Home   About us   Comments   Webmaster   Links   Books To Read   Movies  Archives   Blog   Shop

 

http://www.aljazeeramagazine.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_id=10005 

The timing of Iraq war was cunningly manipulated
11/30/2005 2:20:00 PM GMT

Many analysts repeatedly stated that the U.S.-occupation in Iraq didn’t begin on 20 March 2003, and that the U.S. and UK had been waging an undeclared war against the country for twelve years, ever since the end of the Gulf Slaughter in 1991, with the aim of destroying the Iraqi society, enabling the American and the British governments control Iraq's oil wealth.

This policy by the U.S. and Britain has truly been genocidal, and no amount of hypocritical moral posturing on the part of George W. Bush and Tony Blair can disguise this.

Friday October 11 2002 was marked as a “victory for the white house.” The Senate early voted for attacking Iraq in case Saddam Hussein refuses to get rid of weapons of mass destruction as required by UN resolutions.

What do senators who voted for the war on Iraq three years ago think about it now? If they went back in time, would they vote for the same option or would they have a better understanding for the Bush tactics?

Three years ago the Congress voted for a military action against Iraq, and since then the American troops killed thousands of Iraqis whom they call “terrorists”, they have also succeeded in capturing Saddam Hussein and putting him in jail. Saddam’s last trial took place two days ago.

Tom Daschle, the former Democratic Senator from South Dakota, said on LATimes.com that when Bush asked the Senators to vote for invading Iraq he suggested that they should postpone the vote “until after the impending midterm election,” however his proposal was immediately rejected by Bush.

Daschle asked for postponing the vote as it was “in the height of the election campaign in which Republicans were systematically portraying Democrats as weak on national security,” according to LATimes.com.

In history, Bush’s father, President George H.W. Bush went through the same experience at the time of the Persian Gulf War, however he didn’t ask for a vote until the midterm elections were over.

At the time of voting for war on Iraq, the Congress didn’t have enough information about the situation there. The reasons proposed by Bush to justify invading Iraq were very broad.

Congressmen avoid tackling this issue. They don’t even comment on what Daschle said concerning the vote and the great controversy that occurred at the time of the vote. However, it is said that the voting process was backed up by the information the intelligence provided at that time, LATimes.com stated.

Daschle argues that Bush used the time element to motivate and push senators to vote for the war, however his argument is opposed by White House Counselor Dan Bartlett who stated that the time element was a way of pressuring Saddam not democrats.

On the other hand, Jim Jordan, ex- executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said that the situation was on fire at this time and it is hard to guess what the democrats would have voted for if the voting came after the 2002 elections.

During the voting process, Democrats not in the ballot were divided into, “19 supporting the war and 17 opposing it. Among those facing the voters, 10 voted for the resolution while only four opposed,” it only one among the four was “n a seriously competitive race”.

The Senate voted 77-23 for Iraq war, and the house 296-133. Today, nearly three years since the merciless illegal occupation began, what difference did the military action add? The situation in Iraq is getting worse. Civilians are killed everyday, ethnic tensions have increased, economic conditions are devastating.

Iraq and Afghanistan wars are the initial events in a scenario which will eventually develop into a third world war. What we see in the actions of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz and others is the same sort of greed and madness that drove the Nazis to attack Austria and Czechoslovakia, and later Poland, France and other countries during World War II.

Like the Nazi drive for world domination, which resulted in the utter destruction of Germany despite its military might, the American campaign with the aim of dominating the world will result in the utter destruction of the United States and a place in history for it as disgraceful as that now held by Nazi Germany.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4499528.stm

The defining of torture in a new world war
Analysis
By Paul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website

The US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's defence of the practice of transferring prisoners around the world for interrogation relies a great deal on a definition of torture.

In the US view, torture has to involve "severe pain" and harsh interrogations do not necessarily amount to torture.

Ms Rice accepted that prisoner transfers, known as "renditions", take place and said they were not unusual. The French had moved Carlos the Jackal directly from Sudan that way in 1994, she pointed out.

She did not adddress the issue of where these prisoners, thought to be senior al-Qaeda suspects like Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the man who thought up the attacks of 9/11, end up. The Washington Post has alleged that there are or have been secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe, Afghanistan and Thailand. By being located outside the US, they would avoid coming under the scrutiny of US courts.

But as she set off a European visit during which the rendition flights and the ultimate aim of such flights will be a key issue, the Secretary of State stressed several times that the United States did not engage in torture.

And it is really the torture issue which is the key. If the flights were simply for the purpose of moving prisoners between open court systems, nobody would complain.

It is the idea that they are tortured in secret detention camps that has concerned critics and has forced Ms Rice to issue her statement.

The UN Convention on Torture

The United States acted, she said, in accordance with its legal obligations, among which is the 1984 UN "Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

This defines torture as follows: "Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind..."

Defining 'severe'

It will be seen that a lot depends on the definition of "severe." In a memorandum on 1 August 2002, the then Assistant US Attorney General Jay Bybee said that "the adjective severe conveys that the pain or suffering must be of such a high level of intensity that the pain is difficult for the subject to endure." He even suggested that "severe pain" must be severe enough to result in organ failure death.

Such an interpretation would obviously leave an interrogator a great deal of latitude, and that memo was subsequently disowned by the Bush administration.

What seems to have evolved is a series of interrogation techniques which in the US view do not amount to torture as defined by the UN Convention but which go beyond the simple business of asking questions.

Recent reports on the American ABC News network, quoting CIA sources, listed six so-called "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques."

1. Grab : the interrogator grabs a suspect's shirt front and shakes him.

2. Slap : an open-handed slap to produce fear and some pain.

3. Belly Slap : a hard slap to the stomach with an open hand. This is designed to be painful but not to cause injury. A punch is said to have been ruled out by doctors.

4. Standing : Prisoners stand for 40 hours and more, shackled to the floor. Said to be effective, it also denies them sleep and is part of a process known as sensory deprivation ( this was a technique used by British forces in Northern Ireland for a time until it was stopped).

5. Cold Cell : a prisoner is made to stand naked in a cold, though not freezing, cell and doused with water.

6. Water Boarding : the prisoner is bound to a board with feet raised, and cellophane wrapped round his head. Water is poured onto his face and is said to produce a fear of drowning which leads to a rapid demand for the suffering to end.

The McCain amendment

Some or all of these techniques might be outlawed if the US Senate has its way. The Senate has approved by 90 to 9 a measure outlawing "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment."

Again, much depends on definitions but President Bush apparently feels that McCain's amendment would prevent the CIA from carrying out "enhanced" interrogation. He is threatening to veto the Bill onto which this prohibition has been tacked as an amendment. The White House and McCain, a former pilot who was himself tortured by the North Vietnamese, are trying to reach a compromise.

Senator McCain has written against any ill-treatment of prisoners: "We should not torture or treat inhumanely terrorists we have captured. The abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort. In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear - whether it is true or false - if he believes it will relieve his suffering," he said in an article in Newsweek.

He is particularly against "waterboarding". "I believe that it is torture, very exquisite torture," he said.

But the administration clearly feels that the CIA's hands should not be tied too tightly.

Stephen Hadley, the US National Security Adviser, has spoken of the dilemma faced by governments which say they abide by the rule of law yet which need to get information to save lives. "The president has said that we are going to do whatever we do in accordance with the law. But you see the dilemma. What happens if on September 7th 2001, we had gotten one of the hijackers and based on information associated with that arrest, believed that within four days, there's going to be a devastating attack on the United States?"

One very grey area of the rendition policy is that sometimes a prisoner is handed over secretly to a country which itself carries out the interrogation. Such a country might not be so particular as to the methods used.

There is a view among some lawyers that the US would violate international law if it knew of such practices by governments to which it hands over suspects.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4499648.stm

Rice defends US terror policies
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has admitted that terror suspects are flown abroad for interrogation, but denied they were tortured.

She said suspects were moved by plane under a process known as rendition, and that this was "a lawful weapon".

She refused to address claims that the CIA runs secret prisons abroad where suspects are interrogated without reference to international law.

She then flew to Europe, where she can expect tough questions on the issue.

The allegations have caused an uproar, and the EU has written to Washington asking for clarification.

Ms Rice's first stop is Germany, where parliament has demanded to know the purpose of more than 400 flights, run by the US military, that landed or passed through German airspace.

She will also visit Romania - where human rights groups allege a detention centre may have been located - and Brussels.

On Monday, human rights group Amnesty International said that six planes used by the CIA for renditions had made 800 flights in EU airspace, including 50 landings at Shannon airport in the Republic of Ireland.

Ms Rice told Ireland last week that Shannon airport had not been used for "anything untoward".

Indignant

Ms Rice made a robust defence of US policy of transporting suspects to another country for interrogation.

So now before the next attack, we should all face the hard choices that democratic governments face
Condoleezza Rice
US Secretary of State

She said the US would use "every lawful weapon to defeat these terrorists", who were often essentially stateless and did not fit into any traditional military or criminal justice system.

"We have had to adapt," she declared.

She said the US always respected the sovereignty of allies, abided by the law and did not allow torture.

The BBC's Clive Myrie in Washington says Ms Rice's comments reflected indignation that anyone would accuse the US of condoning torture.

Her tour of Europe will probably see her pressing her hosts for more co-operation, and less criticism, in the "war on terror", our correspondent says.

'Lives saved'

Ms Rice refused to address the question of secret prisons directly.

"We cannot discuss information that would compromise the success of intelligence, law enforcement, and military operations," she said in a statement at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland.

The secretary of state said European countries often benefited from, and even assisted, US intelligence-gathering.

She said the governments involved could decide for themselves whether they wanted to disclose information about any CIA-run prison.

She said renditions had been carried out for decades between the US and its allies.

"Renditions take terrorists out of action, and save lives," she said. "Such renditions are permissible under international law."

However, some legal experts have suggested that the process of rendition is open to challenge under international law.

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/related.html#related

UK officials list

The other Downing Street Documents and Memos
Located on The Memos page

Cabinet Office briefing paper: Conditions for military action
The Sunday Times, June 12, 2005
Plain text transcription
July 22, 2002 briefing paper, generated for participants for the secret meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, says that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office legal advice
The Sunday Times, June 19, 2005
Plain text transcription
This is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office legal advice appended as Annex A to the Cabinet Office briefing paper on Iraq of July 21, 2002. This advice was originally written in March 2002.

Goldsmith Legal Opinion
The Guardian, April 28, 2005
PDF scanned document
March 7, 2003 formerly confidential paper detailing British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith's advice on the legality of the Iraq war. The government had previously resisted all attempts to secure its release.

Wilmshurst resignation letter (uncensored version)
BBC, March 24, 2005
March 18, 2003 minute from Elizabeth Wilmshurst, Deputy Legal Adviser to the Foreign Office, to Michael Wood (The Legal Adviser), copied to the Private Secretary, the Private Secretary to the Permanent Under-Secretary, Alan Charlton (Director Personnel) and Andrew Patrick (Press Office). Wilmshurst resigned in March 2003 because she did not believe the war with Iraq was legal. Her letter was released by the Foreign Office to the BBC News website under the Freedom of Information Act.

"Press line" document regarding Wilmshurst resignation
Foreign and Commonwealth Office PDF link
March 18, 2003 press line document regarding Foreign Office deputy legal adviser, Elizabeth Wilmshurst's resignation after 20 years’ service on the point of whether military action in Iraq without proper UN security council authorisation was lawful under international law.

Hutton Report
PDF document
Hutton Inquiry website
January 28, 2004 final report of the inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of David Kelly, the British intelligence officer whose public criticism of the Blair administration's manipulation of intelligence produced an uproar that ultimately resulted in Dr. Kelly taking his own life.

Butler Review
PDF document
July 14, 2004 final report of the Butler Inquiry, the UK government's investigation into prewar intelligence failures.

Administration Policy Memo restricting Congressional
access to classified information

PDF scanned document
Plain text transcription
October 5, 2001 Administration memo restricting Congressional access to classified information - a decree that briefings with sensitive information be limited to eight of the 535 members of Congress, a move that reinforced a trend toward secrecy that characterized Bush's government from the start.

National Intelligence Estimate:
Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction
Unclassified public version

PDF document
October, 2002 edited CIA intelligence estimate about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, unclassified and slickly packaged for public release

National Intelligence Estimate:
[redacted] Iraq's Continuing Programs for
Weapons of Mass Destruction

PDF scanned document
October, 2002 controversial CIA intelligence estimate about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction released in response to an FOIA request, severely redacted. This copy of the estimate, NIE 2002-16HC, October 2002, Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, consists almost entirely of whited-out pages.

Only 14 of the 93 pages provided actually contain text, and all of the text except for the two title pages and the two pages listing National Intelligence Council members had previously been released in July 2003 in a document titled Key Judgements (from October 2002 NIE).

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Report on U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar
Intelligence Assessments

PDF document
July 7, 2004 report on Phase I of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence review of prewar intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities. Since Phase I was only concerned with the quality and analysis of the intelligence, this report does not address how that intelligence was used or whether the administration's public statements were an accurate reflection of it.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Report on U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar
Intelligence Assessments - Conclusions

PDF document
A list of conclusions drawn from the July 7, 2004 report on Phase I of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence review of prewar intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities (above).

Iraq on the Record
PDF document
March 16, 2004 Congressional report compiled at the request of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) on the administration's misleading public statements about Iraq leading up to the war.

Administration Security Breaches
Involving Valerie Plame Wilson

PDF document
July 22, 2005 - On July 14, 2003, columnist Robert Novak revealed that the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame Wilson, was a covert CIA agent. This disclosure of classified information has triggered a criminal investigation by a Special Counsel and led to calls for congressional investigations.

The Novak column, however, appears to be only one of multiple leaks of Ms. Wilson’s identity. As this fact sheet documents, there appear to be at least 11 separate instances in which Administration officials disclosed information about Ms. Wilson’s identity and association with the CIA.

Karl Rove’s Nondisclosure Agreement
PDF document
July 15, 2005 - Mr. Rove, through his attorney, has raised the implication that there is a distinction between releasing classified information to someone not authorized to receive it and confirming classified information from someone not authorized to have it. In fact, there is no such distinction under the nondisclosure agreement Mr. Rove signed.

Scans of the Forged Niger Documents
#1 - 124.1k JPEG image
#2 - 135k JPEG image
#3 - 151.3k JPEG image
#4 - 196.2k JPEG image
#5 - 160k JPEG image
Ecco il falso dossier sull'uranio di Saddam (article in Italian)
July 16, 2003 - These five images appeared in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica on July 16, 2003.

Interview with Hussein Kamel
PDF document
August 22, 1995 - Gen. Hussein Kamel, the former director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, in charge of Iraq's weapons programme, defected to Jordan on the night of 7 August 1995, together with his brother Col. Saddam Kamel. Hussein Kamel took crates of documents revealing past weapons programmes, and provided these to UNSCOM. Iraq responded by revealing a major store of documents that showed that Iraq had begun an unsuccessful crash programme to develop a nuclear bomb (on 20 August 1995). Hussein and Saddam Kamel agreed to return to Iraq, where they were assassinated (23 February 1996). The interview was conducted in Amman on 22 August 1995, 15 days after Kamel left Iraq.

"I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed" (p. 13).
Kamel specifically discussed the significance of anthrax, which he portrayed as the "main focus" of the biological programme (pp.7-8).
Smidovich asked Kamel: "were weapons and agents destroyed?" Kamel replied: "nothing remained."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1632566,00.html

CLICK HERE TO PRINT
CLOSE WINDOW

The Sunday Times May 29, 2005

RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war

THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown.

The attacks were intensified from May, six months before the United Nations resolution that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, argued gave the coalition the legal basis for war. By the end of August the raids had become a full air offensive.

The details follow the leak to The Sunday Times of minutes of a key meeting in July 2002 at which Blair and his war cabinet discussed how to make “regime change” in Iraq legal.

Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, told the meeting that “the US had already begun ‘spikes of activity’ to put pressure on the regime”.

The new information, obtained by the Liberal Democrats, shows that the allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001, and that the RAF increased their attacks even more quickly than the Americans did.

During 2000, RAF aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone over Iraq dropped 20.5 tons of bombs from a total of 155 tons dropped by the coalition, a mere 13%. During 2001 that figure rose slightly to 25 tons out of 107, or 23%.

However, between May 2002 and the second week in November, when the UN Security Council passed resolution 1441, which Goldsmith said made the war legal, British aircraft dropped 46 tons of bombs a month out of a total of 126.1 tons, or 36%.

By October, with the UN vote still two weeks away, RAF aircraft were dropping 64% of bombs falling on the southern no-fly zone.

Tommy Franks, the allied commander, has since admitted this operation was designed to “degrade” Iraqi air defences in the same way as the air attacks that began the 1991 Gulf war.

It was not until November 8 that the UN security council passed resolution 1441, which threatened Iraq with “serious consequences” for failing to co-operate with the weapons inspectors.

The briefing paper prepared for the July meeting — the same document that revealed the prime minister’s agreement during a summit with President George W Bush in April 2002 to back military action to bring about regime change — laid out the American war plans.

They opted on August 5 for a “hybrid plan” in which a continuous air offensive and special forces operations would begin while the main ground force built up in Kuwait ready for a full-scale invasion.

The Ministry of Defence figures, provided in response to a question from Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, show that despite the lack of an Iraqi reaction, the air war began anyway in September with a 100-plane raid.

The systematic targeting of Iraqi air defences appears to contradict Foreign Office legal guidance appended to the leaked briefing paper which said that the allied aircraft were only “entitled to use force in self-defence where such a use of force is a necessary and proportionate response to actual or imminent attack from Iraqi ground systems”.

 

 

 

 




Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions . Please read our Privacy Policy . To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from The Times, visit the
Syndication website .

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/international/europe/07react.html

The New York Times

December 7, 2005

Skepticism Seems to Erode Europeans' Faith in Rice

By RICHARD BERNSTEIN

BERLIN, Dec. 6 - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice did what was expected, many people in Europe said Tuesday, after her meetings with Chancellor Angela Merkel and other German officials. She gave reassurances that the United States would not tolerate torture and, while not admitting mistakes, promised to correct any that had been made.

She accompanied that with an impassioned argument for aggressive intelligence gathering, within the law, as an indispensable means of saving lives endangered by an unusually dangerous and unscrupulous foe.

Did anybody believe her on this continent, aroused as rarely before by a raft of reports about secret prisons, C.I.A. flights, allegations of torture and of "renditions," or transfers, of prisoners to third countries so they can be tortured there?

"Yes, I did," Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, a conservative member of the German Parliament, said in a telephone interview on Tuesday. "The thing I believe is that the United States does obey international law, and Mrs. Merkel said that she believes it too."

Not everybody here is of that view, to say the least. Indeed, it would be hard to imagine a more sudden and thorough tarnishing of the Bush administration's credibility than the one taking place here right now. There have been too many reports in the news media about renditions - including one involving an Lebanese-born German citizen, Khaled el- Masri, kidnapped in Macedonia in December 2003 and imprisoned in Afghanistan for several months on the mistaken assumption that he was an associate of the Sept. 11 hijackers - for blanket disclaimers of torture to be widely believed.

"I think what she means is, 'We don't use it as an official way to do things, but we don't look at what is done in other countries,' " Monika Griefahn, a Social Democratic member of Parliament, said in regard to Ms. Rice's comment on torture. "And that's the problem for us."

Ms. Griefahn also expressed skepticism about Ms. Rice's assurance that where mistakes are made - presumably in Mr. Masri's case - the United States will do everything in its power to rectify them. Indeed, Bush administration officials said nothing about rectifying mistakes before reports of Mr. Masri's kidnapping.

"I don't believe they wanted to do anything to rectify the al-Masri case," Ms. Griefahn said.

In Britain, members of Parliament from both parties reacted with even greater skepticism to Ms. Rice's statement, saying it had neither answered their questions nor allayed their concerns about American policy.

"It's clear that the text of the speech was drafted by lawyers with the intention of misleading an audience," Andrew Tyrie, a Conservative member of Parliament, said in an interview. Mr. Tyrie is chairman of a recently formed nonpartisan committee that plans to investigate claims that the British government has tacitly condoned torture by allowing the United States to use its airspace to transport terrorist suspects to countries where they are subsequently tortured.

Parsing through the speech, Mr. Tyrie pointed out example after example where, he said, Ms. Rice was using surgically precise language to obfuscate and distract. By asserting, for instance, that the United States does not send suspects to countries where they "will be" tortured, Ms. Rice is protecting herself, Mr. Tyrie said, leaving open the possibility that they "may be" tortured in those countries.

Others pointed out that the Bush administration's definition of torture did not include practices like water-boarding - in which prisoners are strapped to a board and made to believe they are about to be drowned - that violate provisions of the international Convention Against Torture.

Andrew Mullin, a Labor member of Parliament, said he had found Ms. Rice's assertions "wholly incredible." He agreed with Mr. Tyrie that Ms. Rice's statement had been "carefully lawyered," adding: "It is a matter of record that people have been kidnapped and have been handed over to people who have tortured them. I think their experience has to be matched against the particular form of language the secretary of state is using."

To a great extent, the latest trans-Atlantic brouhaha reflects a very real division between Europe and the United States, reminiscent of the arguments that took place over the Iraq war two years ago. In the view of the Bush administration and its supporters, the Europeans' moral fastidiousness reflects a lack of realism about the nature of the terrorist threat and what needs to be done to defeat it.

The view of Europeans, by contrast, is that they understand the terrorist threat perfectly well, but that the Bush administration's flouting of democratic standards and international law incites more terrorism, not less.

"I resent the fact that my country is foolishly being led into a misguided approach into combating terrorism by this administration," Mr. Tyrie said. "European countries have a far greater experience over many decades dealing with terrorism, and many of us have learned the hard way that dealing in a muscular way can often inflame the very terrorism you're trying to suppress."

In Mr. zu Guttenberg's view, the reports filling both the German and American news media these days and fostering a surge of renewed indignation against the Bush administration are based on unproved allegations and rumors that have been transformed into established fact.

"What's important is that the balance between democratic principles and secret services needs to be maintained," Mr. zu Guttenberg said. "I take it as a reaching out of the hand when she says mistakes have happened and we have to rectify them."

To some Americans at least, the way the charges about secret prisons and C.I.A. flights have gained currency illustrates the readiness of many Europeans always to believe the worst about the United States.

More than one commentator over the last few days has referred to the secret prisons as a Gulag Archipelago, even though Romania and Poland, the countries where the prisons are said to be situated, have denied their existence. Moreover, their total prison population would be at most a few dozen - compared with the hundreds of thousands that were confined in Stalin's real Gulag Archipelago.

The Bush administration's treatment of imprisoned suspected terrorists, coupled with the problems the United States continues to encounter in Iraq and Vice President Dick Cheney's resistance to Congressional curbs on the handling of prisoners, has not made Ms. Rice's job of persuasion any easier.

"The Europeans lack of realism is a big problem, but I'm also frustrated with the inability of the United States to behave like a successful big power," said John Kornblum, a former American ambassador to Germany and now director of the investment bank Lazard Frères in Germany.

He added that "the Europeans do have this propensity" to put the worst possible interpretation on American actions, "but unfortunately, we have given credibility to that sort of behavior."

To some extent, the comment by Ms. Rice that seems to have had the most effect in Europe was her statement made in Washington on Monday that many governments have cooperated with the United States on intelligence gathering.

That remark did not so much reassure European commentators that the United States was abiding by international treaties as it has led them to accuse their own governments of hypocrisy, silently acquiescing in American practices while publicly criticizing them.

"If the European services knew," the Italian daily La Repubblica said Tuesday, referring to the reports of secret prisons and C.I.A. flights in Europe, "how is it possible that the governments and the parliaments, which these services must answer to, weren't informed?

Sarah Lyall contributed reporting from London for this article.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/international/europe/07rice.html

The New York Times


December 7, 2005

Rice Is Challenged in Europe Over Secret Prisons

By JOEL BRINKLEY

BUCHAREST, Romania, Dec. 6 - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was pelted with questions on Tuesday about covert prisons and a mistaken, secret arrest, as she grappled with what has become an incendiary issue in Europe. She declined to answer most of them in two European capitals.

Europe has been roiled by reports that the United States maintained secret jails for terror suspects in Europe, and by residual anger over the American practice of rendition, or secretly transferring terrorism suspects to the custody of third countries, including some outside Europe that routinely use torture.

The anger has made it harder for Ms. Rice to repair already strained relations with many European nations at odds with American policy on Iraq, like Germany, where she met in Berlin with the new chancellor, Angela Merkel, hoping for a fresh start. But the issue confronted her repeatedly.

Mrs. Merkel said at a news conference that Ms. Rice had admitted making a mistake when the United States abducted a German citizen, Khaled el-Masri, on suspicions of terrorism and held him in detention for five months. But aides to Ms. Rice scrambled to deny that, saying instead that Ms. Rice had said only that if mistakes were made, they would be corrected.

Mr. Masri filed suit in Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., on Tuesday against the former director of central intelligence and three companies he charged were involved in secret flights carrying terrorism suspects. He has said he was tortured during his detention. He also said that on Sunday he was denied entry to the United States, where he hoped to file his lawsuit in person.

State Department officials confirmed that he had been denied entry, but said that he would be allowed into the country if he applied again. [Page A25.]

As Europeans continue to investigate whether torture or detention of terrorism suspects took place on European soil, Ms. Rice assured Mrs. Merkel that "the United States does not condone torture."

"It is against U.S. law to be involved in torture or conspiracy to commit torture," Ms. Rice said. "And it is also against U.S. international obligations."

But the American definition of torture is in some cases at variance with international conventions, and the administration has maintained in recent years that American law does not apply to prisoners held abroad.

In defending the practice of rendition, American officials have said that they obtain assurances from the third countries that prisoners will not be tortured, but that the United States is limited in its ability to enforce the promises.

The Central Intelligence Agency's inspector general found last year that the some aspects of the agency's treatment of terrorism detainees might constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, as the international Convention Against Torture defines it. The United States is a signer of that convention, though with some reservations.

A legal opinion by the Justice Department, issued in August 2002, said interrogation methods just short of those that might cause pain comparable to "organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death" could be allowable without being considered torture.

The administration disavowed that classified legal opinion in the summer of 2004, after it was publicly disclosed. But a second legal opinion issued in December 2004, which defined torture more broadly, did not repudiate interrogation techniques that had been previously authorized. It remains unclear how many of those techniques are still in use by the C.I.A.

Congress is debating an amendment, passed in the Senate last month, that would prohibit the abusive treatment of terrorism suspects. But the White House has urged that the C.I.A. be exempted from any such ban.

In Romania, Ms. Rice signed a military cooperation agreement that would allow American forces to train with Romanian troops at the Mihael Kogalniceanu air base, which Human Rights Watch identified as a probable location of one secret prison.

Asked about the charge at a news conference, Traian Basescu, the Romanian president, vociferously denied that any such detention center existed and invited anyone who doubted that to come and see for himself.

During the news conference in Germany, Mrs. Merkel spoke openly about matters the Bush administration deems secret, while Mr. Rice continued to speak elliptically. That produced some awkward moments.

Mrs. Merkel spoke openly of "the issue of the C.I.A.'s overflights" that apparently hold secret detainees going to or from secret jails elsewhere, while Ms. Rice refused to answer most questions and continued insisting that the prison issue and related issues were classified matters.

Mrs. Merkel then said Ms. Rice had admitted that the United States had mistakenly abducted Mr. Masri.

"The American administration has admitted that this man had been erroneously taken and that, as such, the American administration is not denying that it has taken place," Mrs. Merkel said.

Ms. Rice said she could not talk about the case specifically, but added, "Any policy will sometimes result in error, and when it happens we do everything we can to correct it."

Later, an aide to Ms. Rice, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified, said that "we are not sure what was in her head" when Mrs. Merkel spoke of the American admission of error in the Masri case. Ms. Rice did not discuss the case with her in any direct way, he and other aides insisted, even though the senior aide said, "The American government has talked about this issue with the German government."

Mrs. Merkel said simply, "We've talked about Mr. Masri."

Speaking of Mr. Masri and the issue of the detainees in general, Mrs. Merkel added, "We can't go public about all the details, but at the same time we need to introduce a certain degree of transparency."

After the mistaken arrest was discovered, the United States asked Germany to keep it secret, and Germany complied. Asked about that, Ms. Rice said, "Intelligence matters need to be handled sensitively."

Before leaving Washington on Monday morning, Ms. Rice issued a long, unapologetic statement on the secret-prison issue, which has become the subject of many investigations in Europe, while refusing to acknowledge that the prisons exist.

Aides said she was no more forthcoming in her talks with Mrs. Merkel.

Asked about Ms. Rice's statement in Washington, Mrs. Merkel said it was "a good basis on which we build," but added, "As chancellor, I work under and adhere to German laws." She announced that the intelligence committee of the German Parliament would take up the Masri case.

Even though aides to Ms. Rice said they realized that the secret-prison issue would dominate a good part of her trip, at times she has shown exasperation over the debate.

"We have an obligation to defend our people, and we will use every lawful means to do so," she declared in Berlin, adding that the public debate over the secret prisons ought to include "a healthy respect for the challenges we face" fighting terrorism.

The questions on the secret prisons posed to her and Mr. Basescu here in Bucharest came from the American reporters traveling with her. The Romanians asked about the new defense agreement. It would allow 1,500 American troops to be stationed at the air base on a rotating basis to take part in joint exercises and training. About 100 of those servicemen would be stationed there full time.

Mr. Basescu greeted the new agreement with unbridled enthusiasm, saying it shows that "the Romanian force has reached the potential that it can be a partner of the United States."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4439036.stm

Spain probes 'secret CIA flights'
Prisoner at Guantanamo Bay
Secrecy surrounds US "war on terror" prisoner transfers
Spain is launching an investigation into claims that CIA planes carrying terror suspects made secret stopovers on Spanish soil.

Interior Minister Jose Antonio Alonso made the announcement on Spanish television on Tuesday.

He said that if proven, such activities could damage relations between the Spanish and US governments.

According to Spanish press reports, the CIA is suspected of having used Majorca for such prisoner transfers.

"If it were confirmed as true, we would, of course, be looking at very serious cases," Mr Alonso told the private channel Telecinco.

The suspect flights - 10 in total - came to light in a report submitted by Spain's Civil Guard to the prosecutor's office of the Balearics Supreme Court in June, Spain's El Pais newspaper reported.

The first flight allegedly landed in Palma, on the island of Majorca, on 22 January 2004. The suspect flights - by two Boeing 747s and two Gulfstream jets - allegedly continued until 17 January 2005.

MEPs concerned

Meanwhile, members of the European Parliament have urged the European Commission to investigate claims that the CIA used prisons in eastern Europe for the interrogation of terror suspects.

Spain's Defence Minister Jose Bono reacted cautiously to the Majorca allegations on Tuesday, saying "we do not have any evidence, we do not have any proof".

He denied a report that the Spanish secret service had asked the CIA to stop using the airport at Palma.

The flight destinations from Majorca allegedly included Libya, Algeria, Romania, Macedonia and Sweden, Spanish media reported.

Spain's relations with the US cooled when Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero withdrew Spain's contingent of troops from Iraq shortly after taking office in March 2004.

The Popular Party of Jose Maria Aznar, who had backed the US-led war in Iraq, was ousted in the election, just days after the 11 March train bombings in Madrid, which left 191 people dead.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.aljazeeramagazine.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=10054 

U.S. media hides evidence of torture

The U.S. media is ignoring the torture carried by U.S. military forces. Although the military reports provide a full description of the suffering the prisoners face, the U.S. media refuses to tackle the issue. Prisoners are tortured to death under the supervision of the U.S. forces.

The U.S. Army has tortured and abused prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo. The treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody is the ultimate violation of the international law. Various prisoners have been reported dead as a result of abuse. Although these reports turn to be true, the soldiers held responsible don’t get the punishment deserved for such crimes.

Moreover, the female soldier involved in Abu Ghraib abuse scandal in Iraq got imprisoned for six months only.

Some of Guantanamo detainees were sentenced to death without being interrogated, or sued for their crimes. Others in Afghanistan faced torture for days and sometimes they are deprived of water and food till they die.

The following military autopsy was provided by American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): "Final Autopsy Report: DOD 003164, (Detainee) died as a result of asphyxia (lack of oxygen to the brain) due to strangulation as evidenced by the recently fractured hyoid bone in the neck and soft tissue hemorrhage extending downward to the level of the right thyroid cartilage".

"Autopsy revealed bone fracture, rib fractures, contusions in mid abdomen, back and buttocks extending to the left flank, abrasions, lateral buttocks. Contusions, back of legs and knees; abrasions on knees, left fingers and encircling to left wrist; Lacerations and superficial cuts, right 4th and 5th fingers. Also, blunt force injuries, predominately recent contusions (bruises) on the torso and lower extremities. Abrasions on left wrist are consistent with use of restraints. No evidence of defense injuries or natural disease. Manner of death is homicide. Whitehorse Detainment Facility, Nasiriyah, Iraq."

According to the ACLU website, on April 5, 2004 a 27 year-old Iraqi prisoner-died while being questioned by Navy Seals, in Mosul, in Iraq. The autopsy report stated that “hypothermia” is one of the reasons behind his death. When he was in prison he was exposed to various ways of torture; he was “hooded, flex-cuffed, sleep deprived and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and hood.”

Another prisoner was reported dead as a result of “asphyxia and blunt force injuries.” He also died while being questioned by the U.S. forces.

The ACLU website includes a huge number of reports that mention in details the torture prisoners face under the U.S. captivity. The reports include evidence of abuse cases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Executive Director of ACLU, Anthony Romero, asserted that the U.S. resort to interrogation methods that cause death for prisoners. ACLU attorney, Amrit Sing, also said that the ACLU reports are a clear evidence for the abuses U.S. forces carry out against prisoners while interrogated.

In April 2003, the ACLU issued a report which stated that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld allowed the use of "environmental manipulation" in Guantánamo Bay “as an interrogation technique.” Moreover, in September 2003, it was reported that Lt. Gen. Sanchez allowed the use of the same technique in Iraq. The death of those tortured in Iraq, Guantánamo, and Afghanistan is the responsibility of high-ranking officials in Bush’s administration.

The ACLU on October 25, 2005, issued a press release concerning the deaths of tortured prisoners the U.S. holds. The content of the report was released after that by The Associated Press and the United Press International wire services. This allowed the report to be accessible for the U.S. corporate media. Research proved that 95% of everyday press in U.S. didn’t pay any attention to the miserable facts in the report.

The Los Angeles Times referred to the report content as “allegations.” Newspapers such as, Bangor Daily News, Maine, Telegraph-Herald, Dubuque Iowa, Charleston Gazette, Avocate, Baton Rouge, and others covered the story. While the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Seattle Times mentioned some items of the report inside Iraq news stories.

Various news-based websites such as Common Dreams, Truthout, New Standard, and Science Daily published the ACLU report online.

This shows the very slight attention the U.S. media gave for the cases of prisoners’ torture. According to prisonplanet.com, “a Nexus-Lexus search November 30, 2005 of the major papers in the U.S. using the word torture turned up over 1,000 stories in the last 30 days. None of these included the ACLU report as supporting documentation on the issue.”

The Americans will not be able to recognize the seriousness of the torture prisons as long as the U.S. media is ignoring it. The extent of torture in these prisons has gone beyond the human imagination. The only source for Americans now to find out about these is the internet because the U.S. media delivers the news it wants to deliver.

Hiding facts from the American people resulted in them being accused of sharing the responsibility of what is happening with the U.S. administration.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.aljazeeramagazine.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_id=10178 

Bush is lying about old deception
11/27/2005 7:40:00 AM GMT

The American President seems in a collision course with his country; with his presidency rolling steadily downhill, as Americans start to rub sleep away from their eyes, and numerous polls show a sharp decline in his approval ratings, which have reached an unprecedented level.

Amid raucous debate in Congress about an exit strategy from Iraq, Americans have become increasingly angry at their President’s policy. Not only has he deceived his people, Congress and the world about the reasons for invading Iraq; he is now deceiving them about the deceptions.

“In a burst of political tantrums, the president and the vice president have shouted that it was 'irresponsible' to assert that there had been deception and it was unfair to the troops fighting in Iraq”, stated a Chicago Sun-Times editorial.

Bush’s admin is now lying about its old lies- Bush misused data to justify Iraq war, and most, if not all of his arguments in the run up to the war turned out to be false. And his administration’s current argument that it is "irresponsible" to question the old arguments is equally false.

“If a lie is a conscious effort to deceive, then the charge that the president and the men around him deliberately lied and are now lying again, then that issue must be left to heaven. It is enough to say they spread falsehoods three years because they had made up their minds that there had to be a war and are now spreading falsehoods about the original falsehoods,” the article added.

And because he’s not a man who likes to admit his mistakes, Bush seeks to cover up the mistakes with new ones, and protect old lies from uncovering by lying.

Cindy Sheehan, mother of Casey Sheehan, an American soldier killed last year in Iraq, has returned to Crawford, Texas, to resume her anti-war campaign against President Bush, according to The Associated Press.

Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier whose vigil against the war in Iraq outside President Bush's ranch, was greeted by nearly three-dozen cheering supporters as she arrived at the Waco airport.

The woman stressed that she will "keep pressing" Bush’s admin until it ends Iraq occupation and brings the U.S. troops back home.

But many protesters were arrested near the ranch, while more than 100 continued the protest Wednesday with a symbolic Iraqi meal, and instead of the usual Thanksgiving feast, they ate salmon, lentils and rice.

"I feel happy to be back here with all my friends ... but I'm heartbroken that we have to be here again," Sheehan said.

"We will keep pressing and we won't give up until our troops are brought home."

Lies by the American Vice President Dick Cheney and Bush are almost the same- They both claimed and still claim the former Iraqi regime was trying to import "yellowcake" uranium for nuclear weapons.

And contrary to previous claims by the President who asserted that everyone agreed that Saddam did possess Weapons of Mass Destruction and that it is not his fault that all the intelligence agencies of the world believed that he did, many Democratic senators said they disagreed with Bush’s argument and said that they weren’t realizing how much the case in favor of the war had been cooked and that the administration created the atmosphere among the nation to deceive it and win support for the war.

Challenging old lies by the President, who’s trying to throw the blame on the intelligence agencies, the Democrats now say that not everyone in Washington supported the war.

Iraq war has been on Bush’ agenda even before September 11 attacks on the United States in 2001. More than four years ago and before the attacks took place, the administration leaders, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz sought a war with Iraq, with some trying to come up with evidence that Iraq was in one way or another connected to Al Qaeda network, which allegedly carried out the attacks.

Everyone was trying to find evidence.

Then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and the vice president warned of "mushroom clouds."

Not only did the President deliberately lie to his people, he nonetheless presided over what was in effect and in truth a massive deception.

He would have gained his nation's and world’s respect if he just admitted his mistakes and assume responsibility, but it seems he’s not prepared or willing to do so.

About three-fifths of Americans now believe their President did in fact deceive them. And lying didn’t stop at launching Iraq war, Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary are now spreading more lies and deceiving the people about the reality of what’s going in Iraq, claiming that the U.S. military is achieving great successes in the country, and that everything is now under the control of the U.S. military

Another lie is that the U.S.-led occupation forces won’t leave Iraq now to make sure the country’s own forces and army are ready to handle its security, and that once the Army is done with the training of the Iraqi forces, they’ll withdraw immediately, but of course we are not told how long that will take- Why after several years of that effort is there only one fully capable Iraqi unit (of 750 men)?

Despite Cheney and Bush’s recent rhetoric and speeches rejecting the Democrats’ calls for an immediate withdrawal from the war-torn country, U.S. commanders have already started plans to close bases and withdraw troops in the coming year, according to two congressmen who returned from Iraq this week.

"They wouldn't put a hard date on it, but clearly the planning is at a very mature level," Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., said. "We can shrink down the number of bases as we shrink down the number of Americans."

Also Rep. Mark Kennedy, R-Minn., said that in some Iraqi cities the turnover is already in progress. "They have a planned turnover process where American troops have already pulled back from some of the smaller bases.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.aljazeeramagazine.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_id=10040 

Evidence of “U.S. suspects facing torture in Europe”

It is no secret that the United States runs secret detention centers around the world, and not just Asia and Africa, but in European countries as well.

It sends its suspects “overseas”, a process known as "rendition", for the interrogation and probably to face torture and abuse.

This process has become increasingly controversial with mounting evidence that prisoners are subject to torture in those countries, according to orders laid by the U.S. State Department.

The treatment of prisoners in those camps, including Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, has come in for intense scrutiny and evidence of human rights violations has been widely reported.

“Two flights chartered by the CIA made stopovers in France in 2002 and 2005, French newspaper Le Figaro said Friday,” according to San Francesco Independent Media center.

The first flight stopped over in March 31, 2002. According to Le Figaro, the second flight stopped near Paris on July 20, 2005, arriving from Norway.

As mentioned in Le Figaro, “the Canadian security authorities are also investigating this Learjet's comings and goings.”

The first stopover was said to be a result of the “limited range of this twin-engine 6/8 seater,” because the flight can’t take the journey one way between Guantanamo and Turkey.

The Guipavas airport authorities told Le Figaro that the crew was alone on board, and after Brest they will be on their way to Rome for another stopover.

The second jet belonged to the CIA. “Gulfstream III, with the serial number N50BH, landed at Paris Le Bourget airport at 1922 hours, from Oslo Gardemoein,” according to the Norwegian daily.

Usually the U.S. jets are received by Aeroservices “which is located near the Air and Space Museum.” However, this jet was received by a “Service Company based in a more discreet area.”

This twin-engine jet landed 10 times in Canada and six times in Guantanamo. Unlike the first one, this jet can cross the Atlantic without stopping.
 
CIA jets can stop over without prior knowledge of France's official services. CIA flights can go over France and other countries without giving any details about the trip or even acknowledging the airport authorities that it will pass or stopover. 

Foreign Ministry spokesman, Jean-Baptiste Mattei, said “the government has considered the question of the transit through French territory of suspect aircraft.” He then added that the authorities have “no evidence of such landings.”

France is a middle point at which the CIA “prison jet” passes though during its journeys. This journey is preferred to be over the lands of the U.S. allies. The lands which they have military bases. 

Reports published by The New York Times and The Guardian provide those facts, “over 300 flights landed in Europe between November 2001 and August 2005. Germany is in the lead, with at least 94 recorded flights, followed by Britain (at least 76), the Czech Republic (15), Spain (15), and Greece (13).”

European governments’ believe that these flights might have Muslim prisoners whom the U.S. wants to interrogate away from the supervision of the international law.

The United States promised on Wednesday December, 2 to provide the EU on this issue an "opportune" and "direct" response.

 

 


Home   About us   Comments   Webmaster   Links   Books To Read   Movies  Archives   Blog   Shop