimately be subject to judicial review.

“While the documents released today do provide more information about the development and implementation of the Bush administration’s torture policies, even a cursory glance at the documents shows that the administration continues to use ‘national security’ as a shield to protect government officials from embarrassment, criticism and possible criminal prosecution,” said Jaffer. “Far too much information is still being withheld.”

In May, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York overruled some of the CIA’s claims that the documents released today were exempt from disclosure under the ACLU’s FOIA lawsuit. The judge is still considering the ACLU’s motion to hold the CIA in contempt of court for destroying hundreds of hours of videotape depicting the abusive interrogations of two detainees in its custody.

The documents released today are available online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/36104res20080724.html

To date, more than 100,000 pages of government documents have been released in response to the ACLU’s FOIA lawsuit. They are available online at: www.aclu.org/torturefoia

Many of these documents are also compiled and analyzed in “Administration of Torture,” a recently published book by Jaffer and ACLU attorney Amrit Singh. More information is available online at: www.aclu.org/administrationoftorture

In addition to Jaffer and Singh, attorneys on the case are Alexa Kolbi-Molinas and Judy Rabinovitz of the national ACLU; Arthur Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the New York Civil Liberties Union; Lawrence S. Lustberg and Melanca D. Clark of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons P.C.; and Shayana Kadidal and Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

h/t: CLG

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.

Guantanamo testimony: U.S. let bin Laden’s top bodyguard go

Dandelion Salad

By Carol Rosenberg
http://www.mcclatchydc.com
The Miami Herald
July 24, 2008

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba — Soon after Osama bin Laden’s driver got here in 2002, he told interrogators the identity of the al Qaeda chief’s most senior bodyguard — then a fellow prison camp detainee.

But, inexplicably, the U.S. let the bodyguard go.

This startling information was revealed in the fourth day of the war crimes trial of Salim Hamdan, 37, facing conspiracy and material support for terror charges as an alleged member of bin Laden’s inner circle.

…continued

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.

see

Bin Laden driver knew 9/11 target: prosecutor h/t: CLG

Driver told FBI agents U.S. could have killed bin Laden

Sanctions as Warfare By Daniel M Pourkesali

Dandelion Salad

By Daniel M Pourkesali
07/24/08 “ICH”

The dictionary defines ‘sanctions’ as “restrictions upon trade and financial dealings that a country imposes upon another for political reasons”– A practice that in recent years has become a prime instrument of global dominance by a handful of major powers particularly the United States.

With permanent membership status in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), world’s most powerful countries have passed numerous resolutions imposing sanctions on more than a dozen nations, including the former Yugoslavia, Cuba, Libya, Somalia, Liberia, Haiti, Iraq, and Iran since the end of cold war.

When faced with threat of a veto or inability to gain majority consent within the Council, the United States has elected to act unilaterally more than any other nation or multinational body in the world. Over two-thirds of all sanctions since 1945 [1] have been initiated by the U.S., three-quarters of which have involved unilateral action without significant participation by any other nation in the world. They are often discussed and portrayed by American politicians and many members of U.S. Congress as a form of diplomacy and an alternative to war as though they’re not an act of aggression with actual human costs.

But countries on the receiving end of such acts along with the rest of the international community increasingly view sanctions as illegitimate and punitive because of the human suffering they tend to create and the widespread doubts about their effectiveness and legality under international and humanitarian laws.  Restrictions on trade and financial dealings cause shutdown of factories, farms, and mines that weaken the business and professional classes of the society diminishing the power and effectiveness of those who would otherwise form the bulk of the opposition to any totalitarian regime.

It is a well-documented fact [2] that between five hundred thousand and a million children under the age of five died as a direct result of U.S. and UNSC imposed sanctions on the so-called “dual use” materials and equipments related to nutrition, health and education in the 12 years prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

But despite shocking proof that the primary victims of economic sanctions — the children, the elderly, the sick, and the poor being least responsible for effecting change in government policy, its advocates continue to legitimize them as an instrument of peace and a justified means of exerting diplomatic pressure.

Sanctions are nothing short economic warfare that infringe on the most basic human rights and the very rule of universally accepted laws and must be abandoned as the last sanctuary of futility in foreign policy.

[1] http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions.html

[2] http://www.fourthfreedom.org/Applications/cms.php?page_id=7

Daniel M Pourkesali is an Engineer with an Aerospace company in Northern Virginia specializing in development and manufacturing of flight dynamics, engineering and control systems. He is also a columnist and board member of the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII), National Iranian American Council (NIAC), Persian Gulf Organization, and Iranians for International Cooperation.

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.

see

Mike Gravel: Israel Threatens Nuclear War

Will the U.S. get its way with Iran? by Lee Sustar

NYT Op-Ed: Israel Will Attack Iran

War on Iran: Keep watch on the hawks

Iran

The Myth of Nuclear Deterrence

Dandelion Salad

NewAmericaFoundation

Did nuclear deterrence “keep us safe” for sixty years during the Cold War? Does it, in other words, work? For those who already have nuclear weapons, does nuclear deterrence justify their keeping them?

Nuclear deterrence is based on the assumption that in moments of extreme national crisis attacks against cities (or the threat of attacks against cities) will matter. Much of our thinking about this question, however, ignores the available evidence and recent reinterpretations of important cases.

New Jersey-based independent scholar Ward Wilson, winner of the 2008 Doreen and Jim McElvany Nonproliferation Challenge, will offer a critique of nuclear deterrence and a detailed discussion of the historical evidence that contradicts the concept.

Vodpod videos no longer available.