Unfortunately, we lost the first round in the fight against the amendment I wrote about on Wednesday, which strips Guantánamo detainees of their right to challenge their detentions in U.S. courts. It’s really frustrating that in addition to Lindsey Graham, who sponsored the amendment, and who previously seemed to understand that throwing away your country’s values in the name of protecting your country is neither decent nor wise, we lost several Republicans who had been on our side, including Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and even John McCain. (It’s not even surprising that Joe Lieberman also voted against the Constitution.)
But don’t despair yet. This was a 49-42 vote, and basic rights are still salvageable. Senator Bingaman will be introducing a substitute amendment next week that removes the part of Graham’s amendment that bans prisoners from challenging their incarceration. We only need to peel off a few votes. Call your senators again, and if they’re among the more crucial votes –
– annoy friends and relations until they make calls as well. This is urgent. If this amendment goes through, we’re handing the government power to throw anyone into prison for any reason. This would be a frightening power to give to anyone, under any circumstances, but today it isn’t a theoretical threat. They’ve already abused this power. We’ve seen completely innocent people murdered while in military detention. Many prisoners at Guantánamo were guilty of nothing more than being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Some were sold into detention. And as hilzoy points out over at Obsidian Wings, we continue to hold prisoners at Guantánamo even after we know that they are not enemy combatants. If Lindsey Graham’s atrocity goes through, those perfectly innocent people will have no means of challenging their status, no means of escape.
Since Republicans are so fond of running personality-driven campaigns, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that the reason Arnold Schwarzenegger pissed away $60 million dollars in pursuit of his “reform agenda” is because he’s a stubborn jerk who doesn’t work well with others. His spectacular failures last night weren’t the result of ideological differences, but personality flaws.
A real leader would have worked with the Democratic legislature, not attack them as “girly men”. A real leader would have made compromises and reached across the ideological divide to find common ground. A real leader would have done the heavy lifting himself, not put the burden of making the hard decisions back on the people of California. But Arnold isn’t a real leader, he’s just a bad actor.
If you’ve been under the impression that Lindsey Graham is one of the rare Republicans good guys on the torture issue, be prepared to lose your innocence: He’s trying to insert an amendment essentially overturning Rasul v. Bush into the defense appropriations bill. It would strip detainees of any right to challenge either the legality or the conditions of their imprisonment. We are all just supposed to trust that the administration would never hold people without a good reason, and certainly would never abuse anyone.
Not surprisingly, Jeralyn is the go to person on this.
This is happening a day after the Senate rejected an amendment to establish an independent commission on detention policies and practices (without a single Republican voting to shine a light) (one particular Republican did not vote), and at the same time the House seems to be moving closer to stripping the McCain amendment out of the defense appropriations bill passed by the Senate. The Senate recently attached the amendment to a second bill, and it looks like this may have provided an opening for killing it.:
McCain said Wednesday he is worried that attempts to kill the provisions could succeed.
Under a scenario that McCain said was possible, House-Senate negotiators would strip the provisions from the must-pass spending bill and then never complete the other bill that includes the detainee language, the defense policy bill.
"That’s what I am told the strategy is," McCain said, declining to say who told him that. "I hope that it’s not true. I hope that they won’t do that."
Back to Graham’s proposal. The Senate could vote on it tomorrow, so it’s urgent to contact senators right away. The Center for Constitutional Rights has a list of the most important senators to reach, but call even if yours isn’t on the list.
Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.
Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists, rumours have swirled that the Americans used chemical weapons on the city.
On 10 November last year, the Islam Online website wrote: “US troops are reportedly using chemical weapons and poisonous gas in its large-scale offensive on the Iraqi resistance bastion of Fallujah, a grim reminder of Saddam Hussein’s alleged gassing of the Kurds in 1988.”
The website quoted insurgent sources as saying: “The US occupation troops are gassing resistance fighters and confronting them with internationally banned chemical weapons.”
In December the US government formally denied the reports, describing them as “widespread myths”. “Some news accounts have claimed that US forces have used ‘outlawed’ phosphorus shells in Fallujah,” the USinfo website said. “Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. US forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes.
They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.”
But now new information has surfaced, including hideous photographs and videos and interviews with American soldiers who took part in the Fallujah attack, which provides graphic proof that phosphorus shells were widely deployed in the city as a weapon.
In a documentary to be broadcast by RAI, the Italian state broadcaster, this morning, a former American soldier who fought at Fallujah says: “I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it’s known as Willy Pete.
“Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone … I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for.”
Photographs on the website of RaiTG24, the broadcaster’s 24-hours news channel, www.rainews24.it, show exactly what the former soldier means. Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.
Q I’d like you to clear up, once and for all, the ambiguity about torture. Can we get a straight answer? The President says we don’t do torture, but Cheney —
MR. McCLELLAN: That’s about as straight as it can be.
Q Yes, but Cheney has gone to the Senate and asked for an exemption on —
MR. McCLELLAN: No, he has not. Are you claiming he’s asked for an exemption on torture? No, that’s —
Q He did not ask for that?
MR. McCLELLAN: — that is inaccurate.
Q Are you denying everything that came from the Hill, in terms of torture?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, you’re mischaracterizing things. And I’m not going to get into discussions we have —
Q Can you give me a straight answer for once?
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me give it to you, just like the President has. We do not torture. He does not condone torture and he would never —
Q I’m asking about exemptions.
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me respond. And he would never authorize the use of torture. We have an obligation to do all that we can to protect the American people. We are engaged —
Q That’s not the answer I’m asking for —
MR. McCLELLAN: It is an answer — because the American people want to know that we are doing all within our power to prevent terrorist attacks from happening. There are people in this world who want to spread a hateful ideology that is based on killing innocent men, women and children. We saw what they can do on September 11th —
Q He didn’t ask for an exemption —
MR. McCLELLAN: — and we are going to —
Q — answer that one question. I’m asking, is the administration asking for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: I am answering your question. The President has made it very clear that we are going to do —
Q You’re not answering — yes or no?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, you don’t want the American people to hear what the facts are, Helen, and I’m going to tell them the facts.
Q — the American people every day. I’m asking you, yes or no, did we ask for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: And let me respond. You’ve had your opportunity to ask the question. Now I’m going to respond to it.
Q If you could answer in a straight way.
MR. McCLELLAN: And I’m going to answer it, just like the President — I just did, and the President has answered it numerous times.
Q — yes or no —
MR. McCLELLAN: Our most important responsibility is to protect the American people. We are engaged in a global war against Islamic radicals who are intent on spreading a hateful ideology, and intent on killing innocent men, women and children.
Q Did we ask for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: We are going to do what is necessary to protect the American people.
Q Is that the answer?
MR. McCLELLAN: We are also going to do so in a way that adheres to our laws and to our values. We have made that very clear. The President directed everybody within this government that we do not engage in torture. We will not torture. He made that very clear.
Q Are you denying we asked for an exemption?
MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, we will continue to work with the Congress on the issue that you brought up. The way you characterize it, that we’re asking for exemption from torture, is just flat-out false, because there are laws that are on the books that prohibit the use of torture. And we adhere to those laws.
Q We did ask for an exemption; is that right? I mean, be simple — this is a very simple question.
MR. McCLELLAN: I just answered your question. The President answered it last week.
Q What are we asking for?
Q Would you characterize what we’re asking for?
MR. McCLELLAN: We’re asking to do what is necessary to protect the American people in a way that is consistent with our laws and our treaty obligations. And that’s what we —
Q Why does the CIA need an exemption from the military?
MR. McCLELLAN: David, let’s talk about people that you’re talking about who have been brought to justice and captured. You’re talking about people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad; people like Abu Zubaydah.
Q I’m asking you –
MR. McCLELLAN: No, this is facts about what you’re talking about.
Q Why does the CIA need an exemption from rules that would govern the conduct of our military in interrogation practices?
MR. McCLELLAN: There are already laws and rules that are on the books, and we follow those laws and rules. What we need to make sure is that we are able to carry out the war on terrorism as effectively as possible, not only —
Q What does that mean —
MR. McCLELLAN: What I’m telling you right now — not only to protect Americans from an attack, but to prevent an attack from happening in the first place. And, you bet, when we capture terrorist leaders, we are going to seek to find out information that will protect — that prevent attacks from happening in the first place. But we have an obligation to do so. Our military knows this; all people within the United States government know this. We have an obligation to do so in a way that is consistent with our laws and values.
Now, the people that you are bringing up — you’re talking about in the context, and I think it’s important for the American people to know, are people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi Binalshibh — these are — these are dangerous killers.
Q So they’re all killers —
Q Did you ask for an exemption on torture? That’s a simple question, yes or no.
MR. McCLELLAN: No. And we have not. That’s what I told you at the beginning.
Q You want to reserve the ability to use tougher tactics with those individuals who you mentioned.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, obviously, you have a different view from the American people. I think the American people understand the importance of doing everything within our power and within our laws to protect the American people.
Went down to the city for an advance screening of Margaret Brown’s biography of Townes Van Zandt. I got a brief introductory course on Townes from Steve Earle last year on the Silver City bus, but apart from that, Townes wasn’t really somebody on my radar — but I still found the story engrossing, and ultimately haunting. (Full disclosure: my friend Louis is a producer of this film, and I hung out with Margaret last August at the Neil Young shows in Nashville.)
Sat next to Little Steven Van Zandt (no relation to Townes) in the screening room. Didn’t talk to him, but if I had, I imagine the conversation would have gone something like this:
Me: I have seen you act on television, and have heard you play guitar.
Little Steven: It is true, I am an actor and a musician.
…to the kind readers who’ve recently sent a spate of items from the wish list. I think I say this every time, but it’s always a mood brightener when one of these packages shows up unexpectedly. Particular thanks to the generous reader who sent the first season of Battlestar Galactica, which really is one of the better shows on television.
Judy Miller’s good friend arrives in the U.S. today. Think Progress provides a Chalabi refresher to commemorate the special day.
PENTAGON FUNDED CHALABI TO PROVIDE RATIONALE FOR WAR: The Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency paid the INC $335,000 a month in the lead-up to the Iraq war to gather intelligence. In all, the Bush White House has given the INC at least $39 million over the past 5 years. [IPS, 5/23/04; New Yorker, 6/7/04]
CHALABI’S IRAQI NATIONAL CONGRESS WAS MAJOR SOURCE OF DATA FOR PENTAGON OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS: According to a report in the New Yorker, analysts based in the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans “relied on data gathered by other intelligence agencies and also on information provided by the Iraqi National Congress, or I.N.C., the exile group headed by Ahmad Chalabi.” “You had to treat [the I.N.C.] with suspicion,” a former Middle East station chief said of Chalabi’s people. ‘The I.N.C. has a track record of manipulating information because it has an agenda. It’s a political unit-not an intelligence agency.’” [New Yorker, 5/12/03]
CHALABI ATTENDED PLANNING MEETING AT THE PENTAGON JUST DAYS AFTER 9/11 ATTACKS: On September 18, 2001, Richard Perle convened a two-day meeting of the Defense Policy Board, a group that advises the Pentagon. Chalabi, who was a guest speaker at this meeting, made a presentation on the Iraqi threat. [Vanity Fair, 5/04]
CHALABI STOVEPIPED INTEL TO BUSH; DISSENTING CIA AND STATE ANALYSES REMAINED SECRET: According to The New Yorker, “Chalabi’s defector reports were …flowing from the Pentagon directly to the Vice-President’s office, and then on to the President, with little prior evaluation by intelligence professionals.” State Dept. Intelligence expert Greg Thielmann said, “There was considerable skepticism throughout the intelligence community about the reliability of Chalabi’s sources, but the defector reports were coming all the time. Knock one down and another comes along. Meanwhile, the garbage was being shoved straight to the President.” The INC also takes credit for providing raw, unsubstantiated information directly to John Hannah, then-special assistant for national security in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office. [The New Yorker, 10/27/03; Newsweek, 12/15/03]
CHALABI PROVIDED AGENT CURVEBALL TO AFFIRM SUPPOSED EXISTENCE OF SADDAM’S BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS LABS: “A U.S. official confirmed that defectors from Chalabi’s organization had provided suspect information to numerous Western intelligence agencies. ‘It’s safe to say he tried to game the system,’ the official said.” A discredited INC defector to Germany who was code-named ‘Curveball’ was the chief source of information on Iraq’s supposed fleet of mobile germ weapons factories. Curveball was the brother of a top lieutenant to Ahmed Chalabi, the group’s leader and now a member of the Iraqi Governing Council. [LA Times, 5/23/04; Knight-Ridder, 4/3/04]
CHALABI PLANTED FABRICATED NEWS STORIES: Chalabi was the source for discredited news stories about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction which were penned by New York Times reporter Judith Miller. In 2001, Miller wrote a front-page story about claims that Saddam had twenty secrety WMD sites hidden in Iraq. The information turned out to be bogus. Chalabi’s group arranged Miller’s interview with the source and, according to the New Yorker, Miller’s exclusive story came just “three days after [the source] had shown deception in a polygraph test administered by the C.I.A. at the request of the Defense Intelligence Agency.” [New York Times, 2/26/04; The New Yorker, 6/7/04; Columbia Journalism Review, July 2004]
CHALABI SHRUGS OFF MISLEADING U.S.: “Mr Chalabi, by far the most effective anti-Saddam lobbyist in Washington, shrugged off charges that he had deliberately misled US intelligence. ‘We are heroes in error,’ he told the Telegraph in Baghdad.” [Daily Telegraph, 2/19/04]
CHALABI ACCUSED OF PASSING U.S. SECRETS TO IRAN: In June 2004, Chalabi came under investigation for allegations that he passed secret intelligence to Iran. Chalabi is accused of telling the Iranian government that the U.S. had broken the code it used for secret communications. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice promised Congress a full investigation into the allegations. But the Wall Street Journal reports that “there is little sign of progress in a federal investigation of allegations that he once leaked U.S. intelligence secrets to Iran.” [Washington Post, 6/3/04; WSJ, 11/7/05]
CHALABI ACCUSED OF ENGAGING IN COUNTERFEITING OPERATION IN POST-WAR IRAQ: The AP reported in August 2004 that Iraq had issued an arrest warrant for Ahmad Chalabi on counterfeiting charges. The warrants “accused Ahmad Chalabi of counterfeiting old Iraqi dinars - which had been removed from circulation following the fall of Saddam’s regime last year…Police found the counterfeit money along with old dinars in Ahmad Chalabi’s house during a May raid.” A judge later dismissed the counterfeit charges for lack of evidence. [AP, 8/8/04; Washington Post, 9/28/04]
CHALABI CONVICTED FOR EMBEZZLEMENT: Critics have questioned the credibility of Ahmad Chalabi because in 1992 he was convicted by a Jordanian court of embezzling funds from a bank where he was employed. According to the Independent, “By 1992 he [Chalabi] was convicted in absentia of embezzlement and fraud, and his sentence of 22 years hard labour stands to this day. Jordan claims the debacle cost the state $300 million.” [Independent, 4/13/03]
CHALABI CURRENTLY HEADING IRAQI OIL MINISTRY: Chalabi has maintained leadership over the oil ministry while also retaining the post of deputy prime minister in Iraq. [London Times, 4/28/05]
PESHAWAR, Pakistan — Badr Zaman Badr and his brother Abdurrahim Muslim Dost relish writing a good joke that jabs a corrupt politician or distills the sufferings of fellow Afghans. Badr admires the political satires in “The Canterbury Tales” and “Gulliver’s Travels,” and Dost wrote some wicked lampoons in the 1990s, accusing Afghan mullahs of growing rich while preaching and organizing jihad. So in 2002, when the U.S. military shackled the writers and flew them to Guantanamo among prisoners whom Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared “the worst of the worst” violent terrorists, the brothers found life imitating farce.
For months, grim interrogators grilled them over a satirical article Dost had written in 1998, when the Clinton administration offered a $5-million reward for Osama bin Laden. Dost responded that Afghans put up 5 million Afghanis — equivalent to $113 — for the arrest of President Bill Clinton.
“It was a lampoon … of the poor Afghan economy” under the Taliban, Badr recalled. The article carefully instructed Afghans how to identify Clinton if they stumbled upon him. “It said he was clean-shaven, had light-colored eyes and he had been seen involved in a scandal with Monica Lewinsky,” Badr said.
The interrogators, some flown down from Washington, didn’t get the joke, he said. “Again and again, they were asking questions about this article. We had to explain that this was a satire.” He paused. “It was really pathetic.”
It took the brothers three years to convince the Americans that they posed no threat to Clinton or the United States, and to get released — a struggle that underscores the enormous odds weighing against innocent foreign Muslims caught in America’s military prisons.
In recent months, scores of Afghans interviewed by Newsday — including a dozen former U.S. prisoners, plus human rights officials and senior Afghan security officials — said the United States is detaining enough innocent Afghans in its war against the Taliban and al-Qaida that it is seriously undermining popular support for its presence in Afghanistan.
As you’ve no doubt heard, Bush’s approval rating has fallen to 35. Maybe America is starting to realize that secret prisons and endless war aren’t really the best government we can possibly hope for.
Dick Cheney, in the same poll, has a 19 percent approval rating.
How low is 19 percent?
According to previous surveys (scroll down in the link), that’s two points less popular than cheating on your spouse and seven points behind corporal punishment in schools.
Dick Cheney is now comfortably nestled deep in what can be politely called lunatic territory. As I’ve been pointing out for years, twenty or thirty percent of Americans believe any insane thing you can imagine.
