US Warns Iran Over Strait of Hormuz Incident

Here we go again...

A confrontation between three U.S. Navy warships and five Iranian boats in the Strait of Hormuz almost triggered an exchange of gunfire, and if it happens again there may be a battle, the president's top security aide says.

The Pentagon released dramatic video of Sunday's encounter, which occurred in the narrow channel critical to the shipment of oil from the Persian Gulf. Iran's navy said the video was faked, according to state-run media.

U.S. national security adviser Stephen Hadley was blunt Wednesday.

"It's the kind of incident that can provoke exchange of fire," Hadley said. "And we think the Iranians need to be on notice that they are fishing in troubled waters here."

Hadley, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One as President Bush headed to Israel, said, "It almost involved an exchange of fire between our forces and Iranian forces," but he stopped short of saying whether the U.S. Navy would have fired the first shots.

"This is not -- this is a provocative act, not a smart thing to do, and they're going to have to take responsibility for the consequences if they do it again," Hadley said.

Bush on Tuesday also called the confrontation "a provocative act" on Iran's part.

"It's a dangerous situation, and they should not have done it, pure and simple," Bush said during a news conference in the White House Rose Garden. "I don't know what their thinking was."

Black Site Survivor Relates Horrific Tale

A sad look at our new centers of 'freedom and liberty'.

"Black Site" Survivor Relates Horrific Tale
Enforced disappearance and torture at several CIA "black sites"

NEW YORK, Dec 19 (IPS) - As human right lawyers sought to block U.S government efforts to stop a lawsuit against a Boeing subsidiary accused of flying detainees to "black sites" where they were tortured, a legal advocacy group published the first testimony of a victim of the Central Intelligence Agency's "enhanced interrogation" programme.

In the first-ever report of its kind, the Centre for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ) at New York University School of Law released a firsthand account of a survivor of enforced disappearance and torture at several CIA "black sites". The 63-page report, "Surviving the Darkness: Testimony from the U.S. 'Black Sites'", is an in-depth account of a former CIA detainee's experience in his own words.

The bone-chilling narrative tells the story of Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah, a Yemeni national who spent more than a year and a half in the CIA's secret detention programme. He was never charged with a terrorism-related crime.

The CHRGJ charges that Bashmilah was "illegally detained by the Jordanian intelligence service in October 2003, tortured into signing a false confession, and then handed over to an American rendition team."

The group says he spent the next 18 months in the U.S. secret detention network -- in sites believed to be in Afghanistan and possibly Eastern Europe. In May 2005, he was transferred to the custody of the Yemen government, which held him in proxy detention at the behest of the U.S. until he was put on trial and finally released in March 2006.

Bashmilah's story was made public as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed legal papers opposing the CIA's attempt to throw out a lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. for its participation in the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" programme.

The ACLU charged that the U.S. government is improperly invoking the "state secrets" privilege to avoid judicial scrutiny of this unlawful policy.

Steven Watt, an attorney with the ACLU's Human Rights Programme, told IPS, "Five men have been brutally abused with the help of a U.S. corporation, and they are entitled to their day in court."

"Jeppesen must not be given a free pass for its profitable participation in a torture programme," he said. "And the government should not be allowed to use the national security defence as a way to cover up its mistakes or, worse, its egregious abuses of human rights."

The ACLU filing comes in a lawsuit brought on behalf of five victims of the rendition programme who were kidnapped and secretly transferred by the CIA to U.S.-run overseas prisons or foreign intelligence agencies where they were interrogated and tortured.

According to the lawsuit, Jeppesen knowingly provided flight planning and essential logistical support to aircraft and crew used by the CIA for the clandestine rendition flights.

After the lawsuit was filed, the U.S. government intervened to seek its dismissal, contending that further litigation of the case would be harmful to national security. But the ACLU contends that the information needed to pursue this lawsuit, including details about the rendition programme, is already in the public domain.

It adds, "Jeppesen's involvement in the programme is also a matter of public record. It has been confirmed by extensive documentary evidence and eyewitness testimony, including the sworn declaration of a former senior Jeppesen employee, which was submitted in support of the ACLU filing."

In recent years, the government has asserted the once-rare "state secrets" claim with increasing regularity in an attempt to throw out lawsuits and justify withholding information from the public not only about the rendition programme, but also about illegal wiretapping, torture, and other breaches of U.S. and international law.

It has been 50 years since the United States Supreme Court last reviewed the use of the "state secrets" privilege. The Supreme Court recently refused to review the "state secrets" privilege in a lawsuit brought by Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen also represented by the ACLU, who was kidnapped and rendered to detention, interrogation, and torture in a CIA "black site" prison in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, more than 250 people once held in Iraqi prisons, including Abu Ghraib, have filed suit against a U.S. military contractor for alleged torture of detainees. The Centre for Constitutional Rights filed the lawsuit seeking millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages against CACI International Inc. of Arlington, Virginia.

The complaint alleges that CACI interrogators who were sent to Iraqi prisons directed and engaged in torture between 2003 and 2004. The lawsuit charges that the detainees were repeatedly beaten, sodomised, threatened with rape, kept naked in their cells, subjected to electric shock and attacked by unmuzzled dogs, among other humiliations.

The court action also names two CACI employees -- Stephen Stefanowski, known as "Big Steve", and Daniel Johnson, known as "DJ" -- accusing them of participating in the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. The suit alleges that the two CACI contractors directed Corporal Charles Graner and Sergeant Ivan Frederick. Graner was sentenced to 10 years in prison for this role in the Abu Ghraib scandal; Frederick is serving an eight-year jail term.

"These corporate guys worked in a conspiracy with those military guys to torture people," said Susan Burke, the lead attorney in the case.

"And now the military have been held accountable, but the company guys and the company have not been," she said.

The legal status of U.S. private contractors in Iraq and elsewhere abroad remains cloudy. The Iraqi government says they should be subject to Iraqi law, a position rejected by the U.S. It remains unclear whether they are subject to U.S. law. No U.S. court has yet decided a relevant case, though lawsuits have been brought against a number of contractors, including Blackwater, whose employees are accused of killing 17 unarmed Iraqi civilians in a shooting incident in September.

In the CACI case, to the surprise of some legal observers, the government did not intervene on behalf of the contractors and the court ruled that the litigation could go forward.

In a related development, the New York Times reported Wednesday that Pakistan's military and intelligence agencies, "apparently trying to avoid acknowledging an elaborate secret detention system, have quietly set free nearly 100 men suspected of links to terrorism, few of whom were charged."

Human rights groups in Pakistan say those released are some of the nearly 500 Pakistanis presumed to have disappeared into the hands of the Pakistani intelligence agencies cooperating with Washington's fight against terrorism since 2001.

The Times reported that no official reason has been given for the releases. But it quoted Pakistani sources as saying that as pressure has mounted to bring the cases into the courts, "the government has decided to jettison some suspects and spare itself the embarrassment of having to reveal that people have been held on flimsy evidence in the secret system."

Among those pressing to bring the cases into court was the chief justice of Pakistan's Supreme Court, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. He was dismissed by President Pervez Musharraf and remains in detention, although Musharraf last Saturday lifted the state of emergency he imposed in November.

The Times reported that the prisoner releases were "particularly galling to lawyers" because Musharraf had accused the courts of being soft on terrorists, and had used that claim as one justification for imposing emergency rule.

Listen to this Democracy Now clip that aired this week. It's chilling tale by a man who had the misfortune of being picked up and detained by the CIA.

The Other War- Afghanistan

In the infamous 'War on Terror', Afghanistan is almost a sad footnote. Troop levels were never adequate, poor planning and coordination, soaring drug production and the incompetence of Karzai and the government in Kabul have all contributed to a sense that this war could be lost. The New York Times has a good editorial this morning which looks at this issue.

One of the biggest problems is that when NATO took command in Afghanistan, many members expected that most of the fighting would be over and their troops would focus on development and stabilization. Instead, they are increasingly taking casualties, and European leaders have still failed to tell their citizens why Afghanistan matters — and why a major effort must be made to deny the Taliban and Al Qaeda a safe haven.

We understand Mr. Gates’s frustration. He might do better with the Europeans if he told another truth: Before NATO got involved, Washington never had enough troops in Afghanistan, nor did it have a coherent strategy for stabilizing and developing the country. Its decision to invade Iraq ended up shortchanging the effort even more. Too few ground troops, meanwhile, meant too much reliance on airstrikes, leading to too many civilian casualties, which fanned popular anger and resistance.

By the end of last week, Mr. Gates and European officials agreed that instead of trading blame they would begin a much needed top-to-bottom review of their strategy. Better late than never. The review must look at everything: politics, development, counternarcotics and security. It must find ways to improve coordination between NATO, Washington and Kabul. It must acknowledge that European and American troops will most likely have to remain there for many years. And it must be done quickly, before Afghanistan unravels even more.

Before urging that the military go forth on new and more exciting adventures (i.e. Iran), it would be wise to step back and see the results of our recent actions in this fight against 'terrorism'.

Bush Demands Freedom to Torture

After declaring a million times that "We don't torture", why would Bush veto a House bill that requires that intelligence services follow the Army Field Manual when dealing with detainees?

President Bush's repeated insistence that "we don't torture" appeared even more transparently bogus yesterday as the White House threatened to veto a House bill that would explicitly ban a variety of abhorrent practices.

The bill would require U.S. intelligence agencies to follow interrogation rules adopted by the armed forces last year.

What does that mean? As Pamela Hess writes for the Associated Press, those rules explicitly prohibit "forcing detainees to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner; placing hoods or sacks over detainees' heads or duct tape over their eyes; beating, shocking, or burning detainees; threatening them with military dogs; exposing them to extreme heat or cold; conducting mock executions; depriving them of food, water, or medical care; and waterboarding."

Administration officials have consistently refused to confirm or deny whether any of those methods have been sanctioned by the White House and are in use. But really all you need to know is this: According to yesterday's formal statement of administration policy, limiting intelligence agencies to the army rules "would prevent the United States from conducting lawful interrogations of senior al Qaeda terrorists to obtain intelligence needed to protect Americans from attack."

I have heard people trying to defend this abhorrent practice, but the fact is torture is wrong and torture is illegal. I remember wondering how things in 1930's Germany were allowed to happen, but sadly I think I understand all too well now.

Sunday Matinee- Iraq For Sale

This for all of you 'fiscal conservatives' who care about the 'people's money'...

The Politics of Fear

Appearing on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, Rick Santorum, the former Republican Senator speaks of "unfortunate events" that will occur in the United States within a year and will alter Americans perception of the current war. In this interview, he stated "Between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we’re seeing unfold in the UK. But I think the American public’s going to have a very different view".

Unfortunately, this tactic has become quite commonplace today. It was just last month that the new head of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan, had this to say:

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on Sept. 11, 2001. And the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country."

I often think back to the days when our leaders, both former and current, spoke of America's great strength and determination in fighting its' enemies. Hope, strength and courage were hallmarks of the American way. Now, politicians have turned the tables and use the tactics of fear and terror to push their political agendas. Don't like my policies- face a terror attack. It's about as simple as that.

Think fear mongering politics aren't successful? Take a look at where we are today- Afghanistan the forgotten war, the disaster that is Iraq is getting worse by the day, America's reputation is in tatters and now the clouds of war are brewing on the horizon with Iran. War, War, and more War. That seems to be the order of the day.

After the billions spent in this 'War on Terror', there is not much to show for it. Recent reports show Al-Qaeda stronger than ever. Terrorists attacks and bombings have become everyday events and more and more innocent civilians caught up in this violence are killed. The military is broken and the troops that politicians so bravely hid behind are just pawns in this global chess game. Yet, we are told that we must 'stay the course', 'remain resolute' or whatever the catch phrase of the day happens to be.

So when is enough really enough? What is it going to take to make people realize that we are the car speeding along soon to go off the cliff ahead? Oh hell- let's tell them we must go a little faster because, you know, we could be attacked...

“Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”
FDR’s First Inaugural Address