Tuesday, May 29, 2007

horrific CIA war crimes -- 911blogger posts

horrific CIA war crimes


source ... more evidence .. US torture google images

History of the above victim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manadel_al-Jamadi

(As you all know, this is but the tip of the iceberg)

A Question of 'Compromise'

McCain's deal on prisoners means White House lawlessness rolls on

by Nat Hentoff October 1st, 2006 9:18 PM

Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher of the whole people by its example. . . . If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law. —Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting in the first wiretap case, Olmstead v. U.S., 1928

The civil war between three Republican senators and the president over his treatment of imprisoned suspected terrorists has resulted in a public break with George W. Bush's own former secretary of state, Colin Powell. But in all these stories about Powell's mutiny, I've seen no mention of an angry, prophetic memorandum he wrote on January 25, 2002, protesting the administration's pending decision to scrap the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan.

That warning becomes particularly timely now, because the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff anticipated the increasing disclosure ever since of Bush's systemic lawlessness, especially his unleashing of the CIA, in the "war on terrorism." Despite a widely hailed bill, the Military Commissions Act, that purports to curb the president's excesses, that lawlessness will continue, courtesy of a so-called compromise between the sponsoring senators John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham, and the White House. Citing the fallout over Abu Ghraib, the CIA's "renditions," and the conditions at Guantánamo—for which Bush was rebuked by the Supreme Court in this year's Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision—Powell said on September 19 that our professed "high moral standards" are being questioned around the world.

But the former Bush cabinet member predicted the unraveling of American principles back in 2002, when he wrote to Alberto Gonzales, then serving as counsel to the president and orchestrating advice by the president's lawyers on how to torture prisoners without admitting it. Powell warned him that ignoring Geneva Conventions "will reverse a century of U.S. policy . . . and undermine the protections of the law of war for our troops [and] make them more vulnerable to protections [abroad] and domestic charges."

Ignoring his own top foreign policy adviser, Bush declared on February 7, 2002, "that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or 'elsewhere.' "

Already, on September 17, 2001, Bush had disregarded Powell and given the CIA, under Vice President Dick Cheney's tutelage, a special license to violate both international and American law. Bush had earlier made Cheney "vice president for torture," in the words of former CIA director Stanfield Turner.

Margaret Satterthwaite, of NYU Law School's Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, offers a history of Bush's malfeasance in the current Amnesty International Magazine. "President Bush signed a Presidential Finding that authorized the CIA to kill, capture or detain suspected al Qaeda members anywhere in the world," Satterthwaite writes, drawing on a report by Dana Priest in the Washington Post. "This classified document apparently became the basis for a new, integrated system on illegal tactics: 'U.S. authorities [can] render suspects to the custody of foreign governments known for torture, or they [can] secretly detain

them in CIA-run "black sites." ' "

She continues: "In a leaked memo dated November 2002, an FBI supervisory special agent warned his superiors that extraordinary rendition [to be tortured] was illegal, and explained that the intent of rendition was to 'utilize, outside the United States, interrogation techniques that would violate' federal criminal law outlawing torture. Carrying out an extraordinary rendition, he concluded, would amount to a federal crime, and plans to carry out such a transaction would amount to conspiracy to commit torture."

For years now, CIA agents have known they were in danger of prosecution for renditions and for whatever was going on in those secret CIA prisons. And that's why, before "the compromise," the September 11 Washington Post reported: "CIA counterterrorism officers have signed up in growing numbers for a government-reimbursed, private insurance plan that would pay their civil judgments and legal expenses if they are sued or charged with criminal wrongdoing. . . . "

But as I will show next week in a roundup of what Bush won when the senators caved, CIA agents will not have to worry any longer, let alone buy insurance, because if "the compromise" becomes law, they will be protected from any past violations of "aggressive" techniques or criminal wrongdoing. (Chilling accounts of horrific CIA war crimes can be found in a number of extraordinary articles by Jane Mayer in The New Yorker, as well as in reports by the ACLU, Human Rights First, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch.)

Even before this three–card monte compromise was reached, the Senate Armed Services bill—passed because of McCain, Warner, and Graham's efforts— included an abolition of habeas corpus hearings for any alien detainees outside the United States.

A similar removal of habeas rights is in a companion House bill— and is welcomed by the president. This means that lawyers will no longer be able to get court hearings, despite rulings to the contrary by the Supreme Court , on prisoners' conditions of confinement, including alleged torture. Such a radical removal of "the Great Writ," habeas corpus, will make it impossible for their lawyers to uncover these criminal violations of the Geneva Conventions.

Yet, on announcing the deal with the White House, presidential aspirant McCain declared: "The agreement we've entered into gives the president the tools he needs to fight the war on terror and bring these evil people to justice. There is no doubt that the integrity and spirit of the Geneva Conventions has been preserved." (Emphasis added.)

As he gracefully acknowledges applause around the country for his principled determination in forcing the president into a "compromise," McCain may be hearing, in his inner ear, a future military band playing "Hail to the Chief"—only for him. The senator's patriotism gets to remain intact because Bush approvingly says the compromise preserves "the CIA program to question the world's most dangerous terrorists and to get their secrets." The "black sites" live on.


It's time for Colin Powell to redeem his soul...

It's time for Colin Powell to redeem himself & come clean by exposing 9/11 truth! I hope he has enough courage to do so.

Kangas was murdered.

A Timeline of CIA Atrocities

By Steve Kangas
The following timeline describes just a few of the hundreds of atrocities and crimes committed by the CIA.

Submitted by Chris on Tue, 10/03/2006 - 11:01am


catholic? phew! sanity!!


While the 911 madness is rife, there is always sanity in Chomsky. While he does not care to speculate on the greatest insanity, 9/11 false flag terror, he does always provide for good orientation and morally sound, common-sensical arguments .. kinda important in the ocean of spin. But you knew that. Anyway... just to keep us on the straight and narrow, read this seemingly tame review...

The seamy side of U.S. foreign policy

Perhaps any country’s self-image suffers from a kind of fun-house mirror effect -- it sees itself very differently from the way the rest of the world does. Certainly Noam Chomsky’s Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy demonstrates that the United States operates that way. Given that our government has taken on the management of so much of the world, it becomes crucially important for Americans to understand that distortion. So, if you can read only one book in that effort this year, this probably should be the one.

Mr. Chomsky’s analysis of American foreign policy differs so dramatically from the official version that some may find it disorientating, not because of any fast and loose rhetoric on Mr. Chomsky’s part but because of his deployment of a stunning array of sources in a relentless accounting of the hypocrisy with which Washington so often confronts the world.

Take the current hot-button issue of Iran’s nuclear power program, now seen as clear evidence of the oil-rich country’s plans for developing nuclear weapons. Iran’s developing nuclear weapons enjoyed U.S. support when the shah was in power, Mr. Chomsky points out, but as Henry Kissinger has explained, at that time, “they were an allied country,” presumably meaning, Chomsky notes, that “therefore they had a genuine need for nuclear energy.”

Writing that “every sane person hopes that ways will be found to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons program,” Mr. Chomsky argues that in attacking Iraq on spurious grounds and providing Israel with jet bombers capable of bombing Iran, “Washington has gone out of its way to instruct Iran on the need for a powerful deterrent.” Or as Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld put it, “Had the Iranians not tried to build military weapons, they would be crazy.”

And then there is the matter of the nonproliferation treaty, under which nonnuclear countries like Iran agreed to renounce nuclear weapons in exchange for access to non-military nuclear energy and progress on nuclear disarmament by the five acknowledged nuclear powers. “None of the nuclear states has met its obligations,” Mr. Chomsky writes, but “the Bush administration has by far the worst record and stands alone in having renounced” good-faith efforts to reduce nuclear weapons.

This may be exotic stuff in the United States, but not so in the rest of the world. In Ireland, for instance, it was Page One news in Dublin last December when Mr. Chomsky referred to Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahearn as George Bush’s “shoeshine boy” for granting U.S. warplanes access to Shannon Airport, an assessment with which the principal parliamentary opposition Labour Party readily concurred.

Back home, while Mr. Chomsky has a tremendous grass-roots following, he’s virtually nonexistent so far as mainstream commentary goes. The major newspapers will toss him a kudo once a decade or so -- he’s been called “arguably the most important intellectual alive” in The New York Times and “America’s most useful citizen” in The Boston Globe -- but otherwise it’s news if they even decide to review one of his books. Of course, given that he criticizes America’s news media as thoroughly as the government for the poor job it does covering the latter, you can see how the situation developed this way.

So when The New York Times published a favorable review of Failed States, some saw this as evidence of the paper’s extreme level of pique with the Bush administration over its treatment of the press. There was some irony, though, in the fact that the nation’s foremost newspaper felt compelled to assign the review to a journalist from the United Kingdom, perhaps thinking it needed to turn to a country where Mr. Chomsky’s views are more widely reported.

Mr. Chomsky ranges from seldom reported and little remembered stories -- like the 1986 World Court judgment against U.S. aggression against Nicaragua -- to seldom raised considerations like the fact that any American presidential candidate financed by another country would understandably be denounced as a traitor, while it is routine American foreign policy to spend taxpayer dollars to install those Washington deems acceptable as heads of foreign states.

Part of the reason Mr. Chomsky is so studiously ignored by the mainstream is the bipartisan nature of his critique. In addition to shredding the justification for the Clinton administration’s bombing of Serbia, he reminds us of that administration’s “doctrine that the United States is entitled to resort to ‘unilateral use of military power’ to ensure ‘uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources.’ ” Ultimately, Mr. Chomsky thinks the United States falls under its own definition of failed states: those unwilling or unable “to protect their citizens from violence and perhaps even destruction” and those that “regard themselves as beyond the reach of domestic or international law.”

The last person to scrutinize U.S. foreign policy so thoroughly was I.F. Stone, who famously tore apart the rationale for the Vietnam War. And if Mr. Chomsky’s critique often seems broader than that of Stone, who died in 1989, this is at least in part due to the further deterioration of American news media over the intervening years.



Of course... the consequence of the above is to jail the perps immediately, before they do more crimes. But I predict yous will focus lazer-like on the perceived ommissions of Chomsky. However you will have to admit that focussing lazerlike on other peoples perceived weaknesses is the exact same behaviour of your administration. At this point the Bush-junta would invoke the 'crime' of moral equivalence and I am just nosy what you 911 bloggerites will say.


He is a left gatekeeper!

Why don't you replace this sky with a different sky like Michel Chossudovsky. He is a better intelectual and honest to the truth. You chomsky is not dumb and he should be aware by now that 911 was and is an inside job, but he continues to play the left card. Why? I don't know, but I can speculate that it has something to do with the ability to get his books published.

Chomsky is irrelevant, put a fork in him, cuz he's done!

His career is over. He is a fossil. To read his work is to risk being duped. Go ahead and read his work if you must but be aware that someone who can't understand or refuses to acknowledge the obvious truth about 9/11 is either uninformed (we know he is not), dumb (we know he is not), criminally deceptive (we hope he is not), or addled by the ravages of aging (a definite maybe.) This is beyond a difference of opinion. Chomsky either knows better or is losing his mind. Either way, no need to advertise for him.


Chomsky is a stooge who has

Chomsky is a stooge who has been roundly exposed. god bless the internet, many people are starting to see him(and other control valves like him) for what he is because of it. i bet Mr. Chomsky HATES technology........

Left Denial on 9/11 Turns

Left Denial on 9/11 Turns Irrational
by Jack Straw

People like Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill are turning toward the irrational as they continue to deny increasing signs that 9/11 was an inside job.


Noam Chomsky is often hailed as America's premier dissident intellectual, a fearless purveyor of truth fighting against media propaganda, murderous U.S. foreign policy, and the crimes of profit-hungry transnational corporations.

He enjoys a slavish cult-like following from millions leftist students, journalists, and activists worldwide who fawn over his dense books as if they were scripture. To them, Chomsky is the supreme deity, a priestly master whose logic cannot be questioned.

However, as one begins to examine the interviews and writings of Chomsky, a different picture emerges. His books, so vociferously lauded in leftist circles, appear to be calculated disinformation designed to distract and confuse honest activists. Since the 1960's, Chomsky has acted as the premier Left gatekeeper, using his elevated status to cover up the major crimes of the global elite.

Where Noam will not roam:
Chomsky manufactures consent by supporting the official stories of 9/11 and JFK

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
- Noam Chomsky

"I agree that Professor Chomsky is not a CIA agent. But with respect to his pronouncements on the JFK assassination he is worse than a CIA agent. Without being an agent, with his enormous prestige as a thinker, as an independent radical, as a courageous man, he does the work of the agency. ... He is unconvinced by the evidence of a conspiracy, but his is utterly convinced that JFK was a consummate cold warrior who could not have changed and did nothing to irritate the military industrial intelligence complex."
- Vincent Salandria

"That's an internet theory and it's hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don't see any point in talking about it."
- Noam Chomsky, at a FAIR event at New York's Town Hall, 22 January 2002, in response to a question from the audience about US government foreknowledge of 9/11. At that time, 9/11 investigators had already presented substantial documented evidence for: prior warnings, Air Force stand-down, anomalous insider trading connected to CIA, cover-up of the domestic anthrax attacks, inconsistencies in identities & timelines of "hijackers", US connections to al Qaeda in Balkans, a Pak ISI-al Qaeda funding connection, etc etc etc.

He's probably controlled

He's probably controlled much like the self confessed CIA agent William F. Buckley.

Excellent analysis!

"His [Chomsky's] books, so vociferously lauded in leftist circles, appear to be calculated disinformation designed to distract and confuse honest activists. Since the 1960's, Chomsky has acted as the premier Left gatekeeper, using his elevated status to cover up the major crimes of the global elite."

Beautifully stated!


USA = Dopey and Sleepy

Thursday, October 5, 2006 - 3:00 pm

Harry Shearer is, well, you know, Harry Shearer—man of a thousand voices on The Simpsons, host of the NPR radio show Le Show, author of the just published Not Enough Indians, former cast member of Saturday Night Live, bass player for a little band called Spinal Tap that changed the face of entertainment. Besides all that, and blogging, Harry, who splits time between homes in New Orleans and Los Angeles, does a lot of live performance, like his upcoming gigs at Cal State Long Beach’s Carpenter Center.

OC Weekly: My daughter saw you perform in Scotland in something called This Is So Not About the Simpsons. Is this going to be that show?

Harry Shearer: No, that was something I did with my wife. This is going to be more of me talking, probably a little less about performance. It will be a monologue with a little musical piece at the end. There will probably be a video piece also. Then I’ll probably ask for questions from the audience and ignore them.

Will it be very political?

It’ll be as political as I am right now. Which is to say I want to talk about things without being one of these people that, when you look a little closer, it looks like they’re working for a candidate. I don’t want to mention any names, Al Franken. I just want to tell people what is crazy and funny about things right now.

Speaking of funny, I was talking with my brother and he was saying that though he enjoys The Daily Show, he sees it as emblematic of something that’s going on in the country—that people today see humor as an end, not some kind of spark to action. That laughing at something derisive Jon Stewart says about George Bush makes people feel comfortable and right and like they don’t have to do anything besides laugh at George Bush. Their responsibility ends there.

I understand that criticism, but I think it’s too big a burden to put on performers. It’s not The Daily Show’s fault that a leader hasn’t showed up to inspire people to get off their asses. That’s not Jon Stewart’s fault.

Okay, but I remember immediately after 9/11 people saying that it was the end of irony and that America was going to become a much more serious nation. There would be no more fluff.

And now it’s all fluff.
Totally fluffy.

Well, we’re silly. More than that, I think, we’ve become dopey. We’re one of the seven dwarves: Dopey heading toward Sleepy. I take it as a reflection of a culture, and I use that word loosely, that is more amenable to the blandishments of advertisements than actually being concerned with doing something. Again, I don’t think you can blame performers for that. It’s much bigger than that. I mean, that’s not our job. To a certain extent, I’ve modified what I do over the last four years when I saw that people inside the country, especially leading up to the war, weren’t getting the same information that people outside the country were getting. I had a microphone, and I decided to use it to start sharing that information. Certainly I’ve done it as I’ve started blogging. But I don’t feel the need to lecture people.

Yeah, you blog. What’s that been like? What kind of responses do you get?

Well, blogs seem to draw people who just want to have a political argument. When New Orleans was drowning, the bloggers who would write to me didn’t seem interested in talking about what went wrong over the last 45 years that led to it, they wanted to say, “This is Clinton’s doing” or “That was Bush’s fault.” And I’ve been amazed at the hostility toward New Orleans, some of which has a racist tinge to it and some has totally different roots. I can tell you that people in New Orleans feel in some ways that we’re not a part of the United States, and these people will make it clear that they would prefer that—that the body would benefit from removing the offending growth. Funny thing is when I respond to these people, and I do it in a restrained manner, they’re usually very nice: “Oh, my God, it was just a weak moment.” You get the feeling they wrote what they wrote because they thought that was how they were supposed to act—that that was what the show was about. That goes so far across the board. You see the guys who are on those political yelling shows. That’s not who they are, but everyone is in a conspiracy to engage in a yelling act. You sense that everybody is in a reality show; everybody knows how they’re supposed to act. It’s not about being authentic and spontaneous, and it’s become the same way in public discourse. You do this not because you necessarily believe it, but because that’s how you do the show right.

And people seem to have an insatiable appetite for the business of show business these days. People would rather watch the making of the movie than the movie itself. Everything is about behind the scenes. Now NBC has not one but two shows—Studio 60, 30 Rock—that are behind the scenes at Saturday Night Live. What do you make of this?

Basically, it’s the CSI approach to television. Everything is about the procedural aspect of things. I can tell you, Studio 60 doesn’t look or sound like anything I ever saw at Saturday Night Live. People do not stand in the hall and say, “Fuck me? Fuck you!” No, power at that level is exercised more subtly. It’s: “I’ll schedule a meeting then be two hours late for that meeting just to show you I can.”
You have a long history with radio. One thing you always hear is where is the counterbalance to Rush Limbaugh? I’m assuming you’ve been approached about that.

Yeah, I’ve been approached to do it, but I have zero interest in being on radio every day. If you’re doing that, several things happen. Just in terms of the art, the mandate switches from honing and refining to stretching and repeating. Your work just isn’t going to be as good. If you want to do anything else with your life, you’re going to have to hire support people, writers, and now it’s not really your voice. Instead you become a caricature of yourself.

I’m also assuming Air America came calling?

Yes, I was approached by Air America. But I don’t want to be on a network where they might say, “Hey, hey, hey, hey! Stop making fun of Al Gore!”

Why do you think Air America didn’t work?

Because they didn’t hire radio people. They thought they could just hire anyone and it would work. What they missed is that radio is its own specific art. When you look at people like Rush Limbaugh or Laura Schlessinger, these people were on radio for years and years before coming up with their present personas. They understand radio. For whatever reasons, liberals don’t respect radio.

Yeah, I’ve noticed that on Air America you’ll have a lot of dead air, which is, well, death.

Well, you can have dead air if you know how to use it. You know, Rush will shuffle papers and it kind of builds the suspense. You can use the pauses if you have something to say. Air America can’t seem to think of anything to say.

Harry Shearer performs at the Carpenter Center on the campus of Cal State Long Beach, 6200 Atherton Blvd., Long Beach, (562) 985-4274; www.carpenterarts.org. Fri.-Sat., Oct. 13-14, 8 p.m. $45; students and seniors, $40.

Orange County weekly


Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 12:00 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home