WELCOME...you are on a page that contains WARNINGS and news that, IF published in your local paper, was probably tucked away in the middle of the paper and you never found time to read it...so we will call it....PAGE 4 NEWS! As you read...feel free to 'play' connect the dots, but consider yourself warned....it's not a pretty picture!

You can click here to get back to a page that contains a navigational bar.

...Lariam WARNING Label



....PAGE 4 NEWS 'new' 2-22-05 Fallujah: the truth at last...by Dr. Salam Ismael...Socialist Worker - online...Saturday, February 19, 2005



....PAGE 4 NEWS 'new' 2-22-05 Sorrow and fury as the dead are buried in Fallujah...Socialist Worker - online...Saturday, February 19, 2005



....PAGE 4 NEWS 'new' 2-22-05 Iraqi Elections...by Naomi Klein - Stop the War Coalition...The Guardian...Saturday, February 12, 2005
 
   

...
.PAGE 4 NEWS
Civil claims provide glimpse into war's impact on Iraqi citizens...Dayton Daily News...Saturday, October 23, 2004



....PAGE 4 NEWS
Navy coverup alleged on drug side effects ...United Press International...Published Monday, September 8, 2003



....PAGE 4 NEWS
Army misreads Green Beret's disease....The Seattle Times...Sunday, November 23, 2003.



....PAGE 4 NEWS Mad Cow Disease (BSE) and Vaccinations....by Dawn Richardson.



....PAGE 4 NEWS
Questioning Ethics of Abu Ghraib Doctors: the tip of the iceberg...by Willow Marie Maze...Sept. 14, 2004.



....PAGE 4 NEWS DUTY, HONOR, BETRAYAL (series) by David Zeman...published by the Free Press...November 10, 11, 12, 2004.
      How U.S. turned its back on poisoned WWII vets: enlisted men...lab rats, Veterans kept secrets and Servicemen got runaround.



....PAGE 4 NEWS Marine: US Soldiers Routinely Killed Civilians, Including Women and Children...The Independent...September 12, 2004



....PAGE 4 NEWS Should Canada indict Bush? by Thomas Walkom...The Toronto Star...Tuesday, November 16, 2004.



....PAGE 4 NEWS America is going the way of Germany...Letter to the Editor by Jerzy Bala Jr....Fargo Forum, Saturday, November 27, 2004



....PAGE 4 NEWS War Crime...by Paul Craig Roberts...Creators Syndicate...published Wednesday, December 8, 2004



....PAGE 4 NEWS You asked for my evidence, Mr Ambassador. Here it is...By Naomi Klein..."The Guardian"...December 4, 2004



....PAGE 4 NEWS How Canada Can Help Force Bush Out of Iraq...by Naomi Klein...www.nologo.org...November 30 2004



....PAGE 4 NEWS Documents show probes of other Iraq abuse cases...(Agencies)...CHINAdaily...Wednesday, December 15, 2004



....PAGE 4 NEWS  Michael Portillo: An army that bullies its own is ready to abuse prisoners...TIMESONLINE... January 23, 2005



....PAGE 4 NEWS New Papers Suggest Detainee Abuse Was Widespread...by staff writers...Washington Post...December 22, 2004



....PAGE 4 NEWS Bush and Blair: Secrets and Lies...by Neil Mackay...Sunday Herald...Sunday, September 19, 2004



....PAGE 4 NEWS Criminals the lot of us...by Scott Ritter...The Guardian...Thursday, January 27, 2005



....PAGE 4 NEWS Richard W. Bhan: 'A Republican businessman vilifies George Bush...posted...Monday, October 18, 2004



....PAGE 4 NEWS The war on Iraq has made moral coward of us all...by Scott Ritter..."The Guardian"...November 1, 2004



....PAGE 4 NEWS US admits the war for 'hearts and minds' in Iraq is now lost
...by Neil Mackay...Sunday Harald...December 5, 2004



....PAGE 4 NEWS Ignoring Reality in Iraq...Texas Straight Talk...by Congressman Ron Paul...Monday, December 13, 2004



....PAGE 4 NEWS BACK TO IRAQ...by Joshua Greene...Cleveland Free Times...Wednesday, January 5, 2005



....PAGE 4 NEWS Full English transcript of Usama bin Ladin's speech in a videotape sent to Aljazeera....November 11, 2004



....PAGE 4 NEWS Bush, Osama and Israel Concealing Causes and Consequences...by William A. Cook..."Counterpunch.org"...January 10, 2005



....PAGE 4 NEWS Is Al Qaeda Just a Bush Boogeyman?...by Robert Scheer...posted by POA...Friday, January 14, 2005



....PAGE 4 NEWS Hyping Terror For Fun, Profit - And Power...by Thom Hartmann...Reese.com...Tuesday, December 28, 2004



....PAGE 4 NEWS Bush wants $80B more for wars; new deficit forecast released...USA TODAY...Tuesday, January 25, 2005



....PAGE 4 NEWS Is the world safer now?...an analysis...Belfast Telegraph...Friday, January 28, 2005



....PAGE 4 NEWS Secret Patriot Act II to give Hitler’s Powers to Bush...By Alex Jones...Infowars.com,  December 8, 2004.
And THINK about: SOMETHING EVIL, THIS WAY COMES...by Rick Stanley...An American Epic For The 21st Century.



....PAGE 4 NEWS Death By Slow Burn - How America Nukes Its Own Troops...by Amy Worthington...Sierra Times, March 5, 2002



....PAGE 4 NEWS INSIDE THE CID: CONFESSIONS OF A ROUGUE AGENT BY SGT RICHARD EDWARDS*...MilitaryCorruption post














































LARIAM LABEL UPDATE, ROCHE USA, JULY 2002

Roche USA made important changes to the Lariam (mefloquine) label (product information, PI) in July 2002. They made more changes on October but did not change the date. This document reflects the most current label, including the October 2002 updates. For your convenience, Lariam Action USA has highlighted the differences between the current label and those of the previous label (August 1999).



LARIAM® brand of (mefloquine hydrochloride) TABLETS
This product information is intended for United States residents and on-screen viewing only. Before prescribing, please refer to printed complete product information. Complete Product Information
DESCRIPTION
CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
INDICATIONS AND USAGE
CONTRAINDICATIONS
WARNINGS
PRECAUTIONS
ADVERSE REACTIONS
OVERDOSAGE DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION
HOW SUPPLIED ANIMAL TOXICOLOGY




DESCRIPTION: Lariam (mefloquine hydrochloride) is an antimalarial agent available as 250-mg tablets of mefloquine hydrochloride (equivalent to 228.0 mg of the free base) for oral administration.

Mefloquine hydrochloride is a 4-quinolinemethanol derivative with the specific chemical name of (R*, S*)-(±)-alpha-2-piperidinyl-2,8-bis (trifluoromethyl)-4-quinolinemethanol hydrochloride. It is a 2-aryl substituted chemical structural analog of quinine. The drug is a white to almost white crystalline compound, slightly soluble in water.

Mefloquine hydrochloride has a calculated molecular weight of 414.78 and the following structural formula: [molecular diagram]

The inactive ingredients are ammonium-calcium alginate, corn starch, crospovidone, lactose, magnesium stearate, microcrystalline cellulose, poloxamer #331, and talc.


CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY: Mefloquine is an antimalarial agent which acts as a blood schizonticide. Its exact mechanism of action is not known.

Pharmacokinetic studies of mefloquine in healthy male subjects showed that a significant lag time occurred after drug administration, and the terminal elimination half-life varied widely (13 to 24 days) with a mean of about 3 weeks. Mefloquine is a mixture of enantiomeric molecules whose rates of release, absorption, transport, action, degradation and elimination may differ. A valid pharmacokinetic model may not exist in such a case.

Additional studies in European subjects showed slightly greater concentrations of drug for longer periods of time. The absorption half-life was 0.36 to 2 hours, and the terminal elimination half-life was 15 to 33 days. The primary metabolite was identified and its concentrations were found to surpass the concentrations of mefloquine.

Multiple-dose kinetic studies confirmed the long elimination half-lives previously observed. The mean metabolite to mefloquine ratio measured at steady-state was found to range between 2.3 and 8.6.

The total clearance of the drug, which is essentially all hepatic, is approximately 30 mL/min. The volume of distribution, approximately 20 L/kg, indicates extensive distribution. The drug is highly bound (98%) to plasma proteins and concentrated in blood erythrocytes, the target cells in malaria, at a relatively constant erythrocyte-to-plasma concentration ratio of about 2.

The pharmacokinetics of mefloquine in patients with compromised renal function and compromised hepatic function have not been studied.

In vitro and in vivo studies showed no hemolysis associated with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (see ANIMAL TOXICOLOGY).

Microbiology: Strains of Plasmodium falciparum resistant to mefloquine have been reported.

INDICATIONS AND USAGE

Treatment of Acute Malaria Infections: Lariam is indicated for the treatment of mild to moderate acute malaria caused by mefloquine- susceptible strains of P. falciparum (both chloroquine-susceptible and resistant strains) or by Plasmodium vivax.  There are insufficient clinical data to document the effect of mefloquine  in malaria caused by P. ovale or P. malariae.

Note: Patients with acute P. vivax malaria, treated with Lariam, are at high risk of relapse because Lariam does not eliminate exoerythrocytic (hepatic phase) parasites. To avoid relapse, after initial treatment of the acute infection with Lariam, patients should subsequently be treated with an 8-aminoquinoline (eg, primaquine).

Prevention of Malaria: Lariam is indicated for the prophylaxis of P. falciparum and P. vivax malaria infections, including prophylaxis of chloroquine-resistant strains of P. falciparum.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Use of Lariam is contraindicated in patients with a known hypersensitivity to mefloquine or related compounds (eg, quinine and quinidine). Lariam should not be prescribed for prophylaxis in patients with active depression, a recent history of depression, generalized anxiety disorder, psychosis, or schizophrenia or other major psychiatric disorders, or with a history of convulsions.





WARNINGS

In case of life-threatening, serious or overwhelming malaria infections due to P. falciparum, patients should be treated with an intravenous antimalarial drug. Following completion of intravenous treatment, Lariam may be given to complete the course of therapy.

Data on the use of halofantrine subsequent to administration of Lariam suggests a significant, potentially fatal prolongation of the QTc interval of the ECG. Therefore, halofantrine must not be given simultaneously with or subsequent to Lariam. No data are available on the use of Lariam after halofantrine (see PRECAUTIONS: Drug Interactions).

Mefloquine may cause psychiatric symptoms in a number of patients, ranging from anxiety, paranoia and depression to hallucinations and psychotic behavior.  On occations, these symptoms have been reported to continue long after mefloquine has been stopped.  Rare cases of suicidal ideation and suicide have been reported though no relationship to drug administration has been confirmed.  To minimize the chances of these adverse events, mefloquine should not be taken for prophylaxis in patients with active depression or with a recent history of depression, generalized anxiety disorder, psychosis, or schizophrenia or other major psychiatric disorders.  Lariam should be used with caution in patients with a previous history of depression.

During prophylactic use, if psychiatric symptoms such as acute anxiety, depression, restlessness or confusion occur, these may be considered prodromal to a more serious event.  In these cases, the drug must be discontinued and an alternative medication should be substituted.



Concomitant administration of Lariam and quinine or quinidine may produce electrocardiographic abnormalities.

Concomitant administration of Lariam and quinine or chloroquine may increase the risk of convulsions.

PRECAUTIONS

General: In patients with epilepsy, Lariam may increase the risk of convulsions. The drug should therefore be prescribed only for curative treatment in such patients and only if there are compelling medical reasons for its use (see PRECAUTIONS: Drug Interactions).

Caution should be exercised with regard to activities requiring alertness and fine motor coordination such as driving, piloting aircraft and operating machinery, as dizziness, a loss of balance, or other disorders of the central or peripheral nervous system have been reported during and following the use of Lariam. These effects may occur after therapy is discontinued due to the long half-life of the drug. <SNIP—language put into Warnings section>  Lariam should be used with caution in patients with psychiatric disturbances because mefloquine use has been associated with emotional disturbances (see ADVERSE REACTIONS).


In patients with impaired liver function the elimination of mefloquine may be prolonged, leading to higher plasma levels.


This drug has been administered for longer than 1 year. If the drug is to be administered for a prolonged period, periodic evaluations including liver function tests should be performed. Although retinal abnormalities seen in humans with long-term chloroquine use have not been observed with mefloquine use, long-term feeding of mefloquine to rats resulted in dose-related ocular lesions (retinal degeneration, retinal edema and lenticular opacity at 12.5 mg/kg/day and higher) (see ANIMAL TOXICOLOGY). Therefore, periodic ophthalmic examinations are recommended.


Parenteral studies in animals show that mefloquine, a myocardial depressant, possesses 20% of the antifibrillatory action of quinidine and produces 50% of the increase in the PR interval reported with quinine. The effect of mefloquine on the compromised cardiovascular system has not been evaluated. However, transitory and clinically silent ECG alterations have been reported during the use of mefloquine. Alterations included sinus bradycardia, sinus arrhythmia, first degree AV-block, prolongation of the QTc interval and abnormal T waves (see also cardiovascular effects under PRECAUTIONS: Drug Interactions and ADVERSE REACTIONS). The benefits of Lariam therapy should be weighed against the possibility of adverse effects in patients with cardiac disease.


Laboratory Tests: Periodic evaluation of hepatic function should be performed during prolonged prophylaxis.


Information for Patients:

Patients should be advised:

- that malaria can be a life-threatening infection in the traveler;

- that if patients experience psychiatric symptoms such as acute anxiety, depression, restlessness or confusion, these may be considered prodromal to a more serious event. In these cases, the drug must be discontinued and an alternative medication should be substituted;

- that Lariam is being prescribed to help prevent or treat this serious infection;

- that in a small percentage of cases, patients are unable to take this medication because of side effects, and it may be necessary to change medications;

- that when used as prophylaxis, the first dose of Lariam should be taken one week prior to departure;

- that no chemoprophylactic regimen is 100% effective, and protective clothing, insect repellents, and bednets are important components of malaria prophylaxis;

- to seek medical attention for any febrile illness that occurs after return from a malarious area and inform their physician that they may have been exposed to malaria.


Drug Interactions: Drug-drug interactions with Lariam have not been explored in detail. There is one report of cardiopulmonary arrest, with full recovery, in a patient who was taking a beta blocker (propranolol) (see PRECAUTIONS: General). The effects of mefloquine on the compromised cardiovascular system have not been evaluated. The benefits of Lariam therapy should be weighed against the possibility of adverse effects in patients with cardiac disease.


Because of the danger of a potentially fatal prolongation of the QTc interval, halofantrine should not be given simultaneously with or subsequent to Lariam (see WARNINGS).


Concomitant administration of Lariam and other related compounds (eg, quinine, quinidine and chloroquine) may produce electrocardiographic abnormalities and increase the risk of convulsions (see WARNINGS). If these drugs are to be used in the initial treatment of severe malaria, Lariam administration should be delayed at least 12 hours after the last dose. There is evidence that the use of halofantrine after mefloquine causes a significant lengthening of the QTc interval. Clinically significant QTc prolongation has not been found with mefloquine alone.


This appears to be the only clinically relevant interaction of this kind with Lariam, although theoretically, coadministration of other drugs known to alter cardiac conduction (eg, anti-arrhythmic or beta-adrenergic blocking agents, calcium channel blockers, antihistamines or H1-blocking agents, tricyclic antidepressants and phenothiazines) might also contribute to a prolongation of the QTc interval. There are no data that conclusively establish whether the concomitant administration of mefloquine and the above listed agents has an effect on cardiac function.

In patients taking an anticonvulsant (eg, valproic acid, carbamazepine, phenobarbital or phenytoin), the concomitant use of Lariam may reduce seizure control by lowering the plasma levels of the anticonvulsant. Therefore, patients concurrently taking antiseizure medication and Lariam should have the blood level of their antiseizure medication monitored and the dosage adjusted appropriately (see PRECAUTIONS: General).

When Lariam is taken concurrently with oral live typhoid vaccines, attenuation of immunization cannot be excluded. Vaccinations with attenuated live bacteria should therefore be completed at least 3 days before the first dose of Lariam.

No other drug interactions are known. Nevertheless, the effects of Lariam on travelers receiving comedication, particularly those on anticoagulants or antidiabetics, should be checked before departure.


In clinical trials, the concomitant administration of sulfadoxine and pyrimethamine did not alter the adverse reaction profile.

Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility:

Carcinogenesis: The carcinogenic potential of mefloquine was studied in rats and mice in
2-year feeding studies at doses of up to 30 mg/kg/day. No treatment-related increases in tumors of any type were noted.

Mutagenesis: The mutagenic potential of mefloquine was studied in a variety of assay systems including: Ames test, a host-mediated assay in mice, fluctuation tests and a mouse micronucleus assay. Several of these assays were performed with and without prior metabolic activation. In no instance was evidence obtained for the mutagenicity of mefloquine.

Impairment of Fertility: Fertility studies in rats at doses of 5, 20, and 50 mg/kg/day of mefloquine have demonstrated adverse effects on fertility in the male at the high dose of 50 mg/kg/day, and in the female at doses of 20 and 50 mg/kg/day. Histopathological lesions were noted in the epididymides from male rats at doses of 20 and 50 mg/kg/day. Administration of 250 mg/week of mefloquine (base) in adult males for 22 weeks failed to reveal any deleterious effects on human spermatozoa.

Pregnancy: Teratogenic Effects. Pregnancy Category C. Mefloquine has been demonstrated to be teratogenic in rats and mice at a dose of 100 mg/kg/day. In rabbits, a high dose of 160 mg/kg/day was embryotoxic and teratogenic, and a dose of 80 mg/kg/day was teratogenic but not embryotoxic. There are no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women. However, clinical experience with Lariam has not revealed an embryotoxic or teratogenic effect. Mefloquine should be used during pregnancy only if the potential benefit justifies the potential risk to the fetus. Women of childbearing potential who are traveling to areas where malaria is endemic should be warned against becoming pregnant. Women of childbearing potential should also be advised to practice contraception during malaria prophylaxis with Lariam.

Nursing Mothers: Mefloquine is excreted in human milk. Based on a study in a few subjects, low concentrations (3% to 4%) of mefloquine were excreted in human milk following a dose equivalent to 250 mg of the free base. Because of the potential for serious adverse reactions in nursing infants from mefloquine, a decision should be made whether to discontinue the drug, taking into account the importance of the drug to the mother.

Pediatric Use: Use of Lariam to treat acute, uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria in pediatric patients is supported by evidence from adequate and well-controlled studies of Lariam in adults with additional data from published open-label and comparative trials using Lariam to treat malaria caused by P. falciparum in patients younger than 16 years of age. The safety and effectiveness of Lariam for the treatment of malaria in pediatric patients below the age of 6 months have not been established.

In several studies, the administration of Lariam for the treatment of malaria was associated with early vomiting in pediatric patients. Early vomiting was cited in some reports as a possible cause of treatment failure. If a second dose is not tolerated, the patient should be monitored closely and alternative malaria treatment considered if improvement is not observed within a reasonable period of time (see DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION).

ADVERSE REACTIONS

Clinical: At the doses used for treatment of acute malaria infections, the symptoms possibly attributable to drug cannot be distinguished from those symptoms usually attributable to the disease itself.

Among subjects who received mefloquine for prophylaxis of malaria, the most frequently observed adverse experience was vomiting (3%). Dizziness, syncope, extrasystoles and other complaints affecting less than 1% were also reported.

Among subjects who received mefloquine for treatment, the most frequently observed adverse experiences included: dizziness, myalgia, nausea, fever, headache, vomiting, chills, diarrhea, skin rash, abdominal pain, fatigue, loss of appetite, and tinnitus. Those side effects occurring in less than 1% included bradycardia, hair loss, emotional problems, pruritus, asthenia, transient emotional disturbances and telogen effluvium (loss of resting hair). Seizures have also been reported.

Two serious adverse reactions were cardiopulmonary arrest in one patient shortly after ingesting a single prophylactic dose of mefloquine while concomitantly using propranolol (see PRECAUTIONS), and encephalopathy of unknown etiology during prophylactic mefloquine administration. The relationship of encephalopathy to drug administration could not be clearly established.

Postmarketing: Postmarketing surveillance indicates that the same kind of adverse experiences are reported during prophylaxis, as well as acute treatment.

The most frequently reported adverse events are nausea, vomiting, loose stools or diarrhea, abdominal pain, dizziness or vertigo, loss of balance, and neuropsychiatric events such as headache somnolence, and sleep disorders (insomnia, abnormal dreams) These are usually mild  and may decrease despite continued use.

Occasionally, more severe neuropsychiatric disorders have been reported such as: sensory and motor neuropathies (including paresthesia, tremor and ataxia), convulsions, agitation or restlessness, anxiety, depression, mood changes, panic attacks, forgetfulness, confusion, hallucinations, aggression, psychotic or paranoid reactions and encephalopathy. Rare cases of suicidal ideation and suicide have been reported though no relationship to drug administration has been confirmed.

Other infrequent adverse events include:

Cardiovascular Disorders: circulatory disturbances (hypotension, hypertension, flushing, syncope), chest pain, tachycardia or palpitation, bradycardia, irregular pulse, extrasystoles, A-V block, and other transient cardiac conduction alterations.

Skin Disorders: rash, exanthema, erythema, urticaria, pruritus, hair loss, erythema multiforme, and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome.

Musculoskeletal Disorders: muscle weakness, muscle cramps, myalgia, and arthralgia.

OTHER symptoms: visual disturbances, vestibular disorders including tinnitus and hearing impairment, dyspnea, asthenia, malaise, fatigue, fever sweating, chills, dyspepsia and loss of appetite.

Laboratory: The most frequently observed laboratory alterations which could be possibly attributable to drug administration were decreased hematocrit, transient elevation of transaminases, leukopenia and thrombocytopenia. These alterations were observed in patients with acute malaria who received treatment doses of the drug and were attributed to the disease itself.

During prophylactic administration of mefloquine to indigenous populations in malaria-endemic areas, the following occasional alterations in laboratory values were observed: transient elevation of transaminases, leukocytosis or thrombocytopenia.

Because of the long half-life of mefloquine, adverse reactions to Lariam may occur or persist up to several weeks after the last dose.

OVERDOSAGE: In cases of overdosage with Lariam, the symptoms mentioned under ADVERSE REACTIONS may be more pronounced. The following procedure is recommended in case of overdosage: Induce vomiting or perform gastric lavage, as appropriate. Monitor cardiac function (if possible by ECG) and  neurologic and psychiatric status for at least
24 hours. Provide symptomatic and intensive supportive treatment as required, particularly for cardiovascular disturbances. Treat vomiting or diarrhea with standard fluid therapy.


DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION (see INDICATIONS AND USAGE):
<NO CHANGES>


Manufactured by F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD Basel, Switzerland

 Distributed by Roche Laboratories Inc., 340 Kingsland Street, Nutley, New Jersey
07110-1199


Revised: JULY 2002 Printed in USA
Copyright © 1999-2002 by Roche Laboratories Inc. All rights reserved.

THINK Back to ALERTS
BACK TO THE TOP












































Navy coverup alleged on drug side effects

By Mark Benjamin and Dan Olmsted
United Press International
Published 9/8/2003 7:05 AM

SAN DIEGO, Sept. 8 (UPI) -- A Naval Reserve commander who volunteered for the Iraq war says the military doctored his medical file to eliminate all traces of an anti-malaria drug that he believes made him severely ill, suicidal and aggressive - and that he has the before-and-after evidence to prove it.

"I was given Lariam. I got sick from Lariam," said Cmdr. William , 44, who is based at the Naval Air Warfare Center in China Lake, Calif. "The Navy does not want to talk about Lariam. There is no mention of it in my medical record. I'm pretty upset."

said there is no indication in his file of ever being prescribed the drug, although the Navy handed it to him last November; that a page is missing on which "Took Lariam" was written; and that a reference to the drug during an emergency clinic visit on May 13 has mysteriously vanished from the page - even though he has a copy that clearly shows it written there.

and his wife, Tori, believe the military is covering up problems with the drug - the Navy's main concern so far, they said, is to try to get the medical records back. A spokesman for the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery would only say that it provides quality care and is working "to resolve the issue."

"The military created the drug," Tori said (it was developed by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research and licensed to Roche). "There is a lot of money involved in the drug. I think there are a lot of careers at stake. Anything that shows a problem with Lariam has to be hidden or covered up somehow by the military. If all these people came back and it was clearly Lariam, there would be lawsuits up the kazoo."

Lariam is the drug that at least two of the soldiers who killed their wives at Fort Bragg last summer took while serving in Afghanistan. Both those soldiers - and a third who apparently had taken the drug - subsequently killed themselves. The drug's label warns of psychosis, aggression, hallucinations and reports of suicide that can occur "long after" someone stops taking it. The Food and Drug Administration this year ordered that everyone prescribed the drug be handed a written statement listing those dangers and warning them to quit taking it if they experience mental problems.

The government and the company that makes Lariam, Swiss drug giant Hoffmann-La Roche, say the drug is safe and effective. The FDA says it doesn't know whether the drug can trigger suicide. Roche says there is no reliable evidence it can trigger violent behavior. The Pentagon says side effects are generally rare and mild and are outweighed by the risk of getting malaria.

, who never took Lariam before being deployed to Kuwait last December, became suicidal after returning to California this spring and nearly slugged his wife in a bizarre rage about the way she cast her fishing line. He also suffered seizures, balance problems so severe he sometimes could not stand, panic attacks and depression.

Tori became convinced Lariam was the culprit after researching on the Web the medications her husband was taking. On June 26, after several visits to the China Lake clinic in which they raised the Lariam issue but felt they were being ignored, Bill went to the clinic to pick up his records on his way to see a neurologist. He flipped through them to make sure Lariam was documented.

"The first thing I noticed was a sheet missing," he said. "Both Tori and I had seen the sheet. Someone had written on an angle, 'Took Lariam' and it was no longer there. There was no entry for being issued Lariam."

flipped more pages, looking for the record of a May 13 visit to the clinic. That day, his wife had insisted a Navy doctor write the drug on that record and both had watched him do it. He found the page on which he felt certain that note had been written.

Nothing.

knew his memory was shot, that he was acting strangely, and there was no reason for anyone to believe him. But he had a backup. Tori - suspicious that Navy doctors were ignoring the drug - secretly photocopied the page after the doctor wrote down "Lariam" on the May 13 visit and briefly left the room.

Tori's copy clearly shows the reference, "Lariam for anti malaria" Underneath that, four other medicines was taking also are gone; they are mentioned elsewhere on the visit.

Two independent document examiners consulted by UPI concluded that unless the s themselves faked the doctor's writing and created bogus copies, only the Navy can explain the omission.

The document experts could find no evidence that writing had been erased from the May 13 record. One of the experts - a former head of an FBI questioned documents office - told UPI that the likeliest scenario is that the clinic made a copy of the May 13 page while the s were still there, and the doctor wrote "Lariam" on that copy after Tori insisted. That sheet never made it into his medical file.

While such a chain of events could theoretically be accidental, Tori believes the Navy knows it has a problem with the drug, and was keeping two sets of records and recording Lariam problems on only one.

UPI contacted the doctor who saw on the May 13 visit and asked if he knew anything about changes in the medical record. He declined to comment and said he had been told to refer questions to Twentynine Palms Marine base, which forwarded them to the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery in Washington. Spokesman Brian Badura issued this statement:

"Successful medical treatment relies on accurate information, close cooperation and communication between provider and patient, and follow-up by all parties involved. Navy Medicine makes a concentrated effort to meet the needs of each patient. Due to the number of circumstances surrounding the case and the ongoing efforts by Navy Medicine to resolve this issue, we cannot offer additional input at this time."

Several other service members who served in Iraq have told UPI they had serious problems with the drug - including one who says he was afraid of harming his wife and that there was no record of him being prescribed Lariam, either. At least two soldiers were medically evacuated from Iraq with suspected Lariam problems, one an Army officer in charge of 300 soldiers, the other a soldier who felt the way he was treated suggested the Army was "avoiding the Lariam diagnosis." The Army is now discharging him.

The Washington Post reported in July that the military is investigating at least seven suicides among troops in Iraq, among a larger number of deaths classified as "non-combat weapons discharge" or "non-combat related."

The Pentagon hasn't identified any deaths as suicides since the war started.

Earlier this year, two more soldiers deployed out of Fort Bragg who took Lariam in Afghanistan committed suicide after returning home - bringing the number of suicides after that war to at least five. In one case, the soldier's father said he asked Fort Bragg officials if the Lariam given to his son could have played a role. "They have no comment," he told UPI.

The Pentagon insists that there have been few problems with the drug, prescribed to soldiers around the world to prevent malaria. More 25 million people have taken it worldwide, according to the manufacturer, 5 million of them in the U.S.

Assistant Secretary of Defense Dr. William Winkenwerder, Jr., wrote a U.S. congressman last fall that any possible side effects are "greatly outweighed by the drug's effectiveness in preventing the severe consequences of malaria infections" among troops.

In the Fort Bragg homicide-suicides, a team of experts dispatched by the Army Surgeon General's office concluded that Lariam was an "unlikely" explanation for the entire cluster of deaths but acknowledged it had not investigated it in any single case. It blamed the deaths on marital problems.

At the time, critics said some of the Fort Bragg deaths should have been investigated as possibly drug related, especially because there was no history of domestic abuse and all three of the soldiers who had been in Afghanistan killed themselves - both unusual in domestic homicide cases.

A former Roche employee said that Lariam, known generically as mefloquine, is a member of the quinolone family of drugs that can produce severe psychiatric problems in some users.

"Any drug with a quinolone base to it, which includes Lariam, is likely to do this," said Dr. Donald H. Marks, former associate director of clinical research at Roche who now consults with attorneys suing drug manufacturers. "These types of drugs can induce a temporary homicidal or suicidal rage."

The Army puts the rate of severe side effects at 1 in 13,000. A widely reported British study completed in 1996 found that one person in 140 had such serious problems that they temporarily couldn't carry out the function for which they were traveling.

The s said they were willing to take on the Navy publicly because they are convinced the truth is not being told, and concerned that other soldiers returning from deployments overseas are getting the same treatment.

They showed UPI Bill 's complete medical file and Navy service record; e-mails from the Navy psychiatrist who treated him before he decided not to work with the Navy any more; a log Tori kept of Bill's symptoms, and all the medicines he was taking including remaining Lariam pills. They gave interviews in California and Washington in which they went over the events almost minute by minute.

The s outlined this sequence of events.

A 17-year veteran of the Naval Reserve, was handed Lariam last November at China Lake before being deployed. There was no prescription written or warning given of possible side effects, and Tori said she has since been told by a base medical worker that there were "special instructions for dispensing and documenting" the drug.

Bill served active duty at an air base in Kuwait during the war, using his top-secret clearance on a targeting system. But he suffered what he now says were bad Lariam side effects that started in Kuwait and got worse when he got home and kept taking his pills as directed. He's had uncontrollable vomiting and vertigo, depression and anxiety attacks requiring hospitalization. His hands tremble. He stutters and repeats himself. He has frightening seizures.

After 11 years of marriage, Tori said that after taking Lariam, Bill's personality changed drastically from the gentle husband she knew.

The drug is taken weekly while deployed and for four more weeks after a person returns, so was still taking the pills when he got back.

Tori kept a journal documenting her husband's problems. An entry for May 2 described his symptoms as "balance off, angry, moody, coping poorly, sad, depressed. What really bothers me is 'aggressive - highly aggressive.'"

The couple tried to go fishing in early May in an effort to relax. But Bill got so angry he scared his wife. When she cast her line in the water, "Bill came over and said, 'Do it this way,'" she wrote in the journal documenting his problems. "He kept saying it over and over - extremely angry!!!"

After she told him she was upset and wanted to stop fishing, "he leaned over me like he was going to slug me in the head and said, 'If you don't do it this way I'm going to ...'" He stopped in the middle of the sentence and backed off. She said that a few hours later he had no memory of the incident.

Bill told UPI later that, "I was trying not to pull a Fort Bragg."

"I wanted to make sure Bill had the proper care with Lariam toxicity," Tori said, describing the May 13 visit to the China Lake clinic. The symptoms I read on the Internet matched up with Bill's to a tee. I told the doctor that I thought that Lariam was responsible for his symptoms. I said, 'Doctor, would you write Lariam down.'"

"He wrote everything down and put the clipboard on the bed near Bill's legs. I leaned over and I said, 'Bill, I need to copy this.' They had a copy machine down the hall. I went down and copied it and did not say anything to anybody about it."

Later in May, became suicidal. On May 31, Tori said that while she was driving them to a restaurant, "Bill's panic, anxiety and distress became so acute that he proceeded to try and claw his way out of the truck so he could jump out. I kept telling him, 'Bill, it's gonna be OK, it's gonna be OK.' He said he was crawling out of skin, he had to get out of there."

At the restaurant, "Bill went to the bathroom and began vomiting, he then sat on the floor and said repeatedly that he was going to blow his brains out.

The s say that Bill was referred to a Navy psychiatrist who also seemed to resist the idea that a drug prescribed by the Navy could be causing his problems. She diagnosed him with anxiety and "narcissistic" and "histrionic" personality traits.

Then, on June 26, Bill discovered the changes in his medical record.

Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


BACK TO THE TOP                                                          BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS
 


































Civil claims provide glimpse into war's impact on Iraqi citizens

By Russell Carollo, Larry Kaplow, Mike Wagner and Ken McCall
Dayton Daily News
Saturday, October 23, 2004

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Tahsin Ali Hussein al-Ruba'i knew that danger waited in the darkened streets, where American soldiers suspicious of every approaching vehicle lurked near poorly marked checkpoints.

The 32-year-old knew the danger because he made his living earning $3 to $4 a day driving his orange-and-white 1983 Volkswagen Passat in the streets of Baghdad. But on July 1, 2003, his infant daughter, Tabarek, had the flu, and he decided to risk driving to his in-laws so he could pick her up and take her to a hospital.

As his taxi neared the working-class Cairo Street neighborhood, American soldiers spread several Humvees across an eight-lane boulevard, preparing to stop oncoming vehicles. Fearing someone would be shot because the makeshift checkpoint had no signs, cones or lights, a man selling kabobs along the road 50 yards away started waving and yelling at unsuspecting motorists.

Al-Ruba'i apparently never got the warning.

Soldiers opened fire with rifles and mounted machine guns, riddling his taxi with bullet holes and killing him, witnesses said.

"They (the soldiers) were the reason for what happened. They didn't point to him and tell him to stop," said the kabob vendor, Taha Mehdi al-Jabouri.  "They treat us in a savage way."

The family filed a civil claim asking for $2,500 from the American military, but the claim was denied.

The case is among 4,611 never-before-released civil claims from Iraq — hundreds alleging abuse and misconduct by American military personnel — on a computer database obtained by the Dayton Daily News through the federal Freedom of Information Act. The U.S. Army tort claims database is the most comprehensive public record released to date of alleged acts against Iraqi civilians by American forces, which do not otherwise systematically track civilian casualties.

The records provide a previously unseen portrait of the toll the war has had on civilians in Iraq, and the kinds of incidents described in the records have fueled the growing insurgency and hatred toward the American-led coalition.

About 78 percent of the claims are for incidents that occurred after President Bush declared major combat operations over on May 2, 2003.

"When we first got there, the Iraqis were glad to see us. I believe things changed because there was disrespect to the people," said Elizabeth Wisdorf of Colorado Springs, Colo., who served for nearly a year in Iraq as a member of the Colorado National Guard's 220th Military Police Company. "There were a lot of accidents, a lot of deaths."

At least 16 death claims specifically identify 20 children as victims, most from bombings or shootings, and another 193 claims allege 171 sons or daughters were killed without providing an age.

Incidents such as these have turned many Iraqis, such as the family of Samir Shleman Chaman, against the American occupation. Chaman, a house painter, was killed when a tank crushed his car as he was returning from a painting job — one of at least 150 Iraqis allegedly killed or injured in encounters with military vehicles.

"Our point of view toward the Americans has changed. You can feel the fury inside you," said Amir Shleman, Chaman's brother. "If they treated people like human beings, no one would take up weapons against them."

Like other Iraqis, Shleman's grieving family became more outraged at how the military handled their claim for compensation.

Chaman was a husband and father of a 7-year-old boy and a 13-year-old girl. The day after he was killed, the family said, soldiers left $2,000 near the pillow of his widow — money the family was told was for funeral expenses.

When they filed a claim through an Iraqi attorney for compensation for the children, they encountered months of delays and confusion before finally receiving a letter on Sept. 7, 2004.

"The evidence does not prove that the death of your husband or damages to your vehicle were due to the negligent or wrongful acts of the United States Armed Forces," the letter reads.

The claim was denied.

"I think it is despicable how we are treating the innocent people or their families after there is a tragedy," said Ivan Medina of Middletown, N.Y., who served as an assistant chaplain for the Army's 10th engineer battalion in Iraq. "We do nothing for them after these terrible things happen. These are innocent people, not soldiers fighting a battle."

Army Lt. Col. Charlotte Herring said the Army, which handles civil claims for all three services in Iraq, has given out $8.2 million since June 2003 and budgeted $10 million in fiscal year 2005 to help the Iraqi people deal with losses suffered because of the war. Considering the dangerous conditions in Iraq, she said, the system is "working famously." She blamed some of the problems on the realities of war and predicted improvements as hostilities subside.

Through the claims system, "the local commander can try to keep good will and come and amend a somewhat tragic situation," said Marine Reserve Capt. Sean Dunn, who worked as a platoon commander and supervised claims payments in Iraq. "You're also trying to keep the neighborhood from going nuts and attacking other people."

Proving whether the claims were valid, he said, often was a difficult and time-consuming job.

"There were blatantly fraudulent claims," he said. "As soon as they realized there was money being paid, they were beating down the door wanting money for all kinds of crazy things with no evidence whatsoever."

Soldiers who served in Iraq said innocent civilians sometimes become victims because soldiers are forced to react to situations without knowing whether they will encounter a roadside bomb, an attacker dressed like a civilian or a motorist who steers into a convoy or absent-mindedly runs through a checkpoint.

Spc. Charles Bradford, 29, who went to elementary school in Dayton while his father was in the Air Force, earned a Purple Heart for a shrapnel wound and survived two roadside bombs and eight rocket-propelled grenade attacks. He is regularly hit with stones when he rides the "gunning" position through the hatch of his Humvee. But he said he has fired his rifle only once since coming to Iraq in March.

"I give these people a chance regardless of the stuff I've been through," he said. "Every day I go out of the (base), I pray I don't have to kill anyone."

Spc. Grant Horn, 23, of Quakertown, Penn., was recently about 50 feet from a car bomb explosion that left him shaken and with cuts on his face. He has not fired at anyone, he said, but he knows that with the city's dangerous streets comes the possibility of wounding a civilian.

"You don't want to do it, but if it happened I would be glad I was alive," he said. "It's better to be safe than sorry."

Retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, a Department of Defense consultant who once headed the strategy department at the National War College, said the fear, hatred and corresponding acts of violence are byproducts of lengthy occupations.

"It feeds on itself because people are angry," said Gardiner, who was assigned to strategy and prisoner of war recovery from Thailand during the Vietnam War. "It frightens soldiers more. They feel less secure. They react more strongly, which creates more anger, which causes people to be more afraid, which (makes soldiers) pull the trigger faster.

"Once you start down this slippery slope, I don't know that anybody knows how to stop it."

'Legitimate targets'

Claims in the Army database seek compensation for at least 437 Iraqi deaths and 468 injuries.

However, the actual number of casualties is unknown. The database recorded only a portion of the total deaths and injuries because not all alleged acts by American personnel resulted in claims. In addition, difficult conditions in parts of Iraq prevented up to 70 percent of the claims committees there from accessing the database, Herring said. She estimated that the Army has received as many as 18,000 claims in the last year alone.

Victims and their families filed claims for homes destroyed in bombings, confiscated property, and injuries and deaths from shootings and bombings, according to the database. In 29 cases, Iraqis claimed the military left so-called "unexploded ordnance" that later detonated, killing 14 and injuring 25 innocent people.

The victims in at least six Iraqi claims were allegedly hit by warning shots that went awry.

In an April 8, 2004, incident in Balad Ruz, a soldier fired a .50-caliber machine gun into the air to disperse a crowd of about 100 civilian demonstrators, according to an Army account of the incident. The soldier ducked to avoid being hit by rocks being thrown by the crowd, and the gun accidentally discharged twice, killing an 11-year-old boy named Mustafa Nadig, the account says.

"The U.S. soldier who shot the 11-year-old boy was seen by (a military officer) with his hands up in the air giving the three-fingered `hang loose/surfs up' sign as the soldier was driving away," the Army records say.

"It appears probable that U.S. forces facilitated the death of a civilian boy," the records say, adding that a $2,500 payment to the family was approved by a general.

In two other warning-shot cases, the victims were described as deaf.

Victims in at least two other cases were identified as bus passengers, one whose arm was amputated after a Marine allegedly fired "a warning shot" into the bus. The other, described in Army records as an "innocent passenger," was killed after a soldier from the 194th Military Police Company fired into a bus.

The victim in a sixth claim was identified as a 13-year-old boy hit by a "ricochet bullet fired as a warning shot" that entered his thigh and fractured his femur. Army records say that the boy required a year to recover and that there were "some minor residual issues such as a slightly shorter leg."

In a separate case, Army records show, a soldier from the 220th Military Police Brigade fired at the tires of a driver who was fleeing soldiers in Scania, "accidentally shooting the deceased in the chest, killing him," according to Army records.

The soldier in that case was never prosecuted, an Army spokesman said.

Under Section 2 of Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 17, which will remain in effect until the "last coalition element leaves Iraq," coalition forces are immune from civil lawsuits and criminal charges. The immunity leaves Iraqis with a single option: filing for compensation under the Foreign Claims Act with the United States Armed Services, the same entity they are accusing of wrongdoing.

Other countries do not grant such immunity to American soldiers.

After Spc. Christopher McCarthy was convicted of killing bar hostess Kim Sung-hi in Korea in 2000, the victim's family not only got a $154,000 payment from the Army, but also received a civil judgment from the South Korean court.

"We just rounded up what we could and sent it (the money) over there," McCarthy's mother, Susan McCarthy, recalled.

More than 1,000 claims involved vehicle accidents — by far the largest category of claims recorded in the database. At least 160 of those involved tanks or Bradley Fighting Vehicles, resulting in at least seven deaths and 16 injuries.

More than 400 claims involved destruction of crops, trees, livestock or water sources — property essential to the survival of Iraqi citizens.

A Daily News analysis of the roughly 4,600 claims in Iraq shows just one in four resulted in some type of payment. Of the 51,018 Army claims filed in other countries during that same period, one in two resulted in a payment.

Lt. Col. Herring, the chief of the U.S. Army's Foreign Torts Branch, said the database is incomplete. In fiscal year 2004 the Army paid 11,000 claims and denied 3,000, she said. Prior to this past June, however, the Army did not track how many claims were denied.

According to the database, the average payment for a death in Iraq was $3,421, less than 1/20th of the average payment for a claim filed anywhere else.

On May 12, 2003, an Iraqi man died when a tire fell from a U.S. Army vehicle in Tikrit, and his widow received $5,000, according to Army records. On April 24, 1999, in Bath County, Ky., a female motorist suffered neck and back injuries after a tire fell from a military vehicle, and she got $50,000, or 10 times what the Iraq widow received for losing her husband under nearly identical circumstances.

The Army paid $5,000 — the same amount given the Iraq widow — to a woman who got a staple stuck in her finger at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico.

In addition to the formal claims system in Iraq, Iraqis were sometimes given $2,500 in so-called solatia or sympathy payments without any paperwork at all, said attorney Jack Bournazian, who held seminars to show Iraqi attorneys how to file civil claims.

The payments, military officials said, were frequently given out as a way of defusing animosity toward American forces and improving relations in a community.

Attorneys and representatives of human rights groups said the process used in Iraq to settle civil claims is subjective, left to the whim of individual commanders or claims officers who often make their decisions based on little investigation.

"People were told if you want to settle on the spot, we'll give you a certain amount of money," said Gael Murphy, a board member of Occupation Watch, which collected information on incidents involving Iraqi civilians. "Otherwise, your claim has to go to Washington."

The military does not pay claims for incidents deemed to be caused by "combat operations," which could include checkpoint shootings and other incidents involving innocent civilians.

The military originally told the family of Mazen Nouradin, a husband and father of two young daughters, that he was shot while riding in a car with people firing on coalition forces.

Nouradin, a 36-year-old pharmaceutical salesman and veterinarian who had worked as a translator for U.S. forces, was shot dead June 28, 2003, as he waited for a ride to work in front of his home in a middle-class section of Baghdad, according to the family and records filed by an American attorney.

His father said he came out of the house immediately after hearing gunshots and found his son's body on the sidewalk.

"I saw the American soldiers standing around him," he said. "I got sick and started to throw up."

Witnesses said Nouradin was shot after the occupants in two cars began firing at a convoy of U.S. soldiers, who returned fire.

In later correspondence, the military, which eventually paid the family $2,500, dropped the allegation that Nouradin was in a car with gunmen, saying only that he was "killed during an exchange of gunfire between Iraqi civilians and members of the coalition forces."

The military, however, still refused to pay additional damages, insisting the death was the result of "combat activities" and not subject to compensation.

In response to a man who claimed that his two brothers were killed and his parents injured on March 29, 2003, when coalition forces bombed the Al Tajiya area of Babel city, the military wrote: "Coalition forces dropped ordnance during Operation Iraqi Freedom on legitimate targets. Your family was in an area that was being legitimately targeted and therefore regrettably harmed."

'Cannot put a price on it'

Like thousands of other civil claims, the description provided for claim number 04I1AT189 gives no indication of the impact to the victims or to the U.S.-led coalition's effort to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

The only description of the incident leading to Claim 04I1AT189, which asks for $25,000, reads: "U.S. forces confiscated a knife and Iraqi government dump truck," a seemingly routine description of a routine claim — one of hundreds claiming property was seized or damaged.

The incident began with a noon raid on May 18, 2003, at the home of Najedh Abdel Sadeh al-Fatlawi, a 60-year-old retired hospital administrator and father of five sons and two daughters.

"They put the women in the front room," he recalled during an interview at his home, adding that they put plastic handcuffs on him and four of his sons.

The soldiers refused his offer for keys to other rooms and cabinets, he said, and instead broke interior doors and closets.

In one cabinet, he said, they found an antique Arab dagger more than 100 years old with a handle of dark gray "very precious stone." The dagger had belonged to al-Fatlawi's grandfather, who gave it to his father, who eventually gave it to al-Fatlawi, he said.

"When I was a child, it was always in our house," he said. "You cannot put a price on it."

A soldier put the dagger in a plastic bag and carried it away without providing a receipt, al-Fatlawi said. Along with the dagger, he said, soldiers seized two rifles and a licensed pistol, a government truck and about $172 in cash.

After the last of his four sons was released three weeks later, al-Fatawi said, he tried to file a complaint at the convention center in the heavily guarded Green Zone of Baghdad, which houses the headquarters for the American-led coalition. He said he was told to go to an Army base on the southern edge of the city, and later sent somewhere else.

"After one year, they had lost all my files," he said.

Losing files is not uncommon in Iraq. Records from an Aug. 21, 2003, claim involving an automobile accident that killed one man and severely injured six others says that a military officer conducted an investigation but that the officer "lost the investigation."

Iraqi attorney Mohammed al-Saadi said one base lost 60 claims files when offices were moved, and the Army asked all the families to resubmit the claims.

A July 1, 2004, letter al-Fatlawi has from Chief Warrant Officer Anton Streeter of the Foreign Claims Commission says, "Allow me to express my sympathy for the confiscation of your personal property."

The letter offered $1,000.

"I thought they would change people again and lose my file again, so I took the $1,000," said al-Fatlawi, adding he never saw the dagger again.

Two of his sons — one in high school and the other in college — failed their exams, in part because of the stress suffered from the raid and its aftermath, al-Fatlawi said, adding that he has suffered from hypertension since the raid. His son, who was responsible for watching the government-owned truck, might have to pay for it, he said.

"In the beginning, we thought they were liberators for the Iraqi people, and we were happy," al-Fatlawi said. "We thought there would be justice in Iraq after 35 years of injustice.

"Now there is no justice. Nothing has changed except for the faces."

Checkpoints: Clash of cultures

If there is a place that most exemplifies the problems plaguing the American-led occupation, it is the traffic-control checkpoints. Often little more than a group of Humvees in the middle of a road, checkpoints are used to secure an area or conduct spot searches of cars.

In 114 claims, the incident was described as happening at a checkpoint. The claims allege 39 shootings that left 12 dead and 28 injured.

Human rights groups say checkpoints are safer since early in the war, but problems persist.

Between Nov. 12, 2003, and Jan. 1, 2004, five people were shot at checkpoints in Mosul — three of them during an 11-day period. Another claim in Mosul, occurring during the same period, alleges someone was "shot in the leg while driving by U.S. forces."

Medina, the former assistant Army chaplain in Iraq, said many checkpoints were poorly marked and manned by soldiers who didn't understand the culture or have translators who could help them communicate with Iraqi citizens.

"Our soldiers would put their hands up as a sign to stop at the (checkpoints), but we didn't do our homework on how to deal with the Iraqi people," he said. "To them, putting your hand up was a gesture or greeting, so they would just keep approaching the soldiers in their cars.

"And a lot of soldiers would just open fire, and they killed a lot of innocent people. We just didn't do enough to study the culture of Iraqis."

Medina, whose twin brother was killed in Iraq last November, said soldiers sometimes were ordered to open fire on any vehicle that didn't stop.

"In one case, there was a father, mother and three children," said Medina, whose unit arrived shortly after the shooting. "They were shot many times. The car was full of blood. There was one kid alive. He was alive for a few hours before being pronounced dead in the hospital a few hours later.... It was horrible."

Kelly Dougherty and Elizabeth Wisdorf, two members of a Colorado National Guard unit, said soldiers manning checkpoints from their unit were ordered by commanders to take money and other property from Iraqis.

"We would take things from them; we would take money in the beginning, which made no sense to me because we just overthrew their government, and they didn't have banks to put their money in, so they would carry it with them," Wisdorf said. "Our chain of command told us to do that because they felt the Iraqis ... they were terrorists."

Wisdorf said units frequently had no translators to help soldiers explain to bewildered and sometimes angry drivers what was happening.

"We had no way of communicating with the Iraqis," Wisdorf said. "Guns pointed was as much communication as we had with these people."

Both former soldiers were medics who had a few months each of law-enforcement training years earlier, and they didn't learn they were going to serve as military police officers in Iraq until just before they left to go overseas.

"It was hard for me because I didn't have a military police background," Dougherty said.

Hassan Rahim, a customs judge for nearly 40 years in Iraq, was shot July 1, 2003, after driving under an overpass where U.S. troops were manning a checkpoint, according to witnesses, the family and documents prepared by their attorney.

"The cars were passing by, and suddenly the shooting started," said Mohammed Abbas, 43, who witnessed the shooting from a small bakery nearby. The judge was driving to a produce market with his son when they heard shots and began to slow down. As Rahim started to make a left turn, he was struck in the back and killed. Witnesses said the shots came from an American armored vehicle that was standing guard on a traffic circle that leads to the 14th of July Bridge into the Green Zone.

"The son got out of the car and started to yell," Abbas said. "His son was crying and shouting. He said, 'My father is shot.'"

The Army denied the family's claim for $86,775.

"I told them I don't want compensation," said the son, Maher Hassan Rahim, 35. "But (by making the claim) we were trying to tell them that the value of the blood of an Iraqi person is not so cheap."

'Climate of impunity'

Hundreds of claims allege improper conduct by military personnel, yet there is little evidence in a number of cases that the military conducted thorough investigations into the allegations.

Only hours after a June 18, 2003, shooting into a crowd of demonstrators that left two people dead in Baghdad, the military publicly exonerated the soldiers in a press release issued by the United States Central Command headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base, Fla. The press release says that members of the 204th Military Police Company responded "in self-defense" to a demonstration that had occurred earlier that day.

The Army also denied a civil claim filed by the family of one of the dead demonstrators, Jafar Mola, saying the death was "a result of combat operations."

The Daily News' analysis of the database found 259 claims describing shootings that left at least 128 dead and 172 injured. The actual number of shooting incidents is undoubtedly several times higher because all claims were not entered into the database.

Coalition forces are only subject to the justice of their own countries. In the case of American soldiers, who are subject to the military's separate justice system, their own commanders often decide whether they have committed crimes.

Fred Abrahams, a senior researcher with Human Rights Watch, said that by September 2003, his group had found credible allegations in 94 death cases in Baghdad alone. Yet at that time, the Army acknowledged only five criminal investigations into the actions of soldiers in all of Iraq.

"We concluded that there was this climate of impunity where soldiers feel like they can pull the trigger, and without any sense that they could be held responsible for their actions, they're much more likely to resort more quickly to lethal force," Abrahams said.

The military has court-martialed personnel for acts in Iraq. One case in the database shows the Army paid a $50 claim to an Iraqi who was kidnapped and robbed by a sergeant and a private with the 19th Quartermaster Company of Fort Story, Va. Both soldiers were court-martialed and sentenced to jail.

Army officials wouldn't say how many investigations and courts-martial have been conducted, even though courts-martial generally are open to the public. Capt. Regen Wilson, a spokesman for the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, said since March 2003 that office has conducted nine investigations of possible criminal wrongdoing in all of southwest Asia, which includes Iraq. Six of those investigations are still open, he said.

Les Nott, whose son was killed in an incident that also left an Iraqi detainee dead and three other Iraqis wounded, said it was obvious to him that the military had no interest in conducting a thorough investigation.

"I believe that their motivation was to cover this up," said Nott, who retired from the Army after 23 years and now lives in Cheyenne, Wy.

On the night of July 30, 2003, 24-year-old 1st Lt. Leif E. Nott led a patrol to investigate shots fired near their military compound in Balad Ruz, according Army Sgt. Mickey Anderson and Army records of the incident. The shots turned out to be a few participants at a large wedding party firing in the air to celebrate, according to Anderson and the records.

Anderson said the 200 to 300 Iraqis at the party welcomed the soldiers, offering them cake and juice. As a precaution, the soldiers put plastic handcuffs on the groom, the best man and the father of one of the men, and confiscated an assault rifle.

None of the three men was considered dangerous, Anderson said, and they likely would have been released after a routine questioning.

"We just wanted to let them know you can't do that any more," he said.

The soldiers were loading the detainees in a Bradley Fighting Vehicles when a commander radioed to order the armored vehicles to go somewhere else, leaving the soldiers to escort the detainees on foot and without a radio to communicate with the compound, Anderson said.

According to Anderson and Army records, as the patrol walked under streetlights about 200 yards from the compound, a Bradley Fighting Vehicle position near the entrance opened fire, triggering more fire from other soldiers in the compound.

"The next thing I knew I was on the ground, and my leg was blown to pieces," Anderson said. "Other people were screaming and moaning."

Anderson, Nott, an Army medic, the patrol's Iraqi translator and the three Iraqi detainees were all hit by gunfire.

The Bradleys that opened fired drove to where Anderson lay, he said, and as he crawled up on one of them to stop the shooting, he was shot three more times at close range by an American soldier who apparently stuck his 9mm pistol out of the armored vehicle without looking at who was there.

Nott and one of the detainees, identified in claims records as Abu Hassan, later died. Hassan's widow, who was left with nine children to support, received $2,500 for her civil claim, according to the records, which clearly identify the incident as "friendly fire" and "not in response to enemy activity."

"Give her the money. Please. She's very patient — been given the run around for eight months," says a hand-written note from a military captain included in the Army records.

The Army told a different story to Nott's family and to the public.

After his death, Nott was promoted to captain and awarded a Bronze Star, and the citation for the medal says he "responded to a unprovoked attack on his troop headquarters." That same account was repeated in a newspaper story.

Les Nott said the family didn't learn the truth until a member of his son's unit spoke to them at the funeral. Later, he said, he, his wife and his son's widow traveled to Fort Hood, Texas, to personally talk to members of the unit to find out what happened — a trip he paid for himself.

"I shouldn't have to travel from Wyoming to Texas to find out how my kid died," Nott said.

While at Fort Hood, Nott said, he obtained a lengthy report on the investigation into the incident. Anderson said he wasn't asked to give an official statement until 14 months later, after a journalist in Washington, D.C., began asking questions.

"The report was a joke," Nott said. "Nobody wanted this to happen, but it did happen. And after they had to deal with it, there was one driving factor and one driving factor only: to make sure that nobody gets blamed."

A one-paragraph press release provided last week by Fort Hood officials says one soldier was killed and two wounded "during an attack." Fort Hood spokesman Maj. Matt Garner said he was very familiar with the shooting, but when asked for more information, he said, "I'm not going to give you a statement. No."

Garner referred questions to Army headquarters. The Daily News contacted three different officials at Army headquarters at the Pentagon and left messages for a fourth official. None would discuss the case, but one faxed a press release that alleges that Lt. Nott "died of wounds received from hostile fire."

Both Nott and Anderson agreed that the shooting of the detainees could be part of the reason the Army is trying to cover up what happened.

"They told us hostile fire, and they'll still tell you that if you ask them," Nott said, adding that someone should be held accountable for what happened.

"This isn't the Army I was a part of for 23 years."

Fueling hatred

For many Iraqis, the hundreds of incidents described in the claims and others never recorded in the database have turned them against the American-led occupation.

Military personnel, attorneys, human rights experts and Iraqis believe the incidents are fueling the growing insurgency. And, they said, as intensity of the insurgency increases, soldiers become even more apprehensive, creating an atmosphere for more allegations of abuse and misconduct.

"If I could give you the clue for which reason the Americans lost this war —because for me the war is lost — it's because of the behavior of the soldiers," said Marc Henzelin, a Swiss attorney who has worked with the Red Cross and is one of four attorneys identified on the database as having filed claims in Iraq.

Like many Iraqis, Wafa Abdel Latif al-Mukhtar and her family thought things would get better when the Americans came. Children like her 12-year-old son, Mohammed Subhi al-Qubaisi, idolized the American soldiers.

"In the beginning, the children saw the Americans and their weapons and gear and binoculars and wanted to follow them and look at them," the 45-year-old woman recalled during an interview in her home.

On a warm night in June 2003, the family's opinions about the Americans changed.

On that night, her son Mohammad decided to sleep on the roof of his home with his twin brother, something many Iraqis do to escape the hot summer nights. Al-Mukhtar said she and her family were unaware that soldiers were searching a house across a vacant lot about 70 yards away.

One of the soldiers, according to the family, spotted the 12-year-old on the roof and fired, hitting him in the chest.

"I was downstairs in my room when I heard the sounds of bullets," his mother recalled during an interview in her home. "Then I heard the boys yelling."

A neighbor, she said, helped carry her wounded son downstairs.

"The kitchen was full of blood," she recalled.

Minutes later, soldiers broke down the door of her kitchen and pointed guns at the people who had gathered in the room with her bleeding son.

"I tried to explain to them why this boy was bleeding and he (a soldier) kicked me and said, `Shut up, don't say anything,' " she said.

The soldiers searched the house and found an assault rifle, a type of weapon many Iraqis keep in their homes, and they refused to allow neighbors to take the boy to the hospital, citing the 11 p.m. curfew, the mother said. Later, a doctor from the neighborhood came and pronounced the boy dead, she said.

Two weeks after Mohammad was killed, two others were killed by American soldiers while sleeping on a rooftop in Baghdad, according to a $2 million claim filed by a brother of one of the alleged victims.

"Everyone thought the whole situation would be better, but it seems it's the opposite," Al-Mukhtar said, adding that the opinion of Mohammad's twin bother, Mustafa, also changed about the American soldiers. "Now, Mustafa said that when he sees them he wants to be the first to kill them," she said. "The Americans think the Iraqis are not human."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

THINK Back to ALERTS

BACK TO THE TOP                                                                BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS









































Take, for example, this article from the Sunday, November 23, 2003, edition of The Seattle Times:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2001798856&zsection_id=268448413&slug=soldier23&date=20031123

Army misreads Green Beret's disease

By Lisa Falkenberg
The Associated Press

KARNACK, Texas — By the time he shipped out in January to prepare for the war in Iraq, Special Forces Staff Sgt. James Alford was a wreck of a soldier.

For five months, he had been doing odd things. He disappeared from Fort Campbell, Ky., for several days last year. He lost equipment and lied to superiors. In December, he was demoted from staff sergeant to sergeant.

In the Kuwaiti desert, he came apart. The hotshot Green Beret who a year earlier had run circles around his team members and was recommended for a Bronze Star in Afghanistan was ordered to carry a notepad to remember orders. By March, he was being cited for dereliction of duty, larceny and lying to superiors. He couldn't even keep track of his gas mask.

Finally, in April, his commanders had had enough. They ordered him to return to Fort Campbell to be court-martialed and kicked out of the Special Forces.

"Your conduct is inconsistent with the integrity and professionalism required by a Special Forces soldier," Lt. Col. Christopher Conner wrote April 10.

Confused and disgraced, the soldier moved back into his off-base home where he ate canned meat and anchovies, unaware of the day, the month or the year.

Sensing something was wrong, a neighbor called Alford's parents. They drove 600 miles from East Texas to find a son who'd lost 30 pounds and could no longer drink from a glass, use a telephone, button his shirt or say Amber, the name of his soldier wife who was still stationed in the Middle East.

A month and several hospitals later, Alford's family learned he was dying of a disease eating away his brain. He had Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), an extremely rare and fatal degenerative brain disorder akin to "mad-cow" disease that causes rapid, progressive dementia.

Now, as the 25-year-old soldier wastes away in his boyhood home, his parents and his wife are struggling to understand how the military could have misdiagnosed Alford's erratic, forgetful behavior as nothing more than the symptoms of a sloppy, incompetent soldier.

"He had to hold his hands to keep them from shaking, but they saw nothing wrong with my child," his mother, Gail Alford, a nine-year Army veteran, said recently from her home in a rural community near Marshall, Texas.

Alford's parents say the Special Forces staff told them that a doctor in Kuwait found nothing wrong with him and that a psychiatrist there had said Alford was "faking it."

Army officials have acknowledged that the 5th Special Forces Group erred and, more than eight months after Alford's demotion, they reinstated his staff-sergeant rank.

But the dying soldier's family wants more. They want a public apology for the ridicule and disgrace they say filled Alford's final days of service.

"They called him stupid, told him he was lazy, he was a liar, that he wasn't any good, that he was a faker," his mother said, recalling what little her son could tell her about his time in Kuwait. "I want them shamed the way they shamed my son."

And they want his pay restored and his medical benefits maintained. The Army declared Alford medically incompetent, placed him on retirement status and froze his pay earlier this month until his parents can prove in court they are his legal guardians. His mother said she was given power of attorney long ago.

Army officials say they're just following procedures intended to protect soldiers.

Alford's father, retired Army Command Sgt. Maj. John Alford, who served 34 years, said that since his son has been diagnosed, Army doctors have been caring and professional, and commanders stationed his son's wife, Army Spc. Amber Alford, in Texas near her husband.

He mainly faults the Special Forces.

"I think they did everything they could to break him, mentally and physically," he said.

Maj. Robert Gowan, a spokesman for Army Special Forces Command, said 5th Group is saddened by the soldier's disease and regrets that it wasn't diagnosed sooner, but that a public apology may not be appropriate because the Army "acted on the information they had available at the time."

Alford may have tried to conceal his symptoms, said Dr. Steve Williams, a clinical fellow in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.

"He was capable of masking the symptoms because he was resourceful and he was a smart guy," said Williams, who diagnosed Alford with CJD. "I'd ask him what floor he was on, and I could catch him looking outside and counting the number of windows."

Col. David Dooley, an infectious-disease doctor at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, said Special Forces staff members shouldn't take the blame for missing Alford's rare illness. A delayed diagnosis is "typical and classic"; the average lag time is five to seven months, he said.

"If I'm going to hold anything against them, they might have come around a little faster when a medical problem was recognized," Dooley said. "The Special Forces group was fairly inert to the face of data that we medics were showing them."

Staff Sgt. Miguel Fabbiani, a friend of Alford's and a member of the same team based at Fort Campbell, said Alford's symptoms escalated during wartime when he was working with a new group that didn't know him as well.

Alford now lies in pastel sheets next to a wall painting of John Wayne. Wearing a Houston Texans T-shirt that hangs like a hospital gown, he stares absently into a TV that glows 24 hours, his hands gripping stuffed animals to keep them from clenching shut.

"He knows his name, sometimes," says his wife. "Sometimes I'll go up to him, wink at him and make kissy faces and he laughs."

"It's very sad when the people who are putting their life on the line for this country should be treated like this," Alford's father said. "This has been a bureaucratic nightmare. We've got enough to deal with on a daily basis, caring after our son and dealing with our pain and weariness and our suffering, to have to fight the U.S. Army."

The Alfords got their first call from 5th Group Command last week. The soldier's father said the deputy commander apologized for what the family had been through, assigned a lawyer to work with them on pay and benefits issues and said he would personally handle any future problems.

John Alford knew his son might not live long enough to get the good news, so he had already told him a "white lie" that he had been vindicated.

"It was very important to him because he kept saying, 'I didn't do anything wrong, Daddy.' "

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

MAMMA's Footnote:

Ms. Falkenberg's
piece is a captivating 'Human Interest' story. However, considering the questions and the implications that 'coverage' of this topic raises, is such a superficial form of 'Journalism' enough?

Why didn't the 'coverage' of this tragedy answer the questions that people reading it must have asked? Questions like
....

- While the article noted "a month and several hospitals later" in indicating that an accurate diagnosis is now known...it failed to note if all the hospitals involved were all 'military'...so IS the CJD diagnosis accurate????

- If it's a matter of "up to 10%" of CJD victims die...why does the military have this young man on a 'death bed' watch?

- How did SSgt Alford contract such a disease?

- Where did he 'catch' it?

- Who else is 'at risk' for getting this disease?

- What is the likelihood that the military might possibly be lying about the 'true' cause (considering the extensive adverse reaction time of toxic  'drugs' like Larium) of Alford's disease?

- IF this is an accurate diagnosis...is anything being done to ensure that the disease IS NOT spreading??? (Needless to say, considering the military's 'history' of taking steps to prevent repeats of 'tragedies'....that isn't likely!)


- If CJD (generally) affects 40-65 year olds, doesn't the family of this 25 year old deserve HONEST answers to their questions?


You might want to read a three-part series on "Anthrax, GOCO's and Designer Germs" by Jim Rarey which is archived at: http://www.worldnewsstand.net/MediumRare/Archives.htm. The author is a free lance writer based in Romulus, Michigan. He is a former newspaper editor and investigative reporter, a retired customs administrator and accountant, and a student of history and the U.S. Constitution.

When Mr. Rarey, who can be reached at: "Jim Rarey" <jimrarey@comcast.net>, was questioned about this article, he said... 
"We have known for several years that Bioport was using bovine material when they didn't know the country of origin. For that and several other reasons, the FDA refused to approve a million or so batches of the vaccine. Now the CDC and DOD have released those batches and they are being used to vaccinate the troops."
and included the following material to THINK about:
 
Mad Cow Disease (BSE) and Vaccinations
by Dawn Richardson

PROVE (Parents Requesting Open Vaccine Education)  

There has been a lot of talk in the news lately about risks of Mad Cow Disease (BSE), but not many people are aware that some vaccines can be contaminated and theoretically spread the disease.  Last summer, the FDA met to discuss the contamination of vaccines that use bovine products in the manufacturing process.  The FDA has posted, on their web site, which vaccines may contain contaminated bovine-derived materials.

The current list (taken from http://www.fda.gov/cber/BSE/BSE.htm#usda) of vaccines using bovine-derived materials from countries on the USDA’s BSE list or from unknown countries include:

1)   Aventis Pasteur, S.A.’s Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine, ActHIB (ActHIB is also marketed as OmniHIBT by SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals)

2)   North American Vaccine Inc.’s diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine, CertivaT

3)   SmithKline Beecham Biological’s DTaP vaccine, Infanrix

4)   SmithKline Beecham Biological’s Hepatitis A vaccine, Havrix 

Vaccines that use bovine-derived materials of unknown geographical origins include:

1)   Aventis Pasteur, S.A.’s inactivated polio vaccine, IPOL

2)   BioPort’s Anthrax vaccine

3)   Lederle Laboratories’ Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, PNU-INUNE

Additionally, there was a recent media report that a British national whose blood was used to make polio vaccine administered in Ireland, had been diagnosed with variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (the human form of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or mad cow disease.)  You can read that at: http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20001219_1915.html

Sources of further information:

1)   Dawn Richardson, PROVE prove@vaccineinfo.net (email) http://vaccineinfo.net/ (website)

2)   Vaccines:  Are They Really Safe and Effective?  A parent’s Guide to Childhood Shots; Neil Z. Miller; (800) 800-1927

3)   National Vaccine Information Center (http://www.909shot.com) (703) 938-5768

BACK TO THE TOP                                                        BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS



















































MAMMA's Preface:

The following three part series was published by the Free Press. It is obvious that David Zeman, did his homework. But, it goes past SAD! to see it end up as 'Human Interest' rhetoric. The indications are that, at the end of the day, he, like too many others before him, filed his 'story', turned out the lights and went home...having served only ONE of the ABUSE VICTIMS (he wrote about). What about ALL the others, who are still denied TRUTH and JUSTICE?

Note...some (comments) have been interjected.


PART I:
DUTY, HONOR, BETRAYAL: How U.S. turned its back on poisoned WWII vets

As enlisted men, they were the military's lab rats

November 10, 2004

BY DAVID ZEMAN
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER


The room is small and cramped, like a vault. The soldiers are in full combat gear, rifles in hand, packs anchored on their backs. As the steel door slams shut, the men look about, this way and that.

And the ground begins to hiss. Army Pvt. Sidney Wolfson notices it at once, a faint green aerosol seeping from the floor, rising in lazy corkscrews around his waist, arms and chest and across his eyes.

It's adamsite, what the troops come to know as puke stuff, a vomiting agent. The soldiers cower. They flop on their bellies and retch. Wolfson rises to leave, but can't. He pounds and pounds and screams for the doctors, but he can't leave. He can't get out!

"It's like I'm in jail," he says, quietly now. And he fidgets. Six decades after exiting the chambers of his youth, Sidney Wolfson sits in his Farmington condo and squirms. He is 85 and frail, but the dream is still vivid, the image keen.

He was young and fit once, part of the 1st Chemical Casual Company, a unit of 100 bright soldiers who struggled through chamber tests of mustard agent, lewisite, phosgene and other poisons on a military base near Baltimore in 1943.

Some are still struggling. (a lesson to be learned)

This is the story of patriots deceived -- not once but three times: first as young recruits, conned into entering chambers of lethal gas during World War II; then as war-hardened soldiers, shipped home with no warning of the time bombs lurking in their bodies; and finally as aging veterans, misled by a government that promised to find them, wherever they lived, and compensate those who were harmed.

"At no time after these experiments was I notified or told anything," said Franklin Smith, echoing the account of many men. "They shipped my butt over to the Pacific and that was the last I heard from the War Department."

By the end of World War II, the military had exposed more than 70,000 Army and Navy recruits to poison gases in various forms -- from swabs of mustard agent on their arms, to the more than 4,000 servicemen who marched into chambers or through fields soaked with chemicals. The mission was noble: to develop protective gear and ointments that would insulate troops from enemy chemical attack. The means were not: Officers deceived the men about the health risks and intimidated those who balked.

The recruits, many still teenagers, were sworn to secrecy. In the decades that followed, some of these veterans sought benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs for illnesses linked to the tests. But the military had a ready reply: The tests never happened. Not until 1991, when four Navy vets swayed an influential congressman to their cause, did the Pentagon acknowledge the secret program and apologize. The government, at long last, vowed to make amends.

But the Free Press has found that Washington broke its promise. The VA, which pledged a painstaking effort to track down and compensate the men, contacted nobody. Not one letter. Not a single phone call -- even after the Pentagon turned over lists of thousands of
potential victims. The VA relied mainly on unpaid public service ads in veterans magazines, even though the agency was aware that most veterans don't see those publications.

In recent years, a few veterans who did press claims were rebuffed -- often with form letters, and even when it was clear they had diseases linked to the wartime experiments. (incident of service)

VA Secretary Anthony Principi, who as deputy secretary in 1991 pledged to "do right" by the veterans, said in an interview last month he was unaware the veterans had been ignored.

"My assumption was that steps were taken to do what was possible to reach as many as we could find and to provide them with the benefits they've earned," he said. "If more needs to be done, it will be done."

The men of the 1st Chemical Casual Company represent only a sliver of the WWII recruits exposed to poison gases. But to the government, they are less than that. The unit does not even exist in Washington's official database on the testing program. It's almost as if they were never there.

But they were.

And 61 years later, they're still waiting for help.

'The place God forgot'

The soldiers grabbed their gear and stepped wearily from the train.

It was Sept. 3, 1943, and after riding all night through the Appalachians, the men found themselves standing before the front gate of Edgewood Arsenal, a leafy Army outpost on Chesapeake Bay, 20 miles northeast of Baltimore.

It looked swell, that's for sure.

From its inception in 1917, Edgewood's 3,400 acres of rolling farmland and pleasant rivers belied the serious and occasionally deadly work performed in its covert factories. Horses still ambled across fields once crossed by Susquehannock Indians and George Washington's troops. The grounds of the Gunpowder Neck peninsula were thick with sweetgum and blackberry. Overhead, bald eagles shared the breeze with osprey, sandpipers and other shorebirds.

Though the soldiers could not see it from where they stood, the Aberdeen Proving Ground, a testing ground for artillery and other ordnance, lay just to the north across the Bush River.

The twin posts of Edgewood and Aberdeen had sprung up in World War I after the Germans unleashed chlorine gas on Allied troops in Belgium. Edgewood quickly became the headquarters of chemical warfare research, its factories producing chlorine, a lung irritant; chloropicrin, a vomiting gas; phosgene, a lethal choking agent, and mustard gas, a blistering compound that could be lethal if inhaled.

Notoriety soon followed.

"At Baltimore, we began to hear about the terrors of this place," wrote one dashingly named World War I recruit, Jet Parker, as he rode a train to Edgewood in 1918. "Everyone we talked to on the way out here said we were coming to the place God forgot! They tell tales about men being gassed and burned ..."

Another private, Alexander London, wrote a grim ode to Edgewood's perils:

"... If a little drop of any gas would touch the head or face,

It meant a speedy ride and a long stay at the base.

A pal of mine was working at the filling plant one night,

When a poison shell exploded and my pal lost his sight.

He suffered untold agonies, for the poison entered deep,

It was a sight to make brave men stop in their tracks and weep."


But to the 1st Chemical soldiers who arrived in September of '43, Edgewood must have seemed like heaven itself.

The men had entered the Army seven weeks earlier, in a nasty slice of hell known as Camp Sibert, Ala.

They were an unconventional group of Army grunts, that's for sure. Nearly all were college boys or on the way to college. They studied chemistry, which is why they had been earmarked for Sibert, in the military's chemical weapons service.

Most had joined eagerly. Walter Butinsky, the nearsighted son of Ukrainian immigrants, wanted in so badly he memorized the reading test to pass his induction exam. Abe Hedaya, a 19-year-old Brooklyn boy, dropped out of his beloved Columbia University. Franklin Smith could have stayed home to support his widowed mother. But with her blessing, he joined, too. Six buddies signed from the University of Scranton. Six more arrived from Mississippi State University.

And for what, they must have wondered as they arrived in the steamy Alabama summer.

They were put to work building barracks and roads for the 5,000 soldiers descending on Sibert. They received "a spade, a shovel and a short pep talk almost before they had officially reported to their company officers," one historian wrote.

The barracks, if you could call them that, were wooden beams covered by tar paper, with wood-burning stoves at each end. They shielded the men from summer rains, but not from the heat. And certainly not from the insects that drove the soldiers to distraction.

"I wanted to get the hell out of Alabama," said Lee Landauer, a gruff, compact recruit from Baltimore. "Camp was terrible. We were sleeping in tar-covered paper bags."

As for social life, there was nearby Gadsden, or as some recruits called it, Gonorrhea Gardens.

"When you went out there, there was nothing to get out for," Landauer said. "So you never went out again. It was just a hell of a place."

The men were only a few weeks into training when a commander gathered them one day and offered a deal: If they volunteered for chemical experiments in Maryland, they would receive 10-day furloughs. These many years later, the men differ on the particulars of what was said that day. But they do agree on two things. The commander was not terribly specific. And the opportunity to decline the offer was never really on the table. "You're not told too much, just line up and shut up," is how Richard Wickens, who now lives in Albuquerque, N.M., described it.

Smith recalled, "There was a great deal of talk about what a wonderful thing this was to do for our country and you guys are heroes and it would save a great many lives.

"I was a totally green 19-year-old. I had grown up in a remote little farming town in Oklahoma called Texhoma. The war was going full blast, and we were all dedicated to winning. They certainly convinced me at the time their motives were pure."

New Jersey recruit Michael Geiger had his own reason to join.

"I think I lost 30 pounds in three weeks in Alabama," Geiger said. "You'd go out on 10- to 20-mile hikes every day -- you couldn't even eat at night, you were so tired. All you wanted to do was drink the water. Any change couldn't have been worse. I ran up and signed."

Even for Southerners, the Maryland shore had its appeal.

"I looked forward to it," said Cham Canon, a self-described country boy from Mississippi. "But with some apprehension, because we did not understand until we got there what we would be doing."

What they would be doing wasn't entirely clear to a lot of the soldiers. "I thought we would be doing studies, working with chemicals," said Wolfson, the recruit from Michigan. "When we got there, lo and behold, it was a different story."

At first, good food and leisure

The soldiers settled in at Edgewood, happy to have quarters with four walls and a ceiling. Spread before them were single beds, widely spaced. Over there were the latrines --  sparkling clean. On the grounds, the men noticed an absence of military staples: no surly officers, no saluting at every corner, not even many uniforms.

That first day, the soldiers savored their first decent meal since leaving their mothers' kitchens. "They gave you all you wanted to eat -- bacon and eggs, real steak," Landauer said. "At Sibert, all you got was chopped beef stew, seven days a week."

This, they could live with.

After a day or so of leisure, the men of 1st Chemical were ushered into Edgewood lab buildings, where they changed into chamber gear: cotton undershirts and shorts; khaki or herringbone twill pants, shirts and jackets; canvas leggings; a wool hood and white wool socks. The clothing was soaked in agents meant to neutralize the test chemicals, which left the garments stiff and hot.

The gas masks, with their conical snouts and wide lenses, made the men look like immense insects, though they usually kept the poison at bay. Usually. High levels of chemicals could overwhelm some masks. And even a two-day stubble of beard could break the seal around the face.

The men gathered their rifles and backpacks and marched for 30 minutes until perspiration soaked their bodies. They were then placed in single-file lines, a yard apart, before a chamber door.

They entered in groups of five to seven. It might be the chamber in Building 325, a 9-foot-by-9-foot cube of hollow tile; or one of two chambers in Building 358; or the glass cylinder chamber in Building 357.

The door was quickly shut. Researchers peered in through a small porthole as they jotted notes. The mustard vapor entered with a whisper, running through a hose in calibrated bursts. The soldiers recognized the faint odor of garlic, or a pleasing sweetness. The vapor was colorless or a light yellow and they were quickly enveloped as it probed the seams of their trousers, or the rim of their masks, searching for a pathway to their skin.

The warmer the conditions, the more potent the gas became. Indeed, the tests were designed to mimic jungle conditions in the Pacific, where Allied forces guessed the Japanese might unleash chemical shells. In some tests, the exposure level equaled that faced on World War I battlefields. As the men marched in 90-degree-plus heat, with the chamber's humidity kept at 84 percent, they perspired under their arms, inside their hoods, or near their knees and genitals.

They were soon drenched, which only heightened the mustard's ardor for human skin.

Once the gas reached skin, it snaked through pores deep into the tissue, or entered the bloodstream. Within minutes, the mustard quietly went to work, binding to strands of DNA deep within cells, causing them to mutate and die. The damage was irreversible.

Mustard's toll was not immediately apparent. It took hours or days for soldiers' skin to turn crimson along sweaty regions like the thigh or buttocks; or where skin was bare, like the hands or neck.

The skin began to itch and burn like a griddle. A day later, the red patches turned to watery blisters 2 inches high. The fluid was actually the body's tissue, which had liquefied under the assault.

"They told us not to puncture it," Smith said. "But if you turned your arm a quarter turn, the weight of the fluid would tend to separate the skin from your arm. So some guys just punctured these things, because it hurt so bad."

Painkillers helped.

Other men suffered grotesque burns on their genitals, causing their scrotum and penis to swell and blister, the skin to peel away in strips. Years later, some discovered cancerous skin growths or genital scarring that made it difficult to father children.

Sometimes, frayed uniforms left elbows or legs exposed. Other times, the gear was almost comically inadequate. Take, for instance, the neck and ear protection afforded soldiers in some tests, as described in a 1943 Army record: "Two socks wrapped around the neck, with the upper portion of a sock covering each ear. The socks are held in place by string and by the gas mask straps."

Equipment breakdowns were common in the trials, which lasted up to two months. Faulty masks allowed vapors to bind to the eye, causing soldiers' eyelids to swell and spasm.

Their noses ran steady, like the onset of a cold. They emitted a dry cough and began to vomit. The mustard had reached their lungs, inflaming the tracheal lining, which might simply slough away. Years would pass, even decades, before other problems arose.

A willing sacrifice

America, as historians remind us, was a far different place in the 1940s from the era since Vietnam. Isolationist sentiments that prevailed when war erupted in Europe in 1939 largely evaporated after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Millions of men enlisted to fight. Millions of women joined factories that fed the war machine. Children collected scrap metal for tanks. Civilians rationed sugar, coffee, gas and other staples. Sacrifice was the theme and urgency its byword against a potent and frightening enemy. The notion that a few people might sacrifice for the greater good of our troops was neither controversial nor seriously questioned.

The United States spent more than $25 million on ethically dubious studies to find antidotes for conditions faced by troops: orphans were injected with dysentery; prison inmates were given malaria; mentally ill people were infected with influenza.

Against this backdrop, military scientists were exhorted to improve the protective gear used by American troops. Young recruits -- still stateside while their brethren were dying overseas -- were asked to test this new gear. They performed their duty, as they were told.

"We desperately needed research in a variety of areas to move the war effort forward," said David Rothman, director of the Center for the Study of Society and Medicine at Columbia University. "Patient consent, which had been recognized earlier as a major consideration, was now ignored because the military's needs seemed to trump all others. It was purely a utilitarian calculus: the greatest good for the greatest number."

America's fear of chemical attack was well founded. The Germans had released chlorine and mustard gas against the Allies in World War I; Japan and Italy had used poison agents in the 1930s. Such was the fear that the Walt Disney Co. designed a Mickey Mouse gas mask so children would not be afraid to use masks in the event of an assault.

In their initial research, U.S. scientists used goats, cats and other animals to test mustard and other blistering agents on the skin. But they found it difficult to extrapolate the results to human skin. Scientists thought they solved this dilemma by using Mexican hairless dogs, but abandoned the plan after the dogs proved too costly. (Imagine that....human ABUSE is cost effective!)

They eventually concluded only human skin would do. Citing tests already under way in Canada and England, U.S. officials played down the health risk to humans.

"In the hands of competent experimenters, much can be learned concerning the prevention and treatment of gas burns in men without subjecting them to more than relatively trivial annoyance or disability," Alfred Richards, the chairman of a government committee on medical research, wrote to Secretary of War Henry Stimson in April 1942.

The Army and Navy secretaries formally approved the test program a month later.

A break from camp

That autumn -- one year before the men of 1st Chemical arrived -- the first 200 soldiers from Camp Sibert were shipped to Edgewood for "patch tests" on their arms. The arrangement ended badly. Sibert's officers howled about the loss of their soldiers. And it soon became apparent that few soldiers at Sibert were eager to replace the first wave of volunteers.

That "may have been due to the look of the scars on men returned to the training companies," wrote Rexmond Cochrane, a military historian stationed at Sibert during the war.

So commanders in Washington hatched a plan to make the tests more palatable. They promised the men furloughs and a change of scenery in exchange for their willingness to test "summer uniforms." It worked. By war's end, at least 4,000 soldiers and seamen were tested at more than a half-dozen facilities beyond Edgewood -- from Florida to Illinois, Utah, Panama and, in great numbers, at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington.

Insurrection was never a problem. Commanders made sure of that.

"The fact that has been most obvious throughout these experiments is that when the men first begin the work they should not be told too much," a Navy commander wrote in August 1943. "If they are, it sets up a fear reaction that remains for varying lengths of time and definitely affects their 'virgin' runs in the chamber, and, occasionally, requires a removal from the chamber before the run is completed. However, after the first two runs in the chamber, the men become veterans and can be told almost anything without affecting their morale."

That sounded about right to Landauer of Baltimore who, despite encounters with mustard gas, lewisite and what he believed to be nerve agent, preferred his lot at Edgewood to the perils of combat in Europe.

"It was a question of having a pretty good life and figuring these guys aren't going to kill you," Landauer said of the Edgewood scientists. "Once you last three or four days in the chamber without dying, you figure, 'What the hell.' "

Only rarely did recruits balk. When that happened, the Navy memo noted, "A short explanatory talk, and, if necessary, a slight verbal 'dressing down' has always proven successful. There has not been a single instance in which a man has refused to enter the gas chamber."

Recruits who complained of nausea, headaches, laryngitis or eye infections were told their "physical unfitness" -- not the tests -- was to blame. (Always...blame the VICTIM!) "Occasionally," the memo continued, "malingerers and psychoneurotics are discovered. These cases have all been handled so far by minimizing their symptoms and then sending them into the chamber."

As critics would note decades later, U.S. scientists downplayed the dangers despite research dating to 1928 of long-term ailments linked to mustard gas. Medical journals in the United States and abroad reported bronchitis, emphysema, bronchial asthma and conjunctivitis among World War I chemical casualties. By the late 1930s, delayed-action blindness also was reported.

But these medical findings were never shared with the World War II guinea pigs.

Watching the rabbit die

Some men in 1st Chemical were sent into chambers without masks. Joining the soldiers in one test was a very unhappy rabbit. The men trudged in and waited for the vapors. It is unclear which gas was being tested that day, but whatever it was, it didn't sit well with the rabbit, which fell over and died.

"I can still see the expression on this one poor guy's face," Landauer recalled. "He was pounding on the door. He wanted to get the hell out of there."

On another day, Pvt. John Berzellini, an asthmatic, grew increasingly anxious as his mask filled with drool and mucus. Hours passed, but the researcher monitoring the test would not allow Berzellini to leave. He had to tilt open the mask to drain the fluids, exposing his face to vapors. "He was forced, asked, cajoled to stay in there," recalled Bill Chupka, who was inside the chamber with his friend. "I suppose that if he collapsed he would have been removed immediately."

In Building 326, meanwhile, soldiers were exposed to another blistering agent, lewisite, an arsenic-based compound with the scent of geraniums. Touted as the dew of death by newspapers of the day, lewisite never quite fulfilled its promise as a more lethal successor to mustard gas. While mustard bided its time, lewisite caused immediate pain and blisters. Yet the oily liquid was not nearly so toxic as a battlefield vapor and eventually fell into disfavor.

Blistering agents were not the only poisons at Edgewood.

Some men said they were subjected to what they described as low levels of nerve agents, designed to incapacitate enemy soldiers during an attack. Among other things, exposure to the agent caused the men's pupils to shrink to the size of pinpricks and blurred their vision for days.

"They took us out to shoot at the rifle range," Landauer said. "Then we came back and they put us in a chamber, eight to 10 of us, for less than a minute. It was some kind of nerve gas. Then it was back to the rifle range to re-shoot the same targets. By the time we got out there, we couldn't see the targets.

"Our buddies had to cut our food up for us that night."

What's remarkable about these accounts is that the Pentagon has always maintained it did not conduct human testing with nerve agents -- such as sarin -- until after World War II.

Pentagon officials did not respond to requests for comment on whether nerve agents were tested.

Though the tests were harrowing, the time between them was a pleasure.

The men passed their downtime, which was considerable, reading books, playing cards and getting to know each other. The base had a library and movie theater. Its staff arranged dances with local girls. Soldiers usually could find enough friends for a game of baseball or volleyball. Walter Butinsky whipped all comers at chess. On days off, the men took a train or bus to Washington or Baltimore for burlesque shows or dates. For the Eastern boys who went home on weekends, the greatest fear was that their parents would see their burns and raise hell with the military.

Jesse Schraub, who had never left Brooklyn before enlisting, remembers one humid evening having dinner back home, wearing long sleeves to cover his burns. "The pain was excruciating, but of course, I wasn't supposed to tell anybody," Schraub said. "I was afraid of what my dad's reaction would be."

Some men formed close bonds. In their first weeks at Edgewood, some Christian soldiers took on extra kitchen and guard duty so their Jewish buddies could go home for Yom Kippur. The men held friendly wagers over whose arm yielded the biggest blister. For those with more severe burns, friends stood ready to help them comb their hair, or use the bathroom.

"It was the first time I began to feel like a person in the Army, like an individual," Howard Hoffman wrote in a war memoir.

For some men, it was a sad day when, in late October, they were returned to Alabama.

"My husband was very happy at Edgewood," Nellie Strauss said of her husband, Alfred. "He was a good soldier and he felt he was doing his duty. He never complained."

Nellie concedes she was pretty tickled, too.

"He was way over 200 pounds when I married him, and he went down to 170 pounds when he came home," she said.

"He looked gorgeous."

Contact DAVID ZEMAN at 313-222-6593 or zeman@freepress.com.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)



PART II:

Veterans kept the military's secret, some until death

BY DAVID ZEMAN
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER


November 11, 2004

Al Felgendreger entered World War II an anonymous Army grunt. He exited a war hero, gaining three Bronze Stars in the Pacific.

Friendly and bright, Felgendreger returned to Philadelphia after the war to embrace his new wife and his own lofty ambitions.

His life was busy, secure, overflowing with promise.

And then, suddenly, it was not.

In 1955, Felgendreger suffered what his wife Eleanore characterizes as a nervous breakdown. The outgoing chemist was now depressed, sluggish, and reluctant to leave home. There were times when he drank too much. He asked his pastor to care for his wife and three children if something happened to him. He spent two months in a hospital.

"I've always wondered," Eleanore says now, "if those tests could have caused that."

The tests that haunt Eleanore Felgendreger do not appear in her husband's Army records. Like thousands of World War II soldiers and sailors, Felgendreger's work as a human guinea pig was omitted from his file. In the autumn of 1943, he served in the 1st Chemical Casual Company, a unit exposed to mustard agent and other poisons in the gas chambers of Maryland's Edgewood Arsenal -- tests that would stalk some men, physically and psychologically, until their deaths.

Tests they were forbidden to discuss.

With the help of a psychiatrist, Felgendreger eventually regained his footing and returned to work.

But he never discussed his breakdown again.

Best and the brightest

If ever an Army unit was poised for excellence, it was the 1st Chemical Casual Company.

Mostly young science buffs, the soldiers of 1st Chemical had been culled from science programs across the country for chemical warfare training. But they soon learned that their value to the Army was more as lab rats than lab scientists.

They were shipped to Edgewood and herded into chambers to test how long uniforms, ointments and gas masks could withstand chemicals that might be unleashed in combat. When the experiments ended two months later, some, like Felgendreger, would gain Bronze Stars and Purple Hearts overseas, or embark on estimable careers in science, medicine or academia.

Their ranks included Ivy League professors, computer pioneers, chemists at Fortune 500 firms, a Guggenheim Fellow, and another fellow who pursued the life of a pastry chef.

Scanning the resumes, one might assume Edgewood was but a brief interlude in a soldier's life -- distasteful, perhaps, but long since forgotten.

Yet many soldiers quietly took Edgewood to their graves. Sworn to secrecy, or just plain stoic, the men of 1st Chemical rarely spoke of the harrowing experiments at the Maryland camp -- not to their families, and not to their doctors, even as they succumbed to diseases they traced to Edgewood. Decades later, no one can say for sure whether Felgendreger's collapse also was linked to those chambers. What is known is that, for many of these men, the silence that surrounded the project began to feel like a prison, one that separated them from their wives and children, one they felt they could never escape. In 1983 -- 40 years after the chamber tests -- Lee Landauer of suburban Baltimore began treatment for skin cancer that still bedevils him. His elderly mother delicately broached the subject of his service. What, she asked, really happened at Edgewood?

"Nothing I can tell you," the ex-platoon sergeant said.

And that was that.

Some families learned of the chambers and their psychological hold on the soldiers only after the men died. They would be sorting through papers left by the men and discover a journal or note that betrayed a well-guarded despair.

"See what happens when one has been involved with Army poison gasses?" Albert Jasuta, a veteran with leukemia and lung disease wrote, seven weeks before his death.

To be sure, of the scores of soldiers from 1st Chemical interviewed for this article, several spoke favorably of their work at Edgewood and defended the military's decision to expose at least 4,000 soldiers and sailors to dangerous levels of toxins in chamber and field tests. Germany and Japan had used chemical and biological weapons in the past, they noted. The United States had a duty to protect its troops, to learn all it could about how mustard might spread along the front lines of Europe, or the tropics of the Pacific.

"We were going against Hitler!" said Brooklyn recruit Abe Hedaya, pausing to let his point register. "He was crazy, and we had to get him!"

Whatever the program's merits, this much is certain: Pentagon officials lured young recruits from boot camp with the promise of furloughs, then bullied them if they tried to back out. They misled the men about the health risks involved, then denied the tests ever took place. For nearly 50 years, the secret held.

Even as some men faltered. (It's a 'guy thing'...better to be dead than admit being a VICTIM!)

Worse than combat

For many relatives, the soldier who marched off to Edgewood in '43 was different from the one who returned after the war. Of course, that is generally true of soldiers in all conflicts; war changes those who fight it. But something about the experiences of the chemical volunteers in sealed chambers, and their inability to talk about their experiences, transformed them in ways even combat never would.

Pvt. Francis Earnshaw Jr., a lanky blond chemical engineering student from West Virginia, saw his military career collapse one afternoon in November 1943, a few weeks after he left the chemical testing at Edgewood and returned to boot camp at Camp Sibert, Ala. As his company drilled that day, Earnshaw was overcome with anxiety and laid down in the field, unable to move until other soldiers carried him to bed. When Camp Sibert doctors saw him later, Earnshaw's lip quivered and he fought back tears. He'd been having headaches, he said, brought on by "nerves." He was hospitalized for a month.

"He does not have enough confidence to feel that he will be able to adjust," an Army psychiatrist wrote. "Diagnosis: Psychoneurosis, anxiety type, manifested by sleeplessness, nervousness and mild depression."

Earnshaw's records are typical of ailing chemical soldiers in that they make almost no reference to the experiments that preceded his hospitalization. From his file, it is unclear whether Earnshaw even told doctors he had taken part in chemical tests. This was not unusual. Even doctors stationed at Edgewood during the war were often not told what chemicals had injured their patients.

Earnshaw received an honorable discharge in December 1943. Yet even though he was released on medical grounds, the government denied his claim for disability, ruling that his nervous condition was unrelated to his military service.

He died of a heart attack in 1997, having never discussed Edgewood with Mary Jo, his wife of 50 years.

Not every soldier's life ended badly -- far from it. For many in the unit, the postwar years were marked by academic success and staggering career advancement.

After his war service, Bill Chupka left the coal country of eastern Pennsylvania for a classical education at the University of Chicago. One of his Sigma Chi fraternity brothers was Howard Hoffman, a former chamber mate at Edgewood, who later became a professor at Bryn Mawr.

Fraternity life, as Chupka tells it, was more "Masterpiece Theatre" than "Animal House."

"The evening conversations were very civilized arguments more typically centered on Socrates, Plato, Aristotle ... Nietzsche, Einstein, national politics and other serious affairs," Chupka, now professor emeritus of chemistry at Yale and a former Guggenheim Fellow, recalled in an e-mail. "The music was exclusively classical and opera."

Other soldiers flourished as well. Walter Butinsky became patent counsel for Eli Lilly and Company. Roy Wiig was a pioneer in computer program development at IBM. John Hogan returned to Bountiful, Utah, as a family doctor. Thomas Mullen was an engineer at B.F. Goodrich. Cason Callaway Jr. became a respected businessman and philanthropist in Pine Mountain, Ga.

The veterans of 1st Chemical grew comfortably into middle age, gradually putting their war service behind them, or so they thought.

Cold War changes

As the Cold War shifted the focus of military research, Edgewood also evolved.

From 1950 well into the 1970s, Edgewood scientists -- concerned that the communists were developing truth serums -- began their own research into mind control. (Can you say: KILLOLOGY?) They began testing the effects of LSD and other hallucinogens on U.S. servicemen and civilians, often without their consent. It was not until the early 1970s that the military's treatment of its servicemen was seriously scrutinized as evidence also emerged that Americans were being mistreated in a variety government research -- from bacteria injected into childrenn at an Ohio orphanage; to radiation exposure on prison inmates; to the Tuskegee Experiment, in which government researchers declined to treat 400 impoverished black men for syphilis so the scientists could monitor the course of the illness.

Like the World War II chemical program before them, the studies marked an unsettling shift in scientific research. With each new experiment, wrote medical ethicist David Rothman, clinical investigations were being designed "to benefit not the research subjects, but others." (Justification)

Yet while dozens of government abuses were exposed, the World War II chemical tests remained shrouded in the decades-old vow of secrecy.

In the 1970s, a few Army and Navy veterans claimed illnesses they traced to chemical testing. But one by one, the Defense Department thwarted the claims by simply denying the experiments took place.

Most veterans accepted the rejections and faded away.

Nat Schnurman plowed on.

Finally, some answers

Schnurman, who lives on a bluff above the James River outside Richmond, Va., was sitting with his wife in his doctor's office one day in 1975, wondering why his body seemed to be breaking down at age 50. He had lung disease, hearing loss and vision problems. He had chronic pain in his legs, chest and stomach. After undergoing medical examinations for decades, he was at a loss to explain his faltering health.

His doctor, who by coincidence had once trained at Edgewood, asked Schnurman if he had ever worked with chemicals.

"No," Schnurman replied.

"Were you ever in the service?"

"Yes."

"Were you ever in any..." and here the doctor paused, "special programs?"

Joy Schnurman, who until then had known nothing of her husband's participation in mustard gas testing, recalls vividly what happened next.

"Nat just turned white as a sheet," she said. "And then the tears came and came, and out came the story."

Schnurman joined the Navy at 17 and was sent to Bainbridge Naval Training Center in Maryland, where volunteers were being recruited to test "summer clothing."

He was sent to a gas chamber at Edgewood six times in seven days. On his last visit, a blend of mustard gas and lewisite was piped in. Schnurman was overcome with toxins, vomited into his mask and begged for release. The request was denied. His next memory is of coming to on a snowbank outside the chamber.

He completed his Naval service, but his health steadily grew worse. He told no one of the tests at Edgewood until that 1975 doctor's visit.

Schnurman filed for benefits from the VA and spent the next 17 years pursuing records that would support his claim. Blocked at every turn by a bureaucracy that denied access to his files -- that denied in fact that he wass ever at Edgewood -- Schnurman eventually collected box loads of documents.  (And nowhere to take them...everything continues to be recycled right back to the abusers!)

His cause also benefited from renewed attention to chemical warfare in the late 1980s, most notably by Iraq's use of mustard gas on its own Kurdish population and in its war with Iran. In 1989, an Australian documentary, "Keen as Mustard," exposed how the Australian government denied the claims of its World War II soldiers because it did not want to reveal its role in human testing. That same year, a Canadian journalist exposed Canada's World War II program. In July 1990, the Richmond Times-Dispatch published the first of many stories on U.S. chemical gas veterans.

Around the same time, Schnurman's story caught the interest of producers at "60 Minutes" and Porter Goss, a Florida congressman. Goss, who is now CIA director, lobbied colleagues in Congress to compensate Schnurman and other World War II chemical volunteers for their illnesses.

But not until June 11, 1991, days before a "60 Minutes" expose on Schnurman's saga, did the Pentagon acknowledge the WWII program for the first time. The VA immediately announced it would compensate veterans who took part in chamber or field tests, or who were exposed to high levels of toxins in the production or transport of chemicals, for any of seven illnesses. (Ah! The Power of the Press really can exist!)

VA promises action

Because the military destroyed or hid many records relating to chemical testing, the VA also said it would relax the evidence required to prove an illness was linked to service. Under the new rules, veterans exposed to poisonous gases would only have to show they later suffered from laryngitis, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, asthma or some eye diseases to win benefits.

The VA asked a committee of the National Academy of Sciences to see if any other diseases could be linked to the chemicals. Jay Katz, a Yale University law professor and ethicist, urged the committee to look beyond the medical literature and demand that the military track down every veteran, or his family, and warn them of the health risks. "The soldiers who 'volunteered' for these experiments had every expectation that they would be treated fairly by their officers and surely by the physicians," he wrote. "As doctors, we ask our patients to trust us, and this trust was manipulated, exploited and betrayed...You have no choice but to recommend that [the volunteers] be apprised of what had been done to
them. Doing otherwise is an abdication of medical responsibility."

In January 1993, the committee issued "Veterans at Risk," a chronicle of the mistreatment of World War II chemical volunteers. The servicemen, the committee found, were recruited "through lies and half-truths."

"Most appalling," the committee wrote, "was the fact that no follow-up medical care or monitoring was provided for any of the World War II human subjects," for thousands of chemical warfare production workers or for the hundreds of military personnel who survived a mustard gas ship explosion in Bari, Italy, in 1943.

The committee urged the VA to identify "each human subject in the WWII testing program's chamber and field tests," as well as chemical production workers so they could "be medically evaluated and followed by the VA."

Even for dead veterans, "their surviving family members deserve to know about the testing programs, the exposures and the potential results of those exposures," the committee said.

The report also added to the list of diseases linked to testing: respiratory cancers, skin cancer, a variety of skin abnormalities, leukemia, chronic pulmonary disease, sexual dysfunction, and mood and anxiety disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder.

The report dismissed the argument that the exigencies of war justified the tactics used to recruit volunteers. The military's use of its own personnel in LSD and radiation programs "demonstrated a well-ingrained pattern of abuse and neglect," the panel concluded. (They knew, then, and STILL they have done nothing to reign in the UGLY animal of ABUSE!) 

Upon the report's release, the Defense Department quickly accepted the recommendations, apologized, and pledged to help the VA find the men.

"The years of silent suffering have ended for these WWII veterans who participated in secret testing during their military service," declared Anthony Principi, then acting VA secretary.

The VA announced it already was taking steps to find veterans involved in the tests and grant them the benefits they deserved. The agency directed its regional offices to track Navy and Army claims involving chemical exposure. "This log should be kept current and available for random review," the directive said.

The VA asked the Defense Department for any rosters of servicemen involved in the tests. Once the names were gathered, the VA pledged to collaborate with the Internal Revenue Service and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to obtain current addresses for the veterans so they could be contacted directly. Valid claims could fetch up to $1,730 a month in disability, as well as free medical care. Widows also could qualify.

By early 1993, government assurances were plentiful and upbeat. (TRUST...US! And US Victims do...but, will Iraqi VICTIMS??)

"Be assured this will not be treated as business as usual," President Bill Clinton declared in February 1993.

Nobody really knew how many WWII gas veterans and chemical workers were still alive.

"It may be in the tens of thousands," Goss told a House subcommittee. "That is an astonishing number of people to have gone through a process, which we have, as a government, officially denied ever happened."

But for many of the soldiers in the 1st Chemical Casual Company, the assurances were too late.

Albert Pike, who owned a medical supply store in Akron, Ohio, died of lung cancer and respiratory failure on May 8, 1990, 13 months before the military came clean.

He received no benefits for those diseases.

Pike, however, had received compensation for mustard burns shortly after the war. On Jan. 30, 1946, one day after he was honorably discharged, the VA awarded Pike a monthly disability pension of $11.50 for the burns.

During the long illnesses that killed him at age 67, Pike never contacted the VA to file a new claim. And for many years after "Veterans at Risk" was published, his family never heard from the government. But in 1998, his children said, Pike's widow received a letter from the military inquiring about his health. The answer was in Pike's VA file, if anyone had bothered to look. The VA had paid $450 for Pike's burial. It classified his death as "non-service related."

His widow was given a flag.

Contact DAVID ZEMAN at 313-222-6593 or zeman@freepress.com.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)



PART III:

World War II vets' valor ends in pain, broken promises

Servicemen got runaround, even for valid claims

November 12, 2004

BY DAVID ZEMAN
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER


On the morning of March 10, 1993, as a blizzard barreled toward the East Coast, two senior officials from the Department of Veterans Affairs sat before a congressional panel and explained how the VA planned to track down thousands of World War II veterans exposed to hazardous chemicals.

"There is no doubt this is a dangerous occupational exposure," Dr. Susan Mather told the House subcommittee. "So we will get their current names and addresses from IRS and then we will notify them directly of their exposure and ask them to come in."

Nearly two years had passed since the Pentagon first acknowledged that it deliberately injured at least 4,000 soldiers and sailors in secret chemical tests during World War II. The Pentagon pledged to search for lists of these veterans for the VA.

Sitting below crystal chandeliers and a 30-foot arched ceiling accented with gold trim, Mather, a VA assistant chief of environmental medicine and public health, and John Vogel, deputy undersecretary for benefits, assured the congressmen the VA would actively pursue the men. "One cannot lose sight of the fact that medical care may be needed for these people," Vogel said.

Rep. Michael Bilirakis, R-Fla., pressed the point: "You are not waiting; you are not sitting back, basically, and waiting for claims to be filed by them?"

"Oh, no, not at all," Vogel said.

Starting the fight

Just north of Washington, a veteran of the 1st Chemical Casual Company, wracked with skin cancer, felt the jolt of history.

Lee Landauer picked up his newspaper in suburban Baltimore one morning and learned -- for the first time, he said -- that the military misled his unit about the dangers of the chemical tests; that the poisons used on him in 1943 could kill him 50 years later. He learned something else, too: Washington stood ready to help.

Landauer felt liberated. The secret was out; his sacrifice acknowledged. And, for the first time in a decade, the cancer that had picked at his face, arms, neck, back and chest could be explained.

"They made it sound like the government wanted to see me," Landauer said.

He pulled on his jacket and headed downtown to file a claim.

For the aging warriors of the 1st Chemical Casual Company, the flurry of attention the World War II program received in Washington in the early 1990s produced a rush of memories, and a disturbing new lens through which to view them.

As young recruits in 1943, they were locked in gas chambers with mustard, lewisite and other poisons to test protective clothing. They were told to keep quiet about the tests, to accept the nausea and burns to their skin, eyes or throat. In return, they were offered extended furloughs and the promise that their scars would heal, that the pain was temporary.

Patriots to the bone, the men of 1st Chemical had respected their oaths, even as their bodies began to falter and their suspicions rose about the chambers they once had entered so willingly. One study showed that a majority of servicemen sworn to secrecy kept their pledge even 50 years later, still believing they'd be sent to Leavenworth if they talked.

But now with the secret finally, wonderfully, cathartically, out, it was time to rethink old assumptions. Did years of sun cause their skin cancer, as they always had believed? Did cigarettes cause their emphysema? Was it their two months at Edgewood or a lifetime of lab work that made them sniffle and hack all winter?

Entering a gas chamber with their buddies seemed like such a small sacrifice when they were recruits. A half-century later, the experiments began to take on a more menacing cast.

"Someone once asked him why he did it," Elsie Weaver said of her husband, William, who suspected he had health problems linked to the testing and died in 1988. "He said, 'Well, I was 18. When you're 18, you don't think you'll be dying of anything the government is going to give you.' "

It is difficult to say how many of the 100 soldiers from the 1st Chemical unit were still alive when the government finally owned up to the experiments in 1991. Many had died obscurely years earlier, their lives -- and deaths -- a mystery to a government that now vowed to find them.

But that was in the past. Whatever Washington's mistakes, it now professed a commitment to locate chemical test veterans, wherever they lived.

"The years of silent suffering have ended for these WWII veterans who participated in secret testing during their military service," Anthony Principi, then-acting-secretary of Veterans Affairs, declared in 1993.

"Be assured," echoed President Bill Clinton, "this will not be treated as business as usual."

It was time to take care of these men.

Up stepped Alfred Strauss.

A contrary diagnosis

In June 1993, at age 80, Strauss wrote to the VA from his Century Village apartment in Deerfield Beach, Fla.

The retired chemist's medical records showed he suffered from several ailments linked to World War II testing: emphysema, chronic coughing and congestion, chronic obstructive lung disease and bronchitis. He just could not seem to catch his breath.

The VA sent Strauss to be examined by Ft. Lauderdale doctor Edward Michaelson.

In a Nov. 12, 1993, report, the doctor pinned Strauss' ailments on his weight -- he was 5 feet 9 1/2 , 202 pounds -- and a prior smoking habit. Inaccurately noting that Strauss had no history of bronchitis or emphysema, the doctor wrote, "It does not appear as if any exposure to inhaled irritant chemicals or fumes have contributed to his mild to moderate respiratory problem."

Perhaps the doctor was right. It was difficult to say, 50 years later, whether chemicals or nicotine caused Strauss' breathing problems. But the VA's stated policy was to resolve such conflicts in favor of the veteran. The VA had relaxed its requirements for granting mustard gas claims because the military's own policies -- the decades of secrecy, the reluctance to include chemical records in personnel files -- made it more difficult for veterans to prove their claims. The VA nonetheless rejected Strauss' claim, relying on the doctor's report. Reached recently at his Florida office, Michaelson said federal privacy law prevents him from discussing individual patients. He said, however, that linking a patient's lung disease to past chemical exposure is a complex task, requiring doctors to consider all aspects of a patient's history as well as the chemical involved.

"Just because someone was exposed to something doesn't mean they suffered any permanent impairment related to that exposure," he said. "The answer you're looking for is not a simple answer."

VA officials declined to comment on the specifics of Strauss' claim.

But Principi -- who was not at the VA when Strauss' claim was rejected -- told the Free Press last month such cases are troubling, if true.

If the chemical test veterans are being forced to prove their ailments were caused by the experiments, VA officials "are not applying the presumption correctly," Principi said. "If it's clear from the medical evaluation that you have a certain disease and there is clear, concrete evidence that you were exposed to mustard gas during some period of time, then you're deserving of compensation. I mean it's as simple to me as that."

Alfred Strauss did not appeal, and he never heard from the VA again. He died in 1999. "He got zero compensation," said Nellie Strauss, his 92-year-old widow.

False hopes

Around the time Strauss wrote to the VA from Florida, Sidney Wolfson of Farmington received an excited phone call from his brother.

"Sid," his brother Chuck said, "I've got something I'm sure you will be interested in." It was a newspaper article from Washington, perhaps the same one that Landauer had scanned in Maryland, or that had prompted Strauss to write from south Florida. Wolfson recalls reading the article and feeling relieved. "It was the first time I understood I was able to talk about it," Wolfson said. "It made me feel a little better."

He felt sure the VA would embrace his claim.

His medical file showed treatment for asthma, emphysema, bronchitis, lung disease, depression, anxiety and sexual dysfunction -- all linked to chemical testing at Edgewood.

Unlike most veterans, Wolfson maintained a meticulous record of his Army service. He had kept a photograph of his Edgewood unit, and a 1944 commendation from the Chemical Warfare Service thanking the men for enduring "pain, discomfort, and possible permanent injury" through "exposure to chemical agents."

In a shaky scrawl, Wolfson filled out a VA request for compensation, saying he had never sought benefits before, but his faltering condition and his wife Florence's deteriorating health made it difficult for him to earn extra money preparing taxes for other retirees. "Hopefully, I will be entitled to 'some' compensation which will benefit our late years," he wrote.

But like Strauss in Florida, Wolfson's VA exam sealed his fate. He was sent to a VA-approved osteopath, who concluded that Wolfson was free of every disease linked to chemical testing.

Lung disease, asthma, bronchitis, emphysema -- all gone. Even the scarring on his arms from mustard patch tests was no longer visible, the doctor said -- despite clear evidence of arm burns, visible today.

The VA officially denied Wolfson's claim seven months later. In its rejection letter, the VA found, among other things, that he produced "no record of exposure to mustard gas in service." This, despite the fact that his name and service number appear on the roster and commendation order of chemical test volunteers in his VA and military files.

"You have the right to appeal this decision," the VA wrote in March 1994.

But Wolfson said he felt defeated. He accepted the ruling and moved on.

Retreat and surrender

Why did the men of 1st Chemical give up? Why would soldiers, some of whom risked their lives overseas, surrender so meekly to a rejection letter? (Could it be that they have learned the lesson well and refuse to be VICTIMIZED again??)

A few said they felt guilty seeking benefits for injuries suffered outside of combat. Others were dispirited from past VA skirmishes. Indeed, the files of several 1st Chemical soldiers show how they were forced to haggle with the VA for even minor benefits immediately after the war. Others received stern letters ordering them to return "overpayments" of as little as $17 in pay after their discharge.

John L. Hannon, a 1st Chemical volunteer from Delaware, was repeatedly denied benefits after the war for injuries common among chemical test veterans -- blurred vision, conjunctivitis, congestion, breathing problems and anxiety.

In 1999, Hannon again sought benefits, this time for anxiety, nose and eye problems. In denying his claim in 2000, the VA wrote, "[T]he evidence does not show full body exposure to mustard gas during active military service."

In fact, Hannon's file meticulously records his exposure. (Facts don't matter...they just get in the way of 'official' foregone conclusions.)

"This man volunteered and participated in tests conducted by the Medical Division," states an Edgewood record in his VA file. Hannon suffered "2 plus erythema [blisters] on hands" after being "exposed to H [mustard] vapor in the chamber." The chemicals' toxicity produced "slight systemic effects."

Hannon, too, declined to appeal.

As the 1990s rolled on, illness and death took a firmer hold on the men of 1st Chemical.

That is not unexpected in men reaching their 80s. But it was the way they were faltering -- from cancers, skin and respiratory diseases -- that raised questions about the legacy of Edgewood.

•1994: John Hogan, a physician in Utah, went to his grave believing the chronic pain on his leg could be traced to a frayed Army uniform that allowed chemicals to burn his skin. "It would flare up and be burning and red and itchy; he just knew it was from the mustard gas," said his wife Valera. "He'd say, 'If that thing didn't have holes in it, I'd have been all right.' "

•1995: John Berzellini, an asthmatic locked in a chamber for hours as his mask filled with mucus and drool, died of heart failure in Maryland. The skin on his hands was as delicate as crepe paper. And every winter he was bedridden for weeks with what his wife Irene called "a bronchial thing."

•1997: Francis Earnshaw, the West Virginia recruit sent home for "nerves" only to have his disability claim rejected, died in Ohio. Mary Jo, his wife of 50 years, did not learn the details of his Edgewood training until recently, when contacted by a reporter. "He was a guinea pig," she declared.

•1998: Paul Walters, a Missouri jeweler, died of leukemia, without ever telling doctors about Edgewood's chambers.

•1999: Zenon Siepkowski died after a battle with leukemia and respiratory disease.

Five veterans. Five deaths. None sought benefits for the illnesses that tormented them.

After Siepkowski's death, though, his family did apply for burial benefits.

The request was rejected -- the VA declared his respiratory problems were unrelated to his service.

"We never followed up on that," said his son Richard. "It wasn't worth it."

Some Pentagon assistance

But as the men of 1st Chemical faded, a small team of Pentagon workers was aggressively attacking its mission, combing through archives and remote warehouses -- three, four or five times -- to find the names of soldiers, sailors or other Americans exposed to chemicals.

The obstacles were daunting. Many Army and Navy chemical rosters had long since vanished, or contained only last names. More critically, millions of World War II Army files perished in a 1973 fire at a St. Louis, Mo., records center, leaving Pentagon sleuths to search elsewhere.

Martha Hamed, a Pentagon supervisor assigned to the project, recalls spending winter days in the mid-1990s shivering in an unheated Utah warehouse, dragging boxes of veterans' records to a sunny spot on the floor to keep warm.

Col. Fred Kolbrener, a now-retired project leader, said, "We literally went down a shelf -- 'You've got this shelf, I've got that one' -- and we just read everything on that shelf. If we found anything at all that might have names in it, we grabbed it."

Pentagon workers sometimes called veterans directly to ensure they had the right man. "A lot of us were personally invested in it," said Hamed, whose father fought in World War II. Veterans "would call the office and say, 'I'm dying, can you help me?' It was heartbreaking. So we were on a mission. We tried to leave no stone unturned."

From 1994 through 1997, the Pentagon compiled roughly 6,500 names -- forwarding lists to the VA as they were gathered. "A couple times a month we'd be dropping stuff off at their offices," Kolbrener said. The Pentagon even sent new commendations to some 772 chemical volunteers.

Officials at the Institute of Medicine, the scientific body that helped analyze the World War II program in 1993, said in an Aug. 2, 1995, internal memo: "Once the DOD decides to investigate fully, the amount they can accomplish is amazing."

"Unfortunately," the memo added, "Col. Kolbrener has reported that the VA has not responded very quickly once it is proven that a given individual was, in fact, exposed."

Indeed, while the Pentagon searched for veterans' names into 1997, the VA had quietly stopped tracking mustard gas claims three years earlier, when media and congressional attention began to wane. (There's a LESSON to be learned, here!)

The Free Press discovered the VA failed to directly notify any veterans or chemical workers of the health risks posed by the tests or their eligibility for benefits. No letters, no phone calls. The agency did not even run Pentagon lists through Internal Revenue Service computers or other government agencies to find current addresses for the chemical veterans, as it had promised Congress.

Even today, the VA cannot produce records on chemical claims after 1994. What records they have show the agency processed slightly more than 2,000 claims by September 1994, granting benefits to 193 people -- less than 10 percent.

Who filed claims? Some were guinea pigs at places like Edgewood. Others helped make or transport chemical weapons for the military. Still others were ordinary enlisted men who may have mistaken the routine training exercises of their war years for true chemical tests.

Different people. Different circumstances. One common trait: They approached the VA. The VA didn't go to them.

And the men of 1st Chemical? They are still not officially acknowledged. The government database on the test program does not list the unit among those that participated in chemical experiments.

Kolbrener, now a security analyst with Virginia-based Xacta Corp., said last week he had no idea the VA had not searched for the people identified by his team. "I would think that that's why we were doing it," Kolbrener said.

The VA officials who testified to Congress in 1993 cannot, or will not, explain now what went wrong.

"I really don't know," Mather said. "At that time, outreach was very much the responsibility of veterans benefits, and Mr. Vogel was the undersecretary for benefits."

Vogel, who left the VA, refused comment. He referred questions to Quentin Kinderman, his assistant policy director. Now retired, Kinderman said, "I'm not sure I can really answer that. It really surprises me we would have dropped the issue at that time without doing something."

Those answers stunned Jim Slattery, the Kansas congressman who chaired the 1993 hearing.

"When government officials from the executive branch come before a committee in Congress and make a commitment, that's a sacred commitment and it must be honored," said Slattery, now a Washington attorney. "It's very disappointing." (But...as 1185's demise demonstrates, this isn't the first or only time...they need to LEARN the LESSON!)

Principi, the VA secretary, said he was unaware of any problems with the chemical program until the Free Press raised questions about it in the summer. He noted he left the agency in January 1993, when Clinton took office, and did not return until 2000.

"Quite honestly, you hate to learn about these things from others, that veterans have not been receiving their benefits," Principi said. "But the important thing to me is when a problem has been identified, to try to fix it, to try to help people. They served their nation honorably" so the VA must "do what we can to provide health care and compensation to them. That's always been my bottom line and still is my bottom line ... If more needs to be done, it will be done."

Harold Gracey, chief of staff to VA Director Jesse Brown during the Clinton years, said he, too, was unaware there were concerns about mustard-gas claims.

"I can't imagine that there was a lack of follow-through," said Gracey, an executive at a technology firm near Washington. The VA's only direct contact with mustard-gas volunteers came in a 1996 study on the psychological trauma faced by chemical volunteers. The study found that chemical volunteers had a higher rate of post-traumatic stress disorder than even World War II combat veterans. About four in 10 World War II guinea pigs interviewed in the study had some degree of post-traumatic stress disorder more than a half-century later.

VA researchers sought out 500 mustard-gas veterans, eventually interviewing 363 by phone. To make the veterans feel comfortable answering questions, the researchers promised they would not share their conversations with other VA offices.

Dr. Paula Schnurr, deputy director of the VA's post-traumatic stress research center, said the study cost $230,000. VA officials concede they could have used the same methods to search for the roughly 4,000 men used in chamber and field tests during the war. Assuming half of those men were alive in 1996, it would have cost the VA less than $1 million to find them and gauge their eligibility for benefits. (What...and ADMIT to WRONG doing?)

Principi, a combat-decorated Vietnam veteran, said last month it was not too late to act.

"If the VA promised to do a direct mailing and we did not do a direct mailing, having had their location and their addresses, then I would say we did let them down," he said. "If we did not, if my successor did not, whomever, me or anybody else, then I say we need to go back and take another look and see what should be done."

Tied up in red tape

Last summer, Lee Landauer, the veteran with skin cancer from Baltimore, offered a visitor a glimpse of his ravaged body. He has scabs on his nose, cheeks, forearms and elbows. He removed a pink golf shirt to reveal craters where lesions had been surgically scooped out.

Ten years had passed since Landauer drove into Baltimore to file a claim.

That visit was brief and crushing.

"They didn't ask me one question," he said. "The guy didn't take any notes; he didn't interview me. I thought he would keep me there and talk to me for an hour or so, maybe give me a physical exam, or even a flu shot.

"But when I get there, they didn't ask me squat. They didn't want to see me, really."

Still, he filled out the paperwork, forwarded his medical records -- and waited.

Nearly a year later, Landauer was still waiting.
 (TIME is a very effective WEAPON!)

"I have been trying since last December 1994 to get into the VA for my skin cancer," he wrote the VA in September 1995. "Anything you could do to speed up this process would be greatly appreciated."

In November 1995, the VA rejected his claim, saying he presented "no record of squamous cell carcinoma," the type of skin cancer linked to the World War II tests.

Actually, Landauer's medical records show "squamous cell carcinoma" dating to 1978 -- as well as bronchitis, emphysema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, all of them linked to chemicals. And yet, like so many of his Edgewood mates, Landauer shrugged and accepted it.

Landauer, 82, and his wife, Sheila, now live in a retirement condo in Sun City West, Ariz. In recent years, he worked as a grocery bagger at an Albertson's near his home -- the couple needed the medical coverage.

That coverage was tested last March when Landauer was hospitalized with pneumonia. Sheila, the determined advocate he will never be, had had enough. "You've got to go to the VA to get some medical care," she said. (There is a woman behind every successful EXPOSURE of ABUSE in the military...starting with TAILHOOK! As the Air Force Academy RAPE scandal shows...exposure isn't enough. ABUSE has to be Recognized, Challenged and Checked...by someone other than it's VICTIMS!)

So in June, Lee Landauer took one last shot with the VA. Sheila drove him to the agency's sprawling complex in downtown Phoenix, and he once again filled out paperwork for disability. The couple were told not to expect a decision until year's end.

Because Landauer had been on medical leave from his grocery job, he was allowed to see VA doctors while he awaited the agency's decision.

As autumn arrived, Sheila Landauer was nearly frantic. Her husband had received his last disability check -- for $85 -- from his grocery job, and his medical insurance was set to expire in the spring. They had taken to accepting financial help from their children.

"After March, it's over," Sheila said in October. "Everything is over."

But then last week, the Landauers' fortunes began to shift.

On Nov. 1 -- 10 days after the Free Press sent the VA a summary of Landauer's case -- the agency granted his disability claim for lung disease and bronchitis. The VA said he would now receive $817 a month and continuing medical care, making him the first soldier from 1st Chemical to be so compensated. The ex-platoon sergeant allowed himself a smile. For one exhilarating moment, it didn't matter that the VA had rejected essentially the same request 10 years earlier. It didn't matter that the VA has still not addressed his strongest claim: for the cancer that was eating at his face and torso. That was for another day. For now, he said, "I am tickled to death."

Sheila Landauer clutched the letter and wept.

Haunting reminders

Edgewood Arsenal does not look terribly different today from the morning in September 1943 when the men of 1st Chemical arrived as young recruits. The grounds are still sprinkled with meadows and stables. Eagles still fly overhead.

Although the grass is not always scrupulously tended, the squat, white structures remain. Some chemical plants have been converted into administrative buildings; others stand as rusty hulks, their beams and the earth beneath them too toxic to be disturbed.

Reminders are everywhere of Edgewood's pedigree.

Edgewood has been on the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund list for years. Storage yards still hold 1-ton mustard containers. Its grounds and surface water have tested positive for laboratory waste, PCBs, radiological compounds, napalm, nerve agent, white phosphorus, munitions and traces of mustard.

And Edgewood remains a home to chemical research.

Sixty years later, many of the same challenges exist for military scientists. The protective masks used by the military still fail too often. And scientists are still searching for a surefire antidote to mustard gas -- though they now use real guinea pigs in lab tests. (Really? It's doubtful that the VICTIMS of Lariam will believe that one!)

Meanwhile, veterans filing claims are urged patience. The VA is attempting to reduce a backlog of more than 300,000 disability claims as it deals with budget cuts.

But the VA secretary remains full of promise.

Last month, during a speech at a Texas convention of former prisoners of war, Principi announced to a crowd of cheering vets that they now were entitled to medical benefits for heart disease or stroke -- without being forced to prove their captivity caused their illness.

He praised the veterans' courage and patriotism.

"This is an issue," he said, "that has been studied and debated too long."

Contact DAVID ZEMAN at 313-222-6593 or zeman@freepress.com

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

MAMMA's Footnote:

Make no mistake, the ABUSE of POWER that leaves military health and safety issues languishing "too long", is SYSTEMIC and well entrenched. Breaking the cycle of ABUSE that has ingrained itself into the military mind set and initiating redress of the situation will require outside intervention...either from God or the Media, whichever comes first!


BACK TO THE TOP                             BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS












































Thanks to an EXCLUSIVE, 'posted' by MILITARYCORRUPTION.COM, the 'conclusion' that the military doesn't do anything wrong is, to say the least, questionable. Consider:

INSIDE THE CID
CONFESSIONS OF A ROUGUE AGENT
BY SGT RICHARD EDWARDS*

Our job was to enforce the law, but more times than not, we ended up breaking it. This was the paradox I faced as a young Criminal Investigation Division (CID) agent.

To us, the Constitution didn’t matter. Due process was a legal term we paid little attention to. We didn’t have to. Our officers and commanders used us to plant evidence, settle scores, and “target” people the brass didn’t like.

All the illusions I had about honesty and integrity and learning to be a “good cop”– that all went out the window, almost from the first day I became a CID agent. Sure, we busted people who committed crimes. But even a hard-nosed cop like I was in those days, couldn’t help but feel pity for some of the officers and men whose lives were ruined because they’d violated the Army’s regulations about “fraternization” and “adultery.”

“DOUBLE-STANDARD OF JUSTICE”

It was always “selective enforcement.” As long as you had enough rank or you were “connected,” you could escape punishment. I’ve known at least two bird colonels who could have been busted, but the commander in each case let them go. One quickly retired with full honors and benefits. The other colonel continued to have affairs for more than two years before he got out of the Army. And he even got the Legion of Merit at his retirement ceremony! We thought that was a real joke. But the lower ranks weren’t laughing. You’d be surprised at how much an E-4 knows what’s going on at his installation. The gossip, the stories, or who’s doing what to who, that gets around. There aren’t many secrets.

The “double-standard of justice” was routine. One man, usually a NCO, would lose his pension and be drummed out of the Army. Sometimes he’d get sent to Leavenworth if the offense had high political visibility. But the favored few - sergeant-majors and officers 0-5 and above, if they were “plugged in,” all they got was a slap on the wrist or nothing at all.

In fact, we saw one light colonel actually get promoted and given a medal. And we knew he was a dirt-bag. But the important difference was, that dirt-bag was the general’s “pal,” and nobody but nobody was going to touch him! The PMO made sure to let us know who’s who, and who to lay off of.

We knew who the heavy drinkers were. If we could have, we’d have busted some of the ranking officers who drove under the influence. But the word was to “look the other way,” so we did. Who needs to stop someone who could get you in big trouble?

INTIMIDATION TACTICS

I have to admit, it was a real “high” sometimes to know that a junior NCO like I was, could strike terror into the heart of a major or master sergeant. We wore plain-clothes and no one outside the unit knew what rank we were. But we had that badge and we were armed.

Part of our intimidation tactics was to “show” our sidearms when we arrested a suspect. I’d pull back my windbreaker and place the palm of my hand on the gun butt. The “perp” got the message real fast not to mess with me!

It also didn’t hurt to make them think you’d beat them at the slightest provocation. Of course, you don’t do that until you have them in the MP station where no outsiders will see or hear. That look of fear in their eyes, I’ll never forget it. It made me feel ten feet tall. Better than drugs.

VIOLATION OF RIGHTS

I/We didn’t worry about suspects complaining to the IG. That’s another joke. I knew IG’s that would “sucker” a soldier into thinking he was going to get help. Then, as soon as they was out the door, the IG would be on the phone to the “old man,” ratting the soldier out.

JAG officers? A few actually cared, and some even tried to defend their “clients.” But anyone who wanted a promotion from captain to major, or to continue with their Army career, they knew what they had to do. Just “go through the motions.” A few JAGs we knew did more than that. They pumped information out of those they were “defending” and then passed it on to the prosecution. We’d call cases like that “a slam dunk.”

I never planted evidence myself – I wouldn’t have, unless I was given a direct order – but I had buddies who did. That helped nail down some drug cases. The end justified the means.

Getting into an office after-hours, or somebody’s quarters when we knew they were gone, that happened several times. When you’re trying to make a case, you do what you need to do. No way could we get away with half what we did if we were civilian police.

STARTING TO HAVE REGRETS

I think I started to lose my stomach for it when we were detailed to harass an officer the command had targeted. He was being treated for depression already, so it made it all the easier for us to “break him” and “send him over the edge.” It’s just I didn’t figure he’d kill himself. All we wanted was to intimidate him. He had a family and small children. Sometimes I think about them. I wonder if someday they’ll ask themselves why their father committed suicide? I hope they never find out.

You asked about “accidents” and other “suicides” that might be something else. I really don’t want to go there. Let’s just say, there’s ways to make a death look like it was just an accident. And an official finding of “suicide” is the best friend a CID agent has. That means the case is wrapped up tight. No need to do an exhaustive investigation. We have enough on our plate as is.

I read your story on the Marine colonel who got whacked and it was called a “suicide.” I did plenty of things I’m ashamed of now, but if I’d been in on something like that, I don’t think I could live with myself. It’s bad enough now, knowing that I may have contributed to a man’s death. I just didn’t figure he’d “take himself out.” But he did. 

(EDITOR’S NOTE: SGT “Richard Edwards”(*) is, in actuality, a pseudonym for another former CID agent. That man was an E-5 and was able to prove his prior service.)

A 'link' for MilitaryCorruption.com can be found on the MAMMA Supports page and you are invited to visit their site to 'Read More About It' and their ongoing efforts in "Fighting for the truth...exposing the corrupt".

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

BACK TO THE TOP                                  BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS







































Questioning Ethics of Abu Ghraib Doctors: the tip of the iceberg
By Willow Marie Maze

In August of 2004, the British medical journal, Lancet, published a report written by University of Minnesota professor Steven Miles along with its own editorial comments. Touted as a “scathing analysis” of the behavior of military doctors, nurses and medics working for the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib, the report questions their ethics in a situation Dr. Miles terms as “…a fundamental breakdown of the military medical system for these prisoners.”  

Utilizing media reports, congressional testimony, sworn statements of detainees and soldiers, and medical journals - not events he witnessed firsthand, Dr. Miles asserted that doctors at Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison falsified death certificates to cover up murders. The Lancet condemned the behavior of the doctors and called for health care workers to “break their silence” and to “…give a full and accurate account of events at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.”

The Department of Defense (DoD) took “strong exception” to the allegations and objected to what it maintains is tantamount to the “wholesale indictment” of U. S. medical personnel and care in Iraq. In a prepared statement, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, U.S. Army spokesman for detainee operations in Iraq, said, “Many of these cases remain under investigation and charges will be brought against any individual where there is evidence of abuse.”

Neither Dr. Miles’ assertions nor the DoD’s  repudiations are new or come as a surprise to the members of MAMMA (M+others Aligned for Military & Murder Accountability), whose members speak from experience about every element (including intimidation, embarrassment and humiliation) of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal. The significance of Dr. Miles’ report being published in a British journal is not lost on them either as some members have tried for years to get truthful manner of death rulings established for service members who died under questionable and/or bizarre circumstances.

Jan Beimdiek, Founder/Directing CEO of MAMMA, debunks and decries the DoD’s standard; “Trust us…we’ll take care of everything“ stance. Referring to Lt. Col. Johnson’s statement, she says that this is typical military doublespeak and translates thusly; “Many of these cases remain under investigation, until the heat is off, and (unless a ‘scapegoat‘ is found) charges will be brought against any individual where there is evidence of abuse, when hell freezes over!“

While lamenting that “the view from the cheap seats seems a bit obscured“, Mrs. Beimdiek supports the bulk of Dr. Miles’ report. However, she is deeply concerned by the Lancet’s companion piece that serves as a challenge to do the right thing. Given the fact that Spec. Joseph M. Darby (AKA the whistle blower) is in protective custody and the conviction that the death of her son, who dared to speak up and question a suicide ruling, served as the exclamation point for the message: “Keep your eyes and your mouth shut or you will be the next one going home in a body bag”, she fears that challenging lowly (naïve and idealistic) medics to “…come forward and tell what they know”, without first determining the extent of the abuse complicity, could have deadly consequences.

Dr. Miles contends that at prisons in both Iraq and Afghanistan, “Physicians routinely attributed detainee deaths on death certificates to heart attacks, heat stroke or natural causes without noting the unnatural (cause) of the death.”

No one connected with MAMMA would dispute that contention. Rather, they stress that it is not just prison detainees whose deaths are routinely attributed to; heart attacks, heat stroke, natural causes (including blunt force trauma) or (to them) the all to familiar ruling of suicide. Joan Myers, a MAMMA member who once lived in Iraq, is sure that Mr. Rumsfield’s mandate (regarding detainee autopsies and subsequent autopsy reports), is the precursor for “Suicide” rulings being posted from the prisons.

Interestingly, many of  the personal experiences of MAMMA members are similar to the case studies Dr. Miles highlighted. For example, Dr. Miles’ report cites one case that involved a prisoner whose head was pushed into a sleeping bag while interrogators sat on his chest and when he (the prisoner) died, a surgeon blamed natural causes.

Joan Myers, widow of Capt. Jack W. Myers, is painfully familiar with that scenario. Mrs. Myers vividly remembers the night of December 12, 2000, when her husband, hospitalized in the VA Hospital, died. She tells a chilling story of how Jack was accosted by another patient, who sat on his chest, while staff members tried not to notice. Jack suffocated to death. Joan says, “Right after Jack died, I was told to expect a ruling of manslaughter due to negligence.“ Instead, his death is listed as an accident and Joan fears that such a travesty of justice leaves others vulnerable to the same tragedy and heartache.

Another incident that Dr. Miles cites is an example from a Human Rights Watch report in which soldiers tied a beaten detainee to the top of his cell door and gagged him. The death certificate for this prisoner indicated that he died of “natural causes…during his sleep.” However, following media attention, the Pentagon changed the cause of death to homicide by blunt force injuries and suffocation.

Sonya Killian, another member of MAMMA, can easily relate to this situation, until it gets to the part where the Pentagon changed the death to a homicide. The body of her son, MSSR Stephen J. Killian Jr., USN, was found hanging from the top of a door in a hotel room on May 30, 1999. In less than 24 hours, his death was listed as a “suicide” and Mrs. Killian says, “We (his family) are expected to believe that he traveled from Oceana, VA to Las Vegas, NV to take his own life!”

In the military, all deaths not combat-related are to be treated as homicides, until enough evidence proves otherwise. Yet, Don Housman, senior investigator for the Beimdiek case, told Mrs. Beimdiek that “judgment calls (at the scene) are made all the time.” Then, isn’t it a bit backwards that the deaths of so many military members are being ruled as suicides and their families are left with the challenge to prove otherwise?

Many have tried, but prior to the Iraqi case that Dr. Miles cited…only one has succeeded in getting any records changed. It took 50 years and an Act of Congress for the survivors of the USS Indianapolis (the betrayal of the Indy and her brave crew is an incredible story in and of itself) to get the truth told about the death of their captain, Captain Charles Butler McVay III.

By all accounts, the task of getting records (“once in writing…set in stone“) changed is nigh onto impossible to complete. Inexplicably, the bottom line of the autopsy report is the alpha and the omega of each case. In cases that demonstrate deficiencies (medical or otherwise) that validate a dispute of that bottom line, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) calls out the big guns and orders a Psychological Autopsy.

The latest case to go under the gun is that of Col. Philip Shue, a USAF Psychiatrist, whose bizarre death (ruled suicide) has become a matter for the courts in Texas. Though his widow, Lt. Col. (ret) Tracy Shue, USAF, is under a gag order and can not comment, others, having experienced the ordeal, are sure that the report, with its predetermined concurring conclusion, will constitute nothing more than a character assassination. 

A review of materials from the case of HM3 Scott Beimdiek certainly supports that assessment. Reports and rebuttals show that:
- the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) report contains a discrepancy of the lighting in the room where Beimdiek’s body was found…as one statement notes the overhead lights were on and another states the lights were off.
- Dr. Michael Gelles, chief psychologist for NCIS and directed by AFIP (conflict of interest?), filed a concurring conclusion report, rooted in his determination that; “…the room was dimly lit by a bathroom light” thus “…being suggestive of autoerotic activity.“
- Beimdiek’s family challenged Dr. Gelles’ conclusion, noting that the death scene lacked an adjacent bathroom and questioning if overhead lighting would be conducive to such an activity?
- the review report from DoD really muddled things by noting; “…disclosed no misstatements of fact presented by Dr. Gelles” and “He used the word ’Bathroom’ where he meant to use the word ’Bedroom’”, then, decisively closed the case.

Beside the obvious question of how the use of one word when intending to use another fails to qualify as a misstatement…if the lighting is not supportive of this activity, is the activity itself questionable? Considering that a life has been cut short and that murderers who get away with murder are dangerous to others, isn’t getting to the truth about a death more important than supporting a bottom line that may be wrong? Isn‘t that like drawing a line in the sand and daring someone to cross it?

The analysis that Dr. Miles presents is centered on his belief that the abuse scandal was fueled by a medical system that failed to ensure proper treatment of injured prisoners. Following a notation on the “extremely humane” treatment of prisoners in World War II and the Korean and Vietnam wars, Dr. Miles said, “I think this represents a sharp turn in the history of military medicine in the United States and is one of the issues that deserves to be explored.”

Mrs. Beimdiek applauds Dr. Miles’ efforts to expose the medical complicity factor of the prison, but stresses consideration of all the factors that led to the abuse. She is emphatic that the “…turn in the history of military medicine in the United States” is not as sharp as Dr. Miles seems to think and  “…faked death certificates to try and cover up homicides.“ are nothing new! She is adamant that any investigation, medical or congressional, that would leave “No stone unturned” in getting to the bottom of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, needs to include a good look at the headstones of American and British service members, who served their country…only to end up in early graves with their dignity assaulted, their names sullied and denied justice. She asks, “Don’t they deserve the most basic respect of having the truth told about how they died?”

Indeed, a visit to the MAMMA site at: www.oocities.org/gold_star_mother gives credence to the claim that there is a problem with accountability and abuse of power in the military. The entire site, formulated on the premise that an injustice to one is an injustice to all, is dedicated to the task of exposing military injustice, betrayal and abuse. It portrays a tale of pure shock and horror. The shock is that these situations are still happening and the horror is that they are being allowed to happen.

With an emphasis on situations that deal with questionable deaths, the site stresses (what it calls) the 3 R’s of Redress, Reeducate and Restore:
1) Redress…deals with the concept that the DoD and the Pentagon have established a closed society and questions this segment of society being given the power to police itself. Evidence abounds that, for years, the hierarchy of both of these institutions have obstructed justice in criminal cases that range from rape (asking the question…”Would there have been an Air Force Academy rape scandal if lessons had been learned from Tailhook?) through murder!
2) Reeducate…deals with the concept that the ‘go along to get along’ genre in Washington serves to enable the usurpation of power by people who have come to view the men and women in uniform as property…to do with as they please. It seems that people need to be reminded that military personnel are the sons, daughters and spouses of their neighbors, on loan to the military to defend our country if the need (justifiable war) arises…not military property or guinea pigs to be used, abused and discarded.
3) Restore…deals with the concept that public officials need to service the people who serve them and all their countrymen. In seeking to restore dignity to anyone defiled by the ultimate injustice of a mislabeled “manner of death” ruling, it became apparent that members of Congress need reminding that it is their responsibility to hold the military accountable for all charges of abuse of power and wrong doing.

In the early 90’s, David Zucchino, with the Philadelphia Enquirer, wrote a series of articles dealing with questionable deaths in the military and, in the late 90’s, John Hanchette wrote another set for the Gannett group. Unfortunately, they (and every other reporter, who has broached this topic) didn’t feel qualified or competent to challenge or dispute any medical findings that purportedly substantiate the conclusion that is registered on the bottom line of the death certificate. While their efforts have succeeded in intriguing the public, there hasn’t been any advancement in initiating changes that could or would put a stop to future questionable rulings. It is doubted that anything will change, until officials learn the lessons from Enron.

The staffers in the Congressional offices of  Senators and Representatives also feel unqualified to challenge the bottom line of an autopsy report. Thus it is that all challenges of  discrepancies, medical and otherwise, keep being funneled through the AFIP. A situation that emboldened the (former) Director, Dr. Charles J. Stahl, to tell Jan Beimdiek, “You will get your reports. You will get your pictures. You can take them anywhere you want, to whoever you want. It won’t get you anywhere. This is the court of last resort and you have nowhere else to go!”

Indeed, the Beimdiek family got pictures and reports, only to find, as many have found, that some pictures contradict the reports. A Beimdiek sampling of contradictions includes, but is not limited to;
1) a picture that shows a broken hyoid bone, embedded in the back of the throat…negated by a report that says the hyoid bone is intact.
2) a picture that shows; red thumb shaped marks at the base of each armpit, a red palm sized mark and a brownish mark near the small of the back…negated by a report that says there are no marks on Beimdiek’s back.
3) a picture that shows (to an objective untrained eye) a nasty bruise on the scrotum that has oozed a trickling of liquid that looks suspiciously like blood…negated by a report that ignores the liquid and makes note of a “reddish brown patch of skin” (known to be nonexistent, prior to his death).
4) a picture that shows a spittle pattern that indicates the victim died, laying in his left side…negated by a report that notes a hanging death.
A picture is worth a thousand words. When a few words are given the power to overrule a picture, that gives meaning to the phrase; “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”     

Dr. Miles said, “The detaining power’s health personnel are the first and often the last line of defense against human rights abuses. Their failure to assume that role emphasizes to the prisoner how utterly beyond humane appeal they are.“ Personally familiar with the lost and dejected feeling of being “beyond humane appeal“, Mrs. Beimdiek concurs with that assessment, but asserts that any “legacy of reform” that could or would result from this prison scandal will require a comprehensive investigation that far exceeds the medical minions stationed at the prisons.

Mounting evidence makes it quite clear that the Abu Ghraib prison scandal that the world has become privy to and outraged by…is but the “tip of the iceberg” of an abuse of power situation that has long plagued the American victims of Military Injustice. The abuse is systemic in nature and well entrenched. Outside intervention, not “in house” investigations, is needed to break the cycle and initiate redress. As every abuse victim knows, begging an abuser to stop is an exercise in futility.

The problem that needs to be recognized, challenged and checked (ASAP) is centered in the Power and Control system (utilizing; Isolation, Intimidation, Threats, Economic and Emotional Abuse, etc.) used to maintain discipline in the Military. Evidence suggests that…when the military initiated an interdisciplinary field of training that incorporated mind manipulation techniques (complete with lessons learned from the Jan. 20, 1942, Wannese Conference) to up their kill ratio, there was an upsurge of violence and efforts to control it (in house) only worsened matters. Thus, a cycle of abuse…akin to what battered women experience…took off with a cover up in hot pursuit!

Unfortunately (for the world)…this classic abuse pattern (a militarized version of domestic violence) is currently playing out in a part of the world where the (to be expected) escalation of violence can be easily labeled as terrorism! If this cycle continues…unrecognized, unchallenged and unchecked…can the (U.S. proposed) “never ending war on terrorism” be far behind?

If the prospect of a perpetual war doesn’t appeal to you, MAMMA urges you to speak up and tell your elected officials, via; calls, E-mail and letters, to follow through on the promise they made to the world and hold Public Hearings that leave no stone (including headstones) unturned in getting to the bottom of the abuse that has manifested itself in Iraq.

Our children deserve a legacy of Peace…not War!


willowmariemaze@yahoo.com

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)



BACK TO THE TOP                                                   BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS


































Nov. 16, 2004. 01:00 AM

   
Should Canada indict Bush?
THOMAS WALKOM

When U.S. President George W. Bush arrives in Ottawa — probably later this year — should he be welcomed? Or should he be charged with war crimes?

It's an interesting question. On the face of it, Bush seems a perfect candidate for prosecution under Canada's Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act.

This act was passed in 2000 to bring Canada's ineffectual laws in line with the rules of the new International Criminal Court. While never tested, it lays out sweeping categories under which a foreign leader like Bush could face arrest.
 
In particular, it holds that anyone who commits a war crime, even outside Canada, may be prosecuted by our courts. What is a war crime? According to the statute, it is any conduct defined as such by "customary international law" or by conventions that Canada has adopted.

War crimes also specifically include any breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, such as torture, degradation, wilfully depriving prisoners of war of their rights "to a fair and regular trial," launching attacks "in the knowledge that such attacks will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians" and deportation of persons from an area under occupation.
 
Outside of one well-publicized (and quickly squelched) attempt in Belgium, no one has tried to formally indict Bush. But both Oxfam International and the U.S. group Human Rights Watch have warned that some of the actions undertaken by the U.S. and its allies, particularly in Iraq, may fall under the war crime rubric.

The case for the prosecution looks quite promising. First, there is the fact of the Iraq war itself. After 1945, Allied tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo — in an astonishing precedent — ruled that states no longer had the unfettered right to invade other countries and that leaders who started such conflicts could be tried for waging illegal war.

Concurrently, the new United Nations outlawed all aggressive wars except those authorized by its Security Council.

Today, a strong case could be made that Bush violated the Nuremberg principles by invading Iraq. Indeed, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has already labelled that war illegal in terms of the U.N. Charter.
 
Second, there is the manner in which the U.S. conducted this war.

The mistreatment of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison is a clear contravention of the Geneva Accord. The U.S. is also deporting selected prisoners to camps outside of Iraq (another contravention). U.S. press reports also talk of shadowy prisons in Jordan run by the CIA, where suspects are routinely tortured. And the estimated civilian death toll of 100,000 may well contravene the Geneva Accords prohibition against the use of excessive force.
 
Canada's war crimes law specifically permits prosecution not only of those who carry out such crimes but of the military and political superiors who allow them to happen.

What has emerged since Abu Ghraib shows that officials at the highest levels of the Bush administration permitted and even encouraged the use of torture.
 
Given that Bush, as he likes to remind everyone, is the U.S. military's commander-in-chief, it is hard to argue he bears no responsibility.
 
Then there is Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. says detainees there do not fall under the Geneva accords. That's an old argument.
 
In 1946, Japanese defendants explained their mistreatment of prisoners of war by noting that their country had never signed any of the Geneva Conventions. The Japanese were convicted anyway.
 
Oddly enough, Canada may be one of the few places where someone like Bush could be brought to justice. Impeachment in the U.S. is most unlikely. And, at Bush's insistence, the new international criminal court has no jurisdiction over any American.

But a Canadian war crimes charge, too, would face many hurdles. Bush was furious last year when Belgians launched a war crimes suit in their country against him — so furious that Belgium not only backed down under U.S. threats but changed its law to prevent further recurrences.
 
As well, according to a foreign affairs spokesperson, visiting heads of state are immune from prosecution when in Canada on official business. If Ottawa wanted to act, it would have to wait until Bush was out of office — or hope to catch him when he comes up here to fish.

And, of course, Canada's government would have to want to act. War crimes prosecutions are political decisions that must be authorized by the federal attorney-general.  

Still, Prime Minister Paul Martin has staked out his strong opposition to war crimes. This was his focus in a September address to the U.N. General Assembly.

There, Martin was talking specifically about war crimes committed by militiamen in far-off Sudan. But as my friends on the Star's editorial board noted in one of their strong defences of concerted international action against war crimes, the rule must be, "One law for all."

Thomas Walkom writes every Tuesday. twalkom@thestar.ca.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

A YES vote RESPONSE:

Prime Minister Paul Martin
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellinton Street
Ottawa
K1A 0A2

November 18, 2004

Dear Mr. Martin,

On Nov. 16, 2004, the Toronto Star asked: “Should Canada indict Bush?” This letter is being sent to demonstrate that such action is warranted and request that you initiate an ‘Intervention’ in the ABUSE situation that has manifested itself in Iraq.

The abuse that the world has become privy to and OUTRAGED by, firstly at the Abu Ghraib prison and now in cities, like Fallujah, that are being destroyed (that they might be saved)...is but the ‘tip of the iceberg’ of an ABUSE situation that has long plagued the American victims of Military Injustice.

As you may or may not know...ABUSE is an ugly insidious animal that feeds and grows on it’s own heinous element of DENIAL. Denial by....
- the perpetrator, who justifies his/her behavior by blaming the victims,
- the people, who turn a blind eye to the situation and enable the abuse to continue and
- the VICTIMS, who, by nature of the beast...tend to feel responsible for their own abuse.
 
The DoD and the Pentagon, aided by the ‘go along to get along’ genre in Washington, have established a CLOSED Society. For decades, the hierarchy of both of these institutions have obstructed Justice in 'criminal' cases that range from RAPE through MURDER!

That charge is not made lightly. That you might better understand it...the following material is being sent for your consideration of content. Enclosed, please find:
1) The May 8, 1997, letter to Senator Kempthorne...requesting some understanding,
2) The June 10, 1997, letter to Senator Kempthorne...exposing a National Security risk,
3) The July 17, 2003, letter to Congressman Oberstar...requesting representation,
4) The June 23, 2004, amendment to that request, sent to office staffer, Ken Hasskamp,
5) The July 12, 2004, pitch to Michael Moore for public exposure,
6) An article by Willow Marie Maze that has been denied ‘ink’,
7) A copy of the ‘Power and Control’ Wheel used to foster understanding of abuse,
8) The Oct. 24, 2003, E-mail to Geoff Metcalf...dealing with goals and objectives and
9) The Nov. 7, 2003, overview message, sent to David Vaughn, VICTIM of Gulf War I.

Make no mistake, this ABUSE of POWER is SYSTEMIC and well entrenched. Breaking this ‘cycle’ of ABUSE and initiating redress of the situation will require outside intervention.

I implore you...INTERVENE!

Before you dismiss this plea as ‘out of your hands’, ask yourself two questions:
1) Do you really believe that the latest victims of US military ABUSE will just “Hang in there” (like human time bombs...waiting to IMPLODE), until they get Justice?
2) Do YOU want to live in a world of perpetual WAR! (on terrorism)...fueled by (God knows how many) human time bombs ready to EXPLODE?

I entreat you...Don’t make the same mistake that Martin Luther made on January 20, 1942, during the Wannese Conference. Speak Up...NOW!

Thank you for any time and attention you afford this request for intervention. Feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. Meanwhile, I pray that God will guide and direct you in recognizing, challenging and checking the EVIL that must be stopped, lest the world again finds itself praying: “God, HELP us ALL!”

God Bless America and her Defenders!
Jan Beimdiek, Directing CEO of MAMMA

CC’s of this letter are being sent to:

MAMMA  members  and various other interested parties (AKA Victims),
 
Mary Deanne Shears, Managing Editor of The Toronto Star


BACK TO TOP                                              BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS






























America is going the way of Germany

The Forum
Published Saturday, November 27, 2004
 
During June 1941, a German led "coalition of the willing" launched a massive assault on the Soviet Union. This pre-emptive attack was needed to dethrone a barbaric tyrant, destroy Bolshevism, control Soviet resources and rid the world of a menacing threat to Germany's security.
 
The partisans who banded together to fight the invasion were labeled "terrorists" by German propaganda and not as "nationalists" or "patriots" defending their homeland from a foreign invader.
 
The German government predicted victory in a few short months, but soon found itself bogged down as Soviet resistance increased.
 
By 1942-43, after Stalingrad and Kursk, the war was essentially over.
 
No historian (that's incredible) doubts that the invasion of the Soviet Union was unjustified. It was condemned by statesmen all over the world.
 
Now that the United States has launched its own illegal invasion of a defenseless country, after aiding and supporting the dictator through all his atrocities, it's seen by the elites in charge as totally justified.
 
The Iraqi nationalists, as they have done throughout their history, are fighting another foreign invader intent on establishing a puppet government to steal their resources and control their lives.
 
The United States propaganda machine labels these fighters "terrorists" or "insurgents" when they know they are fighting "nationalist forces."
 
As atrocities increase against Iraqis, the "moral" people in the media and government excuse it by saying "war is hell" or "we have to do such things in order to win," thus doing the Germans one better.
 
Suffice it to say that when it comes to war, the American people are just as ignorant as any other fully propagandized population. They back aggression when their leaders condone it. They excuse atrocities by their own forces while condemning the same kind of actions by official enemies.
 
Adolph Hitler once said, "How convenient for governments that their people don't think." As the current aggression in the Gulf proves, nothing has changed.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

BACK TO THE TOP                                         BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS
































Comes from the Sierra Times at: http://www.sierratimes.com/03/05/02/article_io.htm

Death By Slow Burn -
How America Nukes Its Own Troops
What 'Support Our Troops' Really Means
By Amy Worthington - The Idaho Observer

On March 30, an AP photo featured an American pro-war activist holding a sign: "Nuke the evil scum, it worked in 1945!" That's exactly what George Bush has done. America's mega-billion dollar war in Iraq has been indeed a NUCLEAR WAR.

Bush-Cheney have delivered upon 17 million Iraqis tons of depleted uranium (DU) weapons, a "liberation" gift that will keep on giving. Depleted uranium is a component of toxic nuclear waste, usually stored at secure sites. Handlers need radiation protection gear.

Over a decade ago, war-makers decided to incorporate this lethal waste into much of the Pentagon's weaponry. Navy ships carrying Phalanx rapid fire guns are capable of firing thousands of DU rounds per minute.(1) Tomahawk missiles launched from U.S. ships and subs are DU-tipped.(2) The M1 Abrams tanks are armored with DU.(3) These and British Challenger II tanks are tightly packed with DU shells, which continually irradiate troops in or near them.(4) The A-10 "tank buster" aircraft fires DU shells at machines and people on the battlefield.(5)

DU munitions are classified by a United Nations resolution as illegal weapons of mass destruction. Their use breaches all international laws, treaties and conventions forbidding poisoned weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.

Ironically, support for our troops will extend well beyond the war in Iraq. Americans will be supporting Gulf War II veterans for years as they slowly and painfully succumb to radiation poisoning. U.S and British troops deployed to the area are the walking dead. Humans and animals, friends and foes in the fallout zone are destined to a long downhill spiral of chronic illness and disability. Kidney dysfunction, lung damage, bloody stools, extreme fatigue, joint pain, unsteady gait, memory loss and rashes and, ultimately, cancer and premature death await those exposed to DU.

Award-winning journalist Will Thomas wrote: "As the last Gulf conflict so savagely demonstrated, GI immune systems reeling from multiple doses of experimental vaccines offer little defense against further exposure to chemical weapons, industrial toxins, stress, caffeine, insect repellent and radiation leftover from the last war. This is a war even the victors will lose."(6)

When a DU shell is fired, it ignites upon impact. Uranium, plus traces of plutonium and americium, vaporize into tiny, ceramic particles of radioactive dust. Once inhaled, uranium oxides lodge in the body and emit radiation indefinitely. A single particle of DU lodged in a lymph node can devastate the entire immune system according to British radiation expert Roger Coghill.(7)

The Royal Society of England published data showing that battlefield soldiers who inhale or swallow high levels of DU can suffer kidney failure within days.(8) Any soldier now in Iraq who has not inhaled lethal radioactive dust is not breathing. In the first two weeks of combat, 700 Tomahawks, at a cost of $1.3 million each, blasted Iraqi real estate into radioactive mushroom clouds.(9) Millions of DU tank rounds liter the terrain. Cleanup is impossible because there is no place on the planet to put so much contaminated debris.

Bush Sr.'s Gulf War I was also a nuclear war. 320 tons of depleted uranium were used against Iraq in 1991.(10) A 1998 report by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances confirms that inhaling DU causes symptoms identical to those claimed by many sick vets with Gulf War Syndrome.(11) The Gulf War Veterans Association reports that at least 300,000 Gulf War I vets have now developed incapacitating illnesses.(12) To date, 209,000 vets have filed claims for disability benefits based on service-connected injuries and illnesses from combat in that war.(13)

Dr. Asaf Durakovic, a professor of nuclear medicine at Georgetown University, is a former army medical expert. He told nuclear scientists in Paris last year that tens of thousands of sick British and American soldiers are now dying from radiation they encountered during Gulf War I. He found that 62 percent of sick vets tested have uranium isotopes in their organs, bones, brains and urine.(14) Laboratories in Switzerland and Finland corroborated his findings.

In other studies, some sick vets were found to be expressing uranium in even their semen. Their sexual partners often complained of a burning sensation during intercourse, followed by their own debilitating illnesses.(15)

Nothing compares to the astronomical cancer rates and birth defects suffered by the Iraqi people who have endured vicious nuclear chastisement for years.(16) U.S. air attacks against Iraq since 1993 have undoubtedly employed nuclear munitions. Pictures of grotesquely deformed Iraqi infants born since 1991 are overwhelming.(17) Like those born to Gulf War I vets, many babies born to troops now in Iraq will also be afflicted with hideous deformities, neurological damage and/or blood and respiratory disorders.(18)

As an Army health physicist, Dr. Doug Rokke was dispatched to the Middle East to salvage DU-contaminated tanks after Gulf War I. His Geiger counters revealed that the war zones of Iraq and Kuwait were contaminated with up to 300 millirems an hour in beta and gamma radiation plus thousands to millions of counts per minute in alpha radiation. Rokke recently told the media: "The whole area is still trashed. It is hotter than heck over there still. This stuff doesn't go away."(19)

DU remains "hot" for 4.5 billion years. Radiation expert Dr. Helen Caldicott confirms that the dust-laden winds of DU-contaminated war zones "will remain effectively radioactive for the rest of time."(20) The murderous dust storms which ensnared coalition troops during the first few days of the current invasion are sure to have significant health consequences.

Rokke and his cleanup team were issued only flimsy dust masks for their dangerous work. Of the 100 people on Rokke's decontamination team, 30 have already "dropped dead." Rokke himself is ill with radiation damage to lungs and kidneys. He has brain lesions, skin pustules, chronic fatigue, continual wheezing and painful fibromyalgia. Rokke warns that anyone exposed to DU should have adequate respiratory protection and special coveralls to protect their clothing because, he says, you can't get uranium particles off your clothing.

The U.S. military insists that DU on the battlefield is not a problem. Colonel James Naughton of the U.S. Army Material Command recently told the BBC that complaints about DU "had no medical basis."(21) The military's own documents belie this. A 1993 Pentagon document warned that "when soldiers inhale or ingest DU dust they incur a potential increase in cancer risk."(22) A U.S. Army training manual requires anyone who comes within 25 meters of DU-contaminated equipment to wear respiratory and skin protection.(23) The U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute admitted: "If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical consequences."(24) The Institute also stated that, if the troops were to realize what they had been exposed to, "the financial implications of long-term disability
payments and healthcare costs would be excessive."(25) For pragmatic reasons, DOD chooses to lie and deny.

Dr. Rokke confirms that the Pentagon lies about DU dangers and is criminally negligent for neglecting medical attention needed by DU-contaminated vets. He predicts that the numbers of American troops to be sickened by DU from Gulf War II will be staggering.(26) As they gradually sicken and suffer a slow burn to their graves, the Pentagon will, as it did after Gulf War I, deny that their misery and death is a result of their tour in Iraq.

Dr. Rokke's candor has cost him his career. Likewise, Dr. Durakovic's radiation studies on Gulf War I vets were not popular with U.S. officials. Dr. Durakovic was reportedly told his life was in danger if he continued his research. He left the U.S. to continue his research abroad.(27)

Naive young coalition soldiers now in Iraq are likely unaware of how deadly their battlefield environment is. Gulf War I troops were kept in ignorance. Soldiers handled DU fragments and some wore these lethal nuggets around their necks. A DU projectile emits more radiation in five hours than allowed in an entire year under civilian radiation exposure standards. "We didn't know any better," Kris Kornkven told Nation magazine. "We didn't find out until long after we were home that there even was such a thing as DU."(28)

George Bush's ongoing war in Afghanistan is also a nuclear war. Shortly after 9-11, the U.S. announced it would stockpile tactical nuclear weapons including small neutron bombs, nuclear mines and shells suited to commando warfare in Afghanistan.(29) In late September, 2001, Bush and Russian president Vladimir Putin agreed that the U.S. would use tactical nuclear weapons in Afghanistan while Putin would employ nuclear weapons against the Chechnyans.(30)

Describing the Pentagon's B-61-11 burrowing nuke bomb, George Smith writes in the Village Voice: "Built ram tough with a heavy metal casing for smashing through the earth and concrete, the B-61 explodes with the force of an estimated 340,000 tons of TNT. It is lots of bang for the buck, literally two apocalypse bombs in one, a boosted plutonium firecracker called the primary and a heavy hydrogen secondary for that good old-fashioned H-bomb fireball."(31)

Drought-stricken Afghanistan's underground water supply is now contaminated by these nuclear weapons.(32) Experts with the Uranium Medical Research Center report that urine samples of Afghanis show the highest level of uranium ever recorded in a civilian population. Afghani soldiers and civilians are reported to have died after suffering intractable vomiting, severe respiratory problems, internal bleeding and other symptoms consistent with radiation poisoning. Dead birds still perched in trees are found partially melted with blood oozing from their mouths.(33)

Afghanistan's new president, Hamid Karzai, is a puppet installed by Washington. Under the protection of American soldiers, Karzai's regime is setting a new record for opium production. Both UN and U.S. reports confirm that the huge Afghani opium harvest of 2002 makes Afghanistan the world's leading opium producer.(34) Thanks to nuclear weapons, Afghanistan is now safe for the Bush-Cheney narcotics industry.(35) ABC News asserts that keeping the "peace" in Afghanistan will require decades of allied occupation.(36) For years to come, "peacekeepers" will be eating, drinking and breathing the "hot" carcinogenic pollution they have helped the Pentagon inflict upon that nation for organized crime.

As governor of Arkansas during the Iran-Contra era, Bill Clinton laundered $multi-millions in cocaine profits for then vice-president George Bush Sr.(37) As a partner in the Bush family's notorious crime machine, President Clinton committed U.S. troops to NATO's campaign in the Balkans, a prime heroin production and trans-shipment area. DOD's campaign to control and reorganize the drug trade there for the Bush mafia was yet another nuclear project.

For years, the U.S. and NATO fired DU missiles, bullets and shells across the Balkans, nuking the peoples of Serbia, Bosnia and Kosovo. As DU munitions were slammed into chemical plants, the environment became hideously toxic, also endangering the peoples of Albania, Macedonia, Greece, Italy, Austria and Hungary. By 1999, UN investigators reported that an estimated 12 tons of DU had caused irreparable damage to the Yugoslavian environment, with agriculture, livestock and air water, and public health all profoundly damaged.(38)

Scientists confirm that citizens of the Balkans are excreting uranium in their urine.(39) In 2001, a Yugoslavian pathologist reported that hundreds of Bosnians have died of cancer from NATO's DU bombardment.(40) Many NATO peacekeepers in the Balkans now suffer ill health. Their leukemias, cancers and other maladies are dubbed the "Balkans Syndrome." Richard Coghill predicts that DU weapons used in Balkans campaign will result in at least 10,000 cases of fatal cancer.(41)

U.S. citizens at home are also paying a heavy price for criminal militarism gone mad. DOD is a pollution monster. The General Accounting Office (GAO) found 9,181 dangerous military sites in USA that will require $billions to rehabilitate. The GAO reports that DOD has been both slothful and deceitful in its clean-up obligations.(42) The Pentagon is now pressing Congress to exempt it from all environmental laws so that it may pollute and poison free from liability.(43)

The Navy uses prime fishing grounds off the coast of Washington state to test fire DU ammunition. In January, Washington State Rep. Jim McDermott chastised the Navy: "On one hand you have required soldiers to have DU safety training and to wear protective gear when handling DU...and submarines must stay clear of DU-contaminated waters. These policies indicate there is cause for concern....On the other hand the Department of Defense has repeatedly denied that DU poses any danger whatsoever. There has been no remorse about leaving tons of DU equipment in the soil in foreign countries, and there appears to be no remorse about leaving it in the waters of your own country."(44)

DU has been used in military practice maneuvers in Indiana, Florida, New Mexico, Massachusetts, Maryland and Puerto Rico. After the Navy tested DU weaponry on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques, one third of the island's population developed serious illness. Many people show high levels of uranium in their bodies. Hundreds have filed a class action suit against the Navy for $100 million, claiming DU contamination has caused widespread cancers.(45)

The Navy's Fallon Naval Air Station near Fallon, Nevada, is a quagmire of 26 toxic waste sites. It is also a target practice zone for DU bombs and missiles. Area residents report bizarre illnesses, including 17 children who have contracted leukemia within five years. A survey of groundwater in the Fallon area showed nearly half of area wells are contaminated with radioactive materials.(46)

The materials for DU weaponry have been processed mainly at three nuclear plants in Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee, where workers handling uranium contaminated with plutonium have suffered for decades with cancers and debilitating maladies similar to Gulf War Syndrome.(47)

Emboldened by power-grabbing successes made possible by his administration's devious 9-11 project, President Bush asserts that the U.S. has the right to attack any nation it deems a potential threat. He told West Point in 2002, "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long."(48) Thus, it is certain that Bush-Cheney future pre-emptive nuclear wars are lined up like idling jets on a runway. Both Cheney's Halliburton Corp. and the Bush family's Carlyle Group are profiteers in U.S. defense contracts, so endless war is just good business.(49)

The Washington Post reported that the Pentagon will create special nuclear weapons for use on North Korea's underground nuclear facilities.(50) Next August, U.S. war makers will meet to consolidate plans for a new generation of "mini," "micro" and "tiny" nuclear bombs and bunker busters. These will be added to the U.S. arsenal perhaps for use against non-nuclear third-world nations such as Iran, Syria, Lebanon.(51)

The solution? Americans must stop electing ruthless criminals to rule this nation. We must convince fellow citizens that villains like Saddam Hussein are made in the U.S. as rationale for endless corporate war profits. Saddam was placed in power by the CIA.(52) For years U.S. government agencies, under auspices of George Bush Sr., supplied him with chemical and biological weapons.(53) Our national nuclear laboratories, along with Unisys, Dupont and Hewlett-Packard, sold Saddam materials for his nuclear program.(54) Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton in the late 90s when its subsidiaries signed $73 million in new contracts to further supply Saddam.(55) The wicked villain of Iraq was nurtured for decades as a cash-cow by
U.S. military-industrial piranhas.

If America truly supports its troops, it must stop sending them into nuclear holocaust for the enrichment of thugs. Time is running out. If the DU-maniacs at the Pentagon and their coven of nuclear arms peddlers are not harnessed, America will have no able-bodied fighting forces left. All people of the earth will become grossly ill, hideously deformed and short- lived. We must succeed in the critical imperative to face reality and act decisively. Should we fail, there will be no place to hide from Bush-Cheney's merciless nuclear orgies yet to come or from the inevitable nuclear retaliation these orgies will surely breed.

Endnotes

1."DOD Launches Depleted Uranium Training," Linda Kozaryn, American Forces Press Service, 8-13-99.

2."Nukes of the Gulf War,"John Shirley, Zess@aol.com. See this article in archives at
www.gulfwarvets.com.

3. BBC News, "US To Use Depleted Uranium," March 18, 2003; U.S. General Accounting Office, Operation Desert Storm: "Early Performance Assessment of Bradley and Abrams," 1-2-92.

4."Nukes of the Gulf War," op. cit.

5. Ibid.

6. "Invading Hiroshima," William Thomas, 2-4-2003, www.willthomas.net

7. "US Shells Leave Lethal Legacy," Toronto Star, July 31, 1999; also "Radiation Tests for
Peacekeepers in the Balkans Exposed to Depleted Uranium," www.telegraph.co.uk, 12-31-02.

8. "Depleted Uranium May Stop Kidneys In Days," Rob Edwards, New Scientist.com, 3-12-02; also "Uranium Weapons Too Hot to Handle," Rob Edwards, New Scientist.co.uk, 6-9-99.

9. "Navy Seeks Cash for More Tomahawks," David Rennie in Washington, Telegraph Group
Limited, 1-4-03, news.telegraph.co.uk.

10. "Going Nuclear in Iraq--DU Cancers Mount Daily," Ramzi Kysia, CounterPunch.org,
12-31-01.

11."Depleted Uranium Symptoms Match US Report As Fears Spread," Peter Beaumont, The
Observer (UK) 1-14-01, www.guardianlimited.co.uk.

12. "Gulf War Illnesses Affect 300,000 Vets," Ellen Tomson, Pioneer Press,
www.pioneerplanet.com. See also American Gulf War Veterans Association at
www.gulfwarvets.com.

13. "2 of Every 5 Gulf War Vets Are On Disability: 209,000 Make VA Claims," World Net Daily, 1-28-03, WorldNetDaily.com.

14. "Research on Sick Gulf Vets Revisited, "New York Times, 1-29-01; "Tests Show Gulf War Victims Have Uranium Poisoning," Jonathon Carr-Brown and Martin Meissonnier, The Sunday Times (UK) 9-3-02.

15. "Catastrophe: Ill Gulf Vets Contaminated Partners With DU," The Halifax Herald Limited,
Clare Mellor, 2-09-01. This article is available in archives at www.rense.com.

16. "Iraqi Cancer, Birth Defects Blamed on US Depleted Uranium," Seattle Post- Intelligencer, 11-12-02; "US Depleted Uranium Yields Chamber of Horrors in Southern Iraq, Andy Kershaw, The Independent (London) 12-4-01.

17. "The Environmental and Human Health Impacts of the Gulf War Region with Special
References to Iraq," Ross Mirkarimi, The Arms Control Research Centre, May 1992. See also Gulf War Syndrome Birth Defects in Iraq at www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html.

18. "The Tiny Victims of Desert Storm, Has Our Country Abandoned Them?," Life Magazine,
November 1995; "Birth Defects Killing Gulf War Babies," Los Angeles Times, 11-14-94;
"Depleted Uranium, The Lingering Poison," Alex Kirby, BBC News Online, 6-7-99.

19. "Depleted Uranium, A Killer Disaster," Travis Dunn, Disaster News.net, 12-29-02.

20. San Francisco Chronicle, 10-10-02.

21. "US To Use Depleted Uranium," BBC News, 3-18-03.

22. "Depleted Uranium Symptoms Match US Report As Fears Spread," Peter Beaumont, The
Observer (UK) 1-14-01.

23. "Iraqi Cancer, Birth Defects Blamed on US Depleted Uranium," Seattle Post- Intelligencer, 11-12-02.

24. "US To Use Depleted Uranium," BBC News, 3-18-03.

25. US Army Environmental Policy Institute: Health and Environmental Consequences of
Depleted Uranium in the U.S. Army, Technical Report, June 1995.

26. "Pentagon Depleted Uranium No Health Risk," Dr. Doug Rokke, 3-15-03; also "The
Terrible, Tragic Toll of Depleted Uranium," Address by Dr. Rokke before congressional leaders in Washington, D.C.,12-30-02; also "Gulf War Casualties," Dr. Doug Rokke,
www.traprockpeace.org. 9-30-02.

27."Tests Show Gulf War Victims Have Uranium Poisoning," Sunday Times (UK), Jonathon
Carr-Brown and Martin Meissonnier, 9-3-00.

28. "The Pentagon's Radioactive Bullet: An Investigative Report," Bill Mesler, The Nation,
5-28-99, see www.thenation.com/ issue/961021/1021mesl.htm.

29. "Tactical Nukes Deployed In Afghanistan," World Net Daily, 10-7-01. 30. Ibid.

31. "The B-61 Bomb,The Burrowing Nuke" George Smith,VillageVoice.com 12-29-02.; also
"Bunker-busting US Tactical Nuclear Bombs, Nowhere to Hide," Kennedy Grey, Wired.com,
10-9-01.

32."Perpetual Death From America," Mohammed Daud Miraki, Afghan-American Interviews,
2-24-03; also "Dying of Thirst," Fred Pearce, New Scientist, 11-17-2001.

33. Ibid.

34. "Afghanistan Displaces Myanmar as Top Heroin Producer," Agence France-Presse, 3-01-03. This article is at www.copvcia.com.;also "Opium Trade Flourishing In the `New Afghanistan,'" Reuters, 3-3-03.

35. "The Bush-Cheney Drug Empire," Michael C. Ruppert, Nexus Magazine, February-March 2000; The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, Alfred W. McCoy, Lawrence Hill & Co., revised edition due May 2003; Drugging of America, Rodney Stich, Diablo Western Press, 1999; "Blood for Oil, Drugs for Arms," Bob Djurdjevic, Truth In Media, April 2000, www.truthinmedia.org. 36. ABC News, February 27, 2003.

37. Compromised, Clinton Bush and the CIA, Terry Reed and John Cummings, S.P.I. Books,
1994; The Clinton Chronicles and The Mena Cover-up, Citizens for Honest Government, 1996; "The Crimes of Mena, Grey Money," Ozark Gazette, 1995 (see www.copvcia.com.)

38. "Damage to Yugoslav Environment is Immense, Says a UN Report," Bob Djurdjevic,
7-4-99, truthinmedia.org. This report was submitted to the UN Security Council on June 9,
1999; also, "New Depleted Uranium Study Shows Clear Damage," BBC News,8-28-99; also
"NATO Issued Warning About Toxic Ammo," Associated Press, 01-08-01.

39. CounterPunch.org, 12-28-01.

40. "Hundreds Died of Cancer After DU Bombing--Doctor," Reuters, 1-13-01.

41."Depleted Uranium Threatens Balkan Cancer Epidemic," BBC News, 7-30-99.

42. "Many Defense Sites Still Hazardous," Associated Press, 9-24-02; also Old US Weapons
Called Hidden Danger, Los Angeles Times, 11-25-02.

43. "Pentagon Seeks Freedom to Pollute Land, Air and Sea," Andrew Gumbel in L.A., 3-13-03, Independent Digital (UK) Ltd.

44. "Radioactive DU Ammo Is Tested in Fish Areas," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 1-11-03; Letter from Rep. McDermott to Department of the Navy: see "Navy Fired DU Rounds Into Waters Off Coast of Washington," 1-20-03, rense.com.

45."Cancer Rates Soar From US Military Use of DU On `Enchanted Island,'"
www.telegraph.co.uk, 2-5-01; also "Navy Shells With Depleted Uranium Fired in Puerto Rico," Fox News Online, 5-28-99.

46. "The Fallon, NV Cancer Cluster And a US Navy Bombing," Jeffrey St. Clair,
CounterPunch.org, 8-10-02.

47. "DU Shells Are Made of A Potentially Lethal Cocktail of Nuclear Waste," Jonathon
Carr-Brown, www.sunday-times.co.uk, 1-22-01.

48. "Preventative War Sets Perilous Precedent," Helen Thomas, Hearst Newspapers, 3-20-03.

49. PIGS at the Trough, Arriana Huffington, Random House, 2003 (New York Times best
seller.); also "The Best Enemies Money Can Buy, From Hitler to Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden Insider Connections and the Bush Family's Partnership With Killers of Americans;" Mike Ruppert, From the Wilderness,10-10-01; also "Bush Sr.'s Carlyle Group Gets Fat on War and Conflict," Jamie Doward, The Observer (UK), 3-25-03; also "Halliburton Wins Contract for Iraq Oil Firefighting, Reuters, 3-7-03; also "Cashing In-Fortunes in Profits Await Bush Circle After Iraq War, Andrew Gumbel, The Independent (London) 9-15-02; also "War Could Be Big Business for Halliburton," Reuters, 3-23-03.

50. "Pentagon Seeks a Nuclear Digger," Washington Post, March 10, 2003.

51. "Remember: Bush Planed Iraq War Before Taking Office," Neil Mackay, The Sunday Herald (UK) 3-27-03; also "US Mini-Nukes Alarm Scientists," The Guardian (UK) 4-18-01; also "US Nuclear First-Strike Plan--It Keeps Getting Scarier, Jeffrey Steinberg, Executive Intelligence Review, 2-24-03.

52. Wall Street Journal, 8-16-90: The CIA supported the Baath Party and installed Hussein as
Iraqi dictator in 1968.

53. "United States Dual-Use Exports to Iraq and Their Impact on the Health of Persian Gulf
War Veterans," Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 1992, 1994; "U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup," Washington Post, 12-30-02.

54. "US Government, 24 US Corps Illegally Helped Iraq Build Its WMD," Hugh Williamson in Berlin, Financial Times, 12-19-02; "Full List of US Weapons Suppliers To Iraq," Anu de
Monterice, coachanu@earthlink.net, 12-19-02.

55. Huffington, op. cit.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

BACK TO THE TOP                                                 BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS










































You asked for my evidence, Mr Ambassador. Here it is

In Iraq, the US does eliminate those who dare to count the dead

Naomi Klein

12/04/04 "The Guardian " --

David T Johnson,
Acting ambassador,
US Embassy, London

Dear Mr Johnson, On November 26, your press counsellor sent a letter to the Guardian taking strong exception to a sentence in my column of the same day. The sentence read: "In Iraq, US forces and their Iraqi surrogates are no longer bothering to conceal attacks on civilian targets and are openly eliminating anyone - doctors, clerics, journalists - who dares to count the bodies." Of particular concern was the word "eliminating".

The letter suggested that my charge was "baseless" and asked the Guardian either to withdraw it, or provide "evidence of this extremely grave accusation". It is quite rare for US embassy officials to openly involve themselves in the free press of a foreign country, so I took the letter extremely seriously. But while I agree that the accusation is grave, I have no intention of withdrawing it. Here, instead, is the evidence you requested.

In April, US forces laid siege to Falluja in retaliation for the gruesome killings of four Blackwater employees. The operation was a failure, with US troops eventually handing the city back to resistance forces. The reason for the withdrawal was that the siege had sparked uprisings across the country, triggered by reports that hundreds of civilians had been killed. This information came from three main sources: 1) Doctors. USA Today reported on April 11 that "Statistics and names of the dead were gathered from four main clinics around the city and from Falluja general hospital". 2) Arab TV journalists. While doctors reported the numbers of dead, it was al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya that put a human face on those statistics. With unembedded camera crews in Falluja, both networks beamed footage of mutilated women and children throughout Iraq and the Arab-speaking world. 3) Clerics. The reports of high civilian casualties coming from journalists and doctors were seized upon by prominent clerics in Iraq. Many delivered fiery sermons condemning the attack, turning their congregants against US forces and igniting the uprising that forced US troops to withdraw.

US authorities have denied that hundreds of civilians were killed during last April's siege, and have lashed out at the sources of these reports. For instance, an unnamed "senior American officer", speaking to the New York Times last month, labelled Falluja general hospital "a centre of propaganda". But the strongest words were reserved for Arab TV networks. When asked about al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya's reports that hundreds of civilians had been killed in Falluja, Donald Rumsfeld, the US secretary of defence, replied that "what al-Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable ... " Last month, US troops once again laid siege to Falluja - but this time the attack included a new tactic: eliminating the doctors, journalists and clerics who focused public attention on civilian casualties last time around.

Eliminating doctors
The first major operation by US marines and Iraqi soldiers was to storm Falluja general hospital, arresting doctors and placing the facility under military control. The New York Times reported that "the hospital was selected as an early target because the American military believed that it was the source of rumours about heavy casual ties", noting that "this time around, the American military intends to fight its own information war, countering or squelching what has been one of the insurgents' most potent weapons". The Los Angeles Times quoted a doctor as saying that the soldiers "stole the mobile phones" at the hospital - preventing doctors from communicating with the outside world.

But this was not the worst of the attacks on health workers. Two days earlier, a crucial emergency health clinic was bombed to rubble, as well as a medical supplies dispensary next door. Dr Sami al-Jumaili, who was working in the clinic, says the bombs took the lives of 15 medics, four nurses and 35 patients. The Los Angeles Times reported that the manager of Falluja general hospital "had told a US general the location of the downtown makeshift medical centre" before it was hit.

Whether the clinic was targeted or destroyed accidentally, the effect was the same: to eliminate many of Falluja's doctors from the war zone. As Dr Jumaili told the Independent on November 14: "There is not a single surgeon in Falluja." When fighting moved to Mosul, a similar tactic was used: on entering the city, US and Iraqi forces immediately seized control of the al-Zaharawi hospital.

Eliminating journalists
The images from last month's siege on Falluja came almost exclusively from reporters embedded with US troops. This is because Arab journalists who had covered April's siege from the civilian perspective had effectively been eliminated. Al-Jazeera had no cameras on the ground because it has been banned from reporting in Iraq indefinitely. Al-Arabiya did have an unembedded reporter, Abdel Kader Al-Saadi, in Falluja, but on November 11 US forces arrested him and held him for the length of the siege. Al-Saadi's detention has been condemned by Reporters Without Borders and the International Federation of Journalists. "We cannot ignore the possibility that he is being intimidated for just trying to do his job," the IFJ stated.

It's not the first time journalists in Iraq have faced this kind of intimidation. When US forces invaded Baghdad in April 2003, US Central Command urged all unembedded journalists to leave the city. Some insisted on staying and at least three paid with their lives. On April 8, a US aircraft bombed al-Jazeera's Baghdad offices, killing reporter Tareq Ayyoub. Al-Jazeera has documentation proving it gave the coordinates of its location to US forces.

On the same day, a US tank fired on the Palestine hotel, killing José Couso, of the Spanish network Telecinco, and Taras Protsiuk, of Reuters. Three US soldiers are facing a criminal lawsuit from Couso's family, which alleges that US forces were well aware that journalists were in the Palestine hotel and that they committed a war crime.

Eliminating clerics
Just as doctors and journalists have been targeted, so too have many of the clerics who have spoken out forcefully against the killings in Falluja. On November 11, Sheik Mahdi al-Sumaidaei, the head of the Supreme Association for Guidance and Daawa, was arrested. According to Associated Press, "Al-Sumaidaei has called on the country's Sunni minority to launch a civil disobedience campaign if the Iraqi government does not halt the attack on Falluja". On November 19, AP reported that US and Iraqi forces stormed a prominent Sunni mosque, the Abu Hanifa, in Aadhamiya, killing three people and arresting 40, including the chief cleric - another opponent of the Falluja siege. On the same day, Fox News reported that "US troops also raided a Sunni mosque in Qaim, near the Syrian border". The report described the arrests as "retaliation for opposing the Falluja offensive". Two Shia clerics associated with Moqtada al-Sadr have also been arrested in recent weeks; according to AP, "both had spoken out against the Falluja attack".

"We don't do body counts," said General Tommy Franks of US Central Command. The question is: what happens to the people who insist on counting the bodies - the doctors who must pronounce their patients dead, the journalists who document these losses, the clerics who denounce them? In Iraq, evidence is mounting that these voices are being systematically silenced through a variety of means, from mass arrests, to raids on hospitals, media bans, and overt and unexplained physical attacks.

Mr Ambassador, I believe that your government and its Iraqi surrogates are waging two wars in Iraq. One war is against the Iraqi people, and it has claimed an estimated 100,000 lives. The other is a war on witnesses.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

BACK TO THE TOP                                                                      BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS

OR...................

MORE FROM NAOMI KLEIN

How Canada Can Help Force Bush Out of Iraq

by Naomi Klein > November 30 2004

Jeremy Hinzman tells me that he’s thinking about going to Ottawa to join today’s protests against George W. Bush. But if he does, he won’t be giving any fiery speeches. “It’s not a good time for that,” he observes.

That’s wise. Next week, the 25-year-old will appear before Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board. He will argue that as a soldier with the 82nd Airborne Division who refused to fight in Iraq, he should be granted refugee status in Canada. Hinzman’s lawyer, Jeffry House, had planned to hinge the case on the argument that the war itself was illegal because it lacked UN approval. They had an army of experts lined up, but last week they got the bad news: the Canadian government had intervened and the board ruled that the legality of the war is “irrelevant” to the case.

Now House will argue that Hinzman is a political refugee because he is refusing to fight in a war in which violations of international law are systemic, from torture in Abu Ghraib to attacks on civilians areas. Testifying on Hinzman’s behalf will be former Marine Sgt. Jimmy Massey, who served in Iraq during the initial invasion. Massey will tell the hearing that as his battalion moved into Baghdad, every civilian vehicle was treated as an enemy target. If cars didn’t stop at U.S. checkpoints, “we were lighting them up…discharging our weapons, 50 cals and M-16’s into the civilian vehicles.” In May, Massey told the U.S. radio and television show “Democracy Now!” that the Marines would search the cars they had attacked but “we would find no weapons...I would say my platoon alone killed 30-plus innocent civilians.” Massey also recalled firing into a demonstration near the Baghdad International Airport and then realizing that, “Oh, my God—we just opened up on a group of peaceful demonstrators.” He insists that these were not isolated accidents, but rather that the war “violated every rule of the Geneva Convention that I have been taught.”

Every week, more facts emerge to support Hinzman’s case. On November 13, during the siege on Fallujah, the New York Times reported that U.S. forces were sending all “fighting age” men back into the besieged city, even if they were unarmed and tested negative for explosives residue. James Ross, senior legal adviser to Human Rights Watch told The Times that, “If that’s what happened, it would be a war crime.” The next day, The Washington Post quoted Marine Sgt Aristotel Barbosa saying that, “basically, every house [in Fallujah] has a hole through it.” Every man is the enemy and every house is a target—that is the meaning of collective punishment and it is barred under the Geneva Conventions.

But since the U.S. government has excluded itself from the International Criminal Court, these crimes may never be tried. Which is what makes Jeremy Hinzman’s case so important: he is going to put the Bush Administration on trial for war crimes. If he wins, no one will go jail, but there will be consequences. And that’s what is making the Canadian government so nervous. Our position on the war in Iraq has hardly been crusading. We “sat it out” as if the war’s illegality made it optional—but not odious. And we tried to help out wherever we could: by sending troops to Afghanistan and Haiti, corporations to Iraq, and police trainers to Jordan. And now many are trying to have it both ways again: it’s fine to criticize Bush, we are told—just after he leaves, when no one is listening.

It’s fatigue with this kind of moral duplicity that is drawing many of us into the streets of Ottawa today and tomorrow: not just to protest Bush but to demand that Canada live up to its rhetoric as a genuine alternative, rather than a second-class citizen in Fortress North America. Up until now, we have justified our weak positions by telling ourselves that nobody expects strength from us. While countries like France and Germany strutabout the world stage like the empires they once were, Canada tends to deflate its own importance, denying the very real power we do have.

Jeremy Hinzman’s hearing is a case in point. Already U.S. and British troops are spread so thin that one infantry battalion recently had to be diverted from Mosul to Fallujah then back to Mosul again. Senator John McCain has called for 40,000-50,000 more troops and the coalition is hemorrhaging members, with Hungary, Poland and the Netherlands recently announcing plans to withdraw.

And if Hinzman is granted refugee status, it could well be the last straw, opening the floodgates to other U.S. soldiers who don’t want to fight. During the Vietnam War, 50,000 draft-age Americans came to Canada; a fraction of that could break the back of the war. If Canada once again became a haven for war resisters, it would mean that we were not just quietly opting out of the illegal and immoral war in Iraq. We would be helping to end it.

http://www.nologo.org/

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

BACK TO THE TOP                                                              BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS





























  
War Crime
by Paul Craig Roberts

12/08/04 "Creators Syndicate" -- On December 6 Pentagon boss Donald Rumsfeld promised four more years of death and destruction in Iraq. Assuming the war continues to cost the US taxpayers $6 billion per month – not including reconstruction costs, fat no-bid contracts for the Bush administration’s major contributors, and replacement costs of the military equipment that is being blown apart and worn out – that comes to $288
billion. Add that sum to the $149 billion the war has already cost US taxpayers for a total of $437 billion.

Turning to the human toll, from March 20, 2003 to December 7, 2004 (approximately 21 months) the Pentagon says 1,280 US troops have been killed and 9,765 wounded in Iraq. The Pentagon’s wounded figure conflicts with the report from the US military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, that as of Thanksgiving week the hospital has treated almost 21,000 Americans injured in Iraq. According to the hospital, more than half were too badly
injured to return to their units.

Assuming no escalation in the insurgency, a continuation of four more years of war would result in another 2,925 US troops being killed for a total of 4,205. Using the Pentagon’s wounded figure, 22,320 more US troops would be injured for a total of 32,085. Using the US military hospital’s figure, another 48,000 US troops would be wounded for a total of 69,000.

Assuming the US is able to keep 138,000 US troops in Iraq during Bush’s second term, US dead and wounded (Pentagon figure) would comprise 26% of the US force in Iraq. Using the military hospital’s figure, US dead and wounded would comprise 53% of our entire army in Iraq.

The present military manpower system cannot provide replacements for these losses. Current troop strengths are being maintained by calling up reserve and national guard units and by extending soldiers’ tours of duty beyond the contractual period, a practice that US troops are contesting in court. Tens of thousands of careers, marriages, and family finances are being disrupted and destroyed by the commitment of reserve and national guard units to war in Iraq.

What is Bush achieving in return for such horrendous costs?

Bush has destroyed our alliances and the good will of a half century of US foreign policy.

Busy has created an insurgency where there was none.

Bush has destroyed US prestige in the Middle East and reduced America’s support among Middle Eastern populations to the single digits.

Bush has made Osama bin Laden a hero and recruited tens of thousands of terrorists to his ranks, while simultaneously alienating Middle Easterners from the secular puppet rulers we have imposed on them.

At a minimum Bush is responsible for between 14,619 and 16,804 Iraqi civilian deaths during the 21 months since the invasion. Compiled from hospital, morgue, and media reports, these figures understate civilian deaths. In keeping with Islam’s quick burial requirement, many Iraqis were buried in sports fields and in back gardens during protracted US assaults on urban areas. A recent report in the British medical journal, The Lancet, estimates that 100,000 Iraqis have been killed since March 20, 2003. This figure does not include the large number of Iraqi deaths from the embargo and US bombing for
more than a decade prior to the US invasion.

Projecting the reported Iraqi civilian deaths for four more years of US occupation produces a figure of 51,621 civilians killed as "collateral damage." Projecting the Lancet’s figure produces a figure of 328,571 civilian deaths by the end of Bush’s second term.

Then there are the civilian injured, for which there appear to be no figures. If we assume the same ratio of killed to wounded for civilian deaths as holds for the US military, the reported death figure gives a civilian wounded figure of 392,320. The Lancet estimate gives a wounded figure of 2,497,139.

The ratio of 7.6 wounded US troops for each soldier killed is probably low for calculating civilian Iraqi wounded. US forces travel in armored vehicles, are protected with helmets and body armor and are not on the receiving end of artillery and massive bombs that kill everything in a quarter mile radius. The ratio could easily be 10 or 15 wounded Iraqi civilians for every one killed.

Did the Americans who reelected Bush know that the president who will admit to no mistake is locked on a course that will squander a half trillion dollars for no purpose other than to kill and wound between 36,290 and 73,205 US troops, with "collateral damage" to Iraqi civilians ranging from 443,941 to 2,825,710 dead and wounded?

If Saddam Hussein is a "mass murderer," what does that make President Bush and those who reelected him?

Dr. Roberts PCRoberts@postmark.net is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. 

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

MAMMA's Footnote:

The existing statistics, cited by Mr. Roberts, are horrendous. The question is...Are his projected stats on the conservative side? Did he take into consideration the fact that the violence that prompted these numbers will continue to escalate, as the Perpetual WAR (on terrorism) that the US launched and continues to promote, gets into full swing?

An even better question is...Would anyone be dealing with current and projected statistics from a War that was formulated on an ABUSE of Power platform if decades worth of Military ABUSE victims had been properly tallied?

The fact of the matter is...The existing number of military ABUSE victims make Mr. Roberts' numbers pale in comparison and the projected figures from the escalation of an abuse situation that continues; unrecognized, unchallenged and unchecked...go past horrendous and into the realm of unconscionable!

BACK TO THE TOP                                                       BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS


































http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-12/15/content_400401.htm

CHINAdaily

Documents show probes of other Iraq abuse cases
(Agencies)
Updated: 2004-12-15 14:13

Internal US Navy documents released as a result of a court order show that the Navy investigated a number of alleged abuses of Iraqi prisoners by US Marines, including an alleged mock execution of four Iraqi juveniles.
 
The documents, which were obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union, show that marines were punished in some instances while other cases were closed after preliminary investigations concluded the allegations could not be substantiated.
 
A spread sheet showing the disposition of detainee abuse cases investigated by the Naval Criminal Investigative Services (NCIS) said the alleged mock execution was one of several incidents involving four marine suspects in Adiwaniya, Iraq between June 1 and July 6, 2003.
 
They were alleged to have "ordered four juvenile looters to kneel beside two shallow fighting holes and pistol was discharged to conduct a mock execution," the document said.
 
Two suspects were found guilty of dereliction of duty and sentenced to 30 days of hard labor, while another was reduced in rank, forfeited two-thirds pay for a month and placed under unspecified restriction for 14 days after being found guilty of detainee abuse.
 
Charges against the fourth were withdrawn, according to the document.
 
Another entry shows that five marines were alleged to have taken part in shocking a detainee with an electric transformer at a holding area at Al Mamudiyah in April 2004.

An unidentified witness reported that "the detainee 'danced' as he was shocked," according to the document.
 
A general court martial in May 2004 found one marine guilty of "assault, cruelty and mistreatment, dereliction of duty and conspiracy to assault a detainee," the document said. He was sentenced to a year in prison.
 
Another marine was sentenced to eight months in prison in the case after being found guilty of similar charges by a special court martial. Three other special court martials were pending, according to the document.
 
In another case in Al Mamudiyah in August 2004, a detainee suffered second degree burns on the back of his hands.
 
The document said the detainee asked to use alcohol-based hand sanitizer liquid during a bathroom visit. A marine guard squirted some into the detainee's hands, but the excess formed a puddle on the floor.
 
"As the marine guard turned to dispose of the empty bottle, (the accused marine) lit a match and threw it into the puddle of hand sanitizer. The liquid ignited and the flames burned the detainee," it said.
 
The unidentified marine was found guilty of "assault by means likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm," and sentenced to 90 days confinement and a reduction in rank.
  
In another case cited in the documents, a marine guard shot and killed a detainee identified as Hamdan Shibey on March 29, 2003.
 
"The investigation determined that the detainee attacked the marine guard and the guard acted in self-defense when he shot the detainee that was lunging for the guard's service rifle," the document said.
 
The ACLU said the documents showed that abuse and even torture of detainees by marines was widespread.
 
"This kind of widespread abuse could not have taken place without a leadership failure of the highest order," said Anthony Romero, ACLU's executive director.
 
Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita said he had no information on the cases cited in the documents, which have not been previously disclosed.

He denied criticism by human rights groups that the military often investigated abuses only after they had come under media scrutiny.
 
"Many of the cases that are being celebrated have had disposition already made," he said. "And there may be a desire that disposition when it's made be publicized, but that's a different thing from saying that we're reacting to publicity."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

BACK TO THE TOP                                         BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS














































Ignoring Reality in Iraq
by Ron Paul

Texas Straight Talk
December 13, 2004


A recent study by the Pentagon’s Defense Science Task Force on Strategic Communications concluded that in the struggle for hearts and minds in Iraq, “American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.” This Pentagon report flatly states that our war in Iraq actually has elevated support for radical Islamists. It goes on to conclude that our active intervention in the Middle East as a whole has greatly diminished our reputation in the region, and strengthened support for radical groups. This is similar to what the CIA predicted in an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, before the invasion took place.

Then, earlier this month we learned that the CIA station chief in Baghdad sent a cable back to the US warning that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, and not expected to improve any time soon. Other CIA experts also warn that the security situation in Iraq is likely to get even worse in the future. These reports are utterly ignored by the administration.

These recent reports are not the product of some radical antiwar organization. They represent the US government’s own assessment of our “progress” in Iraq after two and a half years and the loss of thousands of lives. We are alienating the Islamic world in our oxymoronic quest to impose democracy in Iraq.

This demonstrates once again the folly of nation building, which is something candidate Bush wisely rejected before the 2000 election. The worsening situation in Iraq also reminds us that going to war without a congressional declaration, as the Constitution requires, leads us into protracted quagmires over and over again.

The reality is that current-day Iraq contains three distinct groups of people whom have been at odds with each other for generations. Pundits and politicians tell us that a civil war will erupt if the US military departs. Yet our insistence that Iraq remain one indivisible nation actually creates the conditions for civil war. Instead of an artificial, forced, nationalist unity between the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, we should allow each group to seek self-government and choose voluntarily whether they wish to associate with a central government. We cannot impose democracy in Iraq any more than we can erase hundreds of years of Iraqi history.

Even opponents of the war now argue that we must occupy Iraq indefinitely until a democratic government takes hold, no matter what the costs. No attempt is made by either side to explain exactly why it is the duty of American soldiers to die for the benefit of Iraq or any other foreign country. No reason is given why American taxpayers must pay billions of dollars to build infrastructure in Iraq. We are expected to accept the interventionist approach without question, as though no other options exist. This blanket acceptance of foreign meddling and foreign aid may be the current Republican policy, but
it is not a conservative policy by any means.

Non-interventionism was the foreign policy ideal of the Founding Fathers, an ideal that is ignored by both political parties today. Those who support political and military intervention in Iraq and elsewhere should have the integrity to admit that their views conflict with the principles of our nation’s founding. It’s easy to repeat the tired cliché that “times have changed since the Constitution was written”- in fact, that’s an argument the left has used for decades to justify an unconstitutional welfare state. Yet if we accept this argument, what other principles from the founding era should we discard? Should we
reject federalism? Habeas corpus? How about the Second Amendment? The principle of limited government enshrined in the Constitution- limited government in both domestic and foreign affairs- has not changed over time. What has changed is our willingness to ignore that principle.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

MAMMA's Footnote:

QUESTION: Wouldn't it be easier to do a Reality Check in Iraq if one was done in the US first? Would anyone be questioning the integrity of political and military intervention in "Iraq and elsewhere" if there had been intervention in 1993, when "Veterans at Risk" chronicled "a well-ingrained pattern of abuse"? (read Zeman's series) Congressional leaders have been asleep at the switch...when will they wake up and Recognize, Challenge and Check the ABUSE that is running rampant in the military???

Considering Congressman Paul's concern over "what other principles" should be discarded...it's about time to take a serious look at the 'Take it home' Recipe (http://www.oocities.org/gold_star_mother/publicalerts.html#Take_Home_Recipe )....try it
!



BACK TO THE TOP                                                  BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS





















































December 8, 2004
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/patriot2_hitler_powers_bush.htm

Secret Patriot Act II to give Hitler’s Powers to Bush
By Alex Jones

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) told the Washington Times that no member of Congress was allowed to read the first Patriot Act that was passed by the House on October 27, 2001. The first Patriot Act was universally decried by civil libertarians and Constitutional SECRET PATscholars from across the political spectrum. William Safire, while writing for the New York Times, described the first Patriot Act's powers by saying that President Bush was
seizing dictatorial control.

On February 7, 2003 the Center for Public Integrity, a non-partisan public interest think-tank in DC, revealed the full text of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. The classified document had been leaked to them by an unnamed source inside the Federal government. The document consisted of a 33-page section by section analysis of the accompanying 87-page bill.
 
The Patriot Act II bill itself is stamped "Confidential -Not for Distribution." Upon reading the analysis and bill, I was stunned by the scientifically crafted tyranny contained in the legislation. The Justice Department Office of Legislative Affairs admits that they had indeed covertly transmitted a copy of the legislation to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, (R-Il) and the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney as well as theexecutive heads of federal law enforcement agencies.
 
It is important to note that no member of Congress was allowed to see the first Patriot Act before its passage, and that no debate was tolerated by the House and Senate leadership. The intentions of the White House and Speaker Hastert concerning Patriot Act II appear to be a carbon copy replay of the events that led to the unprecedented passage of the first Patriot Act.

There are two glaring areas that need to be looked at concerning this new legislation:

1. The secretive tactics being used by the White House and Speaker Hastert to keep even the existence of this legislation secret would be more at home in Communist China than in the United States. The fact that Dick Cheney publicly managed the steamroller passage of the first Patriot Act, insuring that no one was allowed to read it and publicly threatening members of Congress that if they didn?t vote in favor of it that they would be blamed for the next terrorist attack, is by the White House?' own definition terrorism. The move to clandestinely craft and then bully passage of any legislation by the Executive Branch is clearly an impeachable offence.
 
2. The second Patriot Act is a mirror image of powers that Julius Caesar and Adolf Hitler gave themselves. Whereas the First Patriot Act only gutted the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and seriously damaged the Seventh and the Tenth, the Second Patriot Act reorganizes the entire Federal government as well as many areas of state government under the dictatorial control of the Justice Department, the Office of Homeland Security and the FEMA NORTHCOM military command. The Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003, also known as the Second Patriot Act is by its very structure the definition of dictatorship.
 
I challenge all Americans to study the new Patriot Act and to compare it to the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence. Ninety percent of the act has nothing to do with terrorism and is instead a giant Federal power-grab with tentacles reaching into every facet of our society. It strips American citizens of all of their rights and grants the government and its private agents total immunity.
 
Here is a quick thumbnail sketch of just some of the draconian measures encapsulated within this tyrannical legislation:
 
SECTION 501 (Expatriation of Terrorists) expands the Bush administration’s enemy combatant definition to all American citizens who may have violated any provision of Section 802 of the first Patriot Act. (Section 802 is the new definition of domestic terrorism, and the definition is any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law. ) Section 501 of the second Patriot Act directly connects to Section 125 of the same act. The Justice Department boldly claims that the incredibly broad Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act isn?t broad enough and that a new,  unlimited definition of terrorism is needed.

Under Section 501 a US citizen engaging in lawful activities can be grabbed off the street and thrown into a van never to be seen again. The Justice Department states that they can do this because the person had inferred from conduct that they were not a US citizen. Remember Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act states that any violation of Federal or State law can result in the enemy combatant terrorist designation.
 
SECTION 201 of the second Patriot Act makes it a criminal act for any member of the government or any citizen to release any information concerning the incarceration or whereabouts of detainees. It also states that law enforcement does not even have to tell the press who they have arrested and they never have to release the names.

SECTION 301 and 306 (Terrorist Identification Database) set up a national database of suspected terrorists and radically expand the database to include anyone associated with suspected terrorist groups and anyone involved in crimes or having supported any group designated as terrorist. These sections also set up a national DNA database for anyone on probation or who has been on probation for any crime, and orders State governments to collect the DNA for the Federal government.

SECTION 312 gives immunity to law enforcement engaging in spying operations against the American people and would place substantial restrictions on court injunctions against Federal violations of civil rights across the board.
 
SECTION 101 will designate individual terrorists as foreign powers and again strip them of all rights under the enemy combatant designation.
 
SECTION 102 states clearly that any information gathering, regardless of whether or not those activities are illegal, can be considered to be clandestine intelligence activities for a foreign power. This makes news gathering illegal.

SECTION 103 allows the Federal government to use wartime martial law powers domestically and internationally without Congress declaring that a state of war exists.

SECTION 106 is bone-chilling in its straightforwardness. It states that broad general warrants by the secret FSIA court (a panel of secret judges set up in a star chamber system that convenes in an undisclosed location) granted under the first Patriot Act are not good enough. It states that government agents must be given immunity for carrying out searches with no prior court approval. This section throws out the entire Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.
 
SECTION 109 allows secret star chamber courts to issue contempt charges against any individual or corporation who refuses to incriminate themselves or others. This sections annihilate the last vestiges of the Fifth Amendment.
 
SECTION 110 restates that key police state clauses in the first Patriot Act were not sunsetted and removes the five year sunset clause from other subsections of the first Patriot Act. After all, the media has told us: this is the New America. Get used to it. This is forever.
 
SECTION 111 expands the definition of the enemy combatant designation.
 
SECTION 122 restates the government?s newly announced power of surveillance without a court order.
 
SECTION 123 restates that the government no longer needs warrants and that the investigations can be a giant dragnet-style sweep described in press reports about the Total Information Awareness Network. One passage reads, thus the focus of domestic surveillance may be less precise than that directed against more conventional types of crime.
 
SECTION 126 grants the government the right to mine the entire spectrum of public and private sector information from bank records to educational and medical records. This is the enacting law to allow ECHELON and the Total Information Awareness Network to totally break down any and all walls of privacy.
 
The government states that they must look at everything to determine if individuals or groups might have a connection to terrorist groups. As you can now see, you are guilty until proven innocent.
 
SECTION 127 allows the government to takeover coroners’ and medical examiners operations whenever they see fit.
 
SECTION 128 allows the Federal government to place gag orders on Federal and State Grand Juries and to take over the proceedings. It also disallows individuals or organizations to even try to quash a Federal subpoena. So now defending yourself will be a terrorist action.

SECTION 129 destroys any remaining whistleblower protection for Federal agents.
 
SECTION 202 allows corporations to keep secret their activities with toxic biological, chemical or radiological materials.
 
SECTION 205 allows top Federal officials to keep all their financial dealings secret, and anyone investigating them can be considered a terrorist. This should be very useful for Dick Cheney to stop anyone investigating Haliburton.
 
SECTION 303 sets up national DNA database of suspected terrorists. The database will also be used to stop other unlawful activities. It will share the information with state, local and foreign agencies for the same purposes.
 
SECTION 311 federalizes your local police department in the area of information sharing.

SECTION 313 provides liability protection for businesses, especially big businesses that spy on their customers for Homeland Security, violating their privacy agreements. It goes on to say that these are all preventative measures â?? has anyone seen Minority Report? This is the access hub for the Total Information Awareness Network.

SECTION 321 authorizes foreign governments to spy on the American people and to share information with foreign governments.

SECTION 322 removes Congress from the extradition process and allows officers of the Homeland Security complex to extradite American citizens anywhere they wish. It also allows Homeland Security to secretly take individuals out of foreign countries.

SECTION 402 is titled Providing Material Support to Terrorism. The section reads that there is no requirement to show that the individual even had the intent to aid terrorists.

SECTION 403 expands the definition of weapons of mass destruction to include any activity that affects interstate or foreign commerce.

SECTION 404 makes it a crime for a terrorist or other criminals to use encryption in the commission of a crime.

SECTION 408 creates lifetime parole (basically, slavery) for a whole host of crimes.

SECTION 410 creates no statute of limitations for anyone that engages in terrorist actions or supports terrorists. Remember: any crime is now considered terrorism under the first Patriot Act.

SECTION 411 expands crimes that are punishable by death. Again, they point to Section 802 of the first Patriot Act and state that any terrorist act or support of terrorist act can result in the death penalty.

SECTION 421 increases penalties for terrorist financing. This section states that any type of financial activity connected to terrorism will result to time in prison and $10-50,000 fines per violation.

SECTIONS 427 sets up asset forfeiture provisions for anyone engaging in terrorist activities.

There are many other sections that I did not cover in the interest of time. The American people were shocked by the despotic nature of the first Patriot Act. The second Patriot Act dwarfs all police state legislation in modern world history.

Usually, corrupt governments allow their citizens lots of wonderful rights on paper, while carrying out their jackbooted oppression covertly. From snatch and grab operations to warantless searches, Patriot Act II is an Adolf Hitler wish list.

You can understand why President Bush, Dick Cheney and Dennis Hastert want to keep this legislation secret not just from Congress, but the American people as well. Bill Allison, Managing Editor of the Center for Public Integrity, the group that broke this story, stated on my radio show that it was obvious that they  were just waiting for another terrorist attack to opportunistically get this new bill through. He then shocked me with an insightful comment about how the Federal government was crafting this so that they could go after the American people in general. He also agreed that the FBI has been quietly
demonizing patriots and Christians and those who carry around pocket constitutions.

I have produced two documentary films and written a book about what really happened on September 11th. The bottom line is this: the military-industrial complex carried the attacks out as a pretext for control. Anyone who doubts this just hasn?t looked at the mountains of hard evidence.

Of course, the current group of white collar criminals in the White House might not care that we're finding out the details of their next phase. Because, after all, when smallpox gets released, or more buildings start blowing up, the President can stand up there at his lectern suppressing a smirk, squeeze out a tear or two, and tell us that See I was right. I had to take away your rights to keep you safe. And now it’s your fault that all of these children are dead. From that point on, anyone who criticizes tyranny will be shouted down by the paid talking head government mouthpieces in the mainstream media.

You have to admit, it’s a beautiful script.Unfortunately, it’s being played out in the real world. If we don’t get the word out that government is using terror to control our lives while doing nothing to stop the terrorists, we will deserve what we get - tyranny. But our children won’t deserve it.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

MAMMA's Footnote:

It's great that someone is working hard to oppose the National ID infringement of our freedom. If only they could/would learn to appreciate the fact that this 'tagging the beast' evil is equitable to a bow being added to the ABUSE package that has been in the wrapping department for decades.

The ABUSE of Power that germinated in Presidential Decision Directives, Executive Orders and the like...sending those in control of the most powerful military in the world careening out of control...needs to be Recognized, Challenged and Checked...ASAP! Be sure to visit: http://www.oocities.org/gold_star_mother/publicalerts and seriously THINK about the 'Take it home' Recipe (http://www.oocities.org/gold_star_mother/publicalerts.html#Take_Home_Recipe)! Try it....You might like it!


Our children deserve a legacy of Peace…not War!


And THINK about this:

SOMETHING EVIL, THIS WAY COMES

An American Epic For The 21st Century
by Rick Stanley

I can feel it, taste it, smell it.
Makes the skin crawl, all the way to the bone.
Bearing down on America and the world.
Like the Black Plague, only worse this time.
Feels like, the hand that switched on the Nazi ovens.
Something Evil, This Way Comes.

The kind of evil, that steals your children.
May come in the middle of the night, while you sleep.
Wearing black, malevolence shining light in your eyes.
Screaming so loud, mouthing obsenities, spittle flying.
Violence smashing in, ending tranquility, you try to hide your nudity.
Something Evil, This Way Comes

Takes what you give it, you think it is right.
What used to be right, made wrong now, just because.
What used to be wrong, is right, by default.
Steals your wages, your property, your guns.
Demands answers, when you should give none.
Something Evil, This Way Comes.

Which way is up? You always feel down.
Buried by problems, too much work, all with doubt.
Now you lost your job, company left town. Moved overseas.
You feel so helpless, where is God? What do I do?
Everyone you know, tells you, all will be right.
Something Evil, This Way Comes

Our rights, once carved in stone, all taken.
Government man tells you, all you need to know.
Where once proud, now the head is held low.
Trading rights away, for privileges. Rape for freedom.
No constitutional rights in our courts, what's wrong fool?
Something Wicked, This Way Comes.

Sirens blaring, lights flashing, injustice sown.
Cops killed another child, had to, you know.
Came inside twenty one feet, thugs have guns, your dead meat.
No charges filed ever, never need to see the truth.
Whitewash and cover-up, are the order of the day.
Something Wicked, This Way Comes.

Want to be safe? Homeland Security here.
Guns at the airport, but not for you. No defense for you.
Security check points, it is for your own good.
Our military is strong, don't you feel safe?
Controllers will liberate your money supply, pipelines, poppyfields, and oil.
Something Wicked, This Way Comes.

Politicians to the Rescue, they know better.
Who are you? You're just the people.
Pay your taxes. Don't complain. Give it up.
They make promises, sheep must be shorn.
Don't worry, lead them to slaughter.
Something Wicked, This Way Comes.

Protect yourself? What for? Cops do that.
Serve and protect. That's the motto.
Not anymore. Cops make revenue now.
Pass out those tickets, fill the state coffers.
That's not enough? Pass more laws. Rights no, laws yes.
Evil And Wicked, This Way Comes.

Where's the media? Nothing exposed.
Where is Bob Woodward? Bought and paid for.
Propaganda will fill the people's minds.
Politically and socially correct, this is your time.
Everyone is happy, no matter what, Big Brother is watching.
Evil And Wicked, This Way Comes.

Our money is worthless? How come?
Federal Reserve is a corporation? Not true!
Oh, but it is, and so is the government.
Money is debt and credit. What about gold?
Sold down the river. Politician's word is his bond.
Evil And Wicked, This Way Comes.

International Bankers. Laughing it up.
Stealing our assets. Giving us lies and fraud.
Social Security the perfect Ponzi scheme for the sheep.
Take it from wages. Trust fund to keep.
Sixty years later, it's all gone.
Evil And Wicked, This Way Comes.

We fell for it all. America dethrowned.
Our troops all over the globe, spearpoint, you know.
UN troops guard us now, in white vehicles.
Lurking in shadows, hiding for now.
FEMA builds camps, to house and make us safe one day.
Minions Now, Of Satan, This Way Comes.

They gave us the Patriot Act - Victory Act too.
Turned everyone into a terrorist, as darkness fell on America.
Waving your flags, stealing our rights, making more laws.
Once we were citizens, now subjects, comfortable slaves.
Presidents, Democrats and Republicans, saved the day.
Minions Now, Of Satan, This Way Comes.

America slept through the 20th Century.
We had integrity, honor, strength of character, and Mickey Mouse.
We trusted public servants, they stole us blind.
They live in comfort, while the people scratch and claw.
A new aristocracy, the Government of America.
Minions Now, Of Satan, This Way Comes.

How did this happen? What can be done?
Who will save us? We know this is wrong.
We used to be self reliant. We stood so strong.
We need more laws, more government, more.....
I think this is stupid, I won't take it anymore!
Free Will And God, This Way Comes.

I will stand tall. The line is drawn.
It is time to defend. End this charade.
Band together. United we stand, divided we fall.
I have heard of an answer. The PACT.
Mutual Defense Pact. It started with one.
Free Will And God, This Way Comes.

It happened out West, Denver it started.
Many scoffed. Most sat on their hands.
The messenger called. A website was formed.
The call continued to go out. www.stanley2002.org.
It grew. More came. The Pact was no longer small.
Free Will And God, This Way Comes.

Time went on. The Government laughed.
The Government trembled. They were on the run.
The people were gathering. God's People stood strong.
No one wavered. People came when called.
It finally started, one day in the Fall.
Free Will And God, This Way Comes.

The battle erupted. From both sides they came.
The evil. The good. From government. From "We The People".
It spread from shore to shore. From defense it came.
Deadly and triumphant, the Lion joined the fray.
The New World Order, smashed by God's Order.
Free Will And God, This Way Comes.

http://www.stanley2002.org/

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

BACK TO THE TOP                                                  BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS
































Full transcript of bin Ladin's speech

Al-Jazeera aired only four minutes of Osama bin Laden's videotape released last week, this is the transcript for the full 18 minutes.

Following is the full English transcript of Usama bin Ladin's speech in a videotape sent to Aljazeera.

11/01/04 "Aljazeera"


Praise be to Allah who created the creation for his worship and commanded them to be just and permitted the wronged one to retaliate against the oppressor in kind. To proceed:

Peace be upon he who follows the guidance: People of America this talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan, and deals with the war and its causes and results.

Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example – Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 – may Allah have mercy on them.

No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.

No-one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.

But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.

So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorized and displaced.

I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.

The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.

In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.

This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr. did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children – also in Iraq – as Bush Jr. Did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.

So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?

Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us.

This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th.

And you can read this, if you wish, in my interview with Scott in Time Magazine in 1996, or with Peter Arnett on CNN in 1997, or my meeting with John Weiner in 1998.

You can observe it practically, if you wish, in Kenya and Tanzania and in Aden. And you can read it in my interview with Abdul Bari Atwan, as well as my interviews with Robert Fisk.

The latter is one of your compatriots and co-religionists and I consider him to be neutral. So are the pretenders of freedom at The White House and the channels controlled by them able to run an interview with him? So that he may relay to the American people what he has understood from us to be the reasons for our fight against you?

If you were to avoid these reasons, you will have taken the correct path that will lead America to the security that it was in before September 11th. This concerned the causes of the war.

As for it's results, they have been, by the grace of Allah, positive and enormous, and have, by all standards, exceeded all expectations. This is due to many factors, chief amongst them, that we have found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half which are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents.

Our experience with them is lengthy, and both types are replete with those who are characterized by pride, arrogance, greed and misappropriation of wealth. This resemblance began after the visits of Bush Sr. to the region.

At a time when some of our compatriots were dazzled by America and hoping that these visits would have an effect on our countries, all of a sudden he was affected by those monarchies and military regimes, and became envious of their remaining decades in their positions, to embezzle the public wealth of the nation without supervision or accounting.

So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son and they named it the Patriot Act, under the pretense of fighting terrorism. In addition, Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state governors, and didn't forget to import expertise in election fraud from the region's presidents to Florida to be made use of in moments of difficulty.

All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two Mujahideen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.

This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the Mujahideen, bled Russia for ten years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.

All Praise is due to Allah.

So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.

That being said, those who say that al-Qaida has won against the administration in the White House or that the administration has lost in this war have not been precise, because when one scrutinizes the results, one cannot say that al-Qaida is the sole factor in achieving those spectacular gains.

Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations – whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction – has helped al-Qaida to achieve these enormous results.

And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ.

And it was to these sorts of notions and their like that the British diplomat and others were referring in their lectures at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. (When they pointed out that) for example, al-Qaida spent $500 000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost – according to the lowest estimate – more than 500 billion dollars.

Meaning that every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs.

As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.

And even more dangerous and bitter for America is that the Mujahideen recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the bleed -until-bankruptcy plan – with Allah's permission.

It is true that this shows that al-Qaida has gained, but on the other hand, it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something of which anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Haliburton and its kind, will be convinced. And it all shows that the real loser is...you.

It is the American people and their economy. And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within twenty minutes, before Bush and his administration notice.

It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50 000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone, the time when they most needed him.

But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers. We were given three times the period required to execute the operations – All Praise is Due to Allah.

And it's no secret to you that the thinkers and perceptive ones from among the Americans warned Bush before the war and told him, "All that you want for securing America and removing the weapons of mass destruction – assuming they exist – is available to you, and the nations of the world are with you in the inspections, and it is in the interest of America that it not be thrust into an unjustified war with an unknown outcome."

But the darkness of the black gold blurred his vision and insight, and he gave priority to private interests over the public interests of America.

So the war went ahead, the death toll rose, the American economy bled, and Bush became embroiled in the swamps of Iraq that threaten his future. He fits the saying, "Like the naughty she-goat who used her hoof to dig up a knife from under the earth"

So I say to you, over 15 000 of our people have been killed and tens of thousands injured, while more than a thousand of you have been killed and more than 10 000 injured. And Bush's hands are stained with the blood of all those killed from both sides, all for the sake of oil and keeping their private companies in business.

Be aware that it is the nation who punishes the weak man when he causes the killing of one of its citizens for money, while letting the powerful one get off, when he causes the killing of more than 1000 of its sons, also for money.

And the same goes for your allies in Palestine. They terrorize the women and children, and kill and capture the men as they lie sleeping with their families on the mattresses, that you may recall that for every action, there is a reaction.

Finally, it behooves you to reflect on the last wills and testaments of the thousands who left you on the 11th as they gestured in despair. They are important testaments, which should be studied and researched.

Among the most important of what I read in them was some prose in their gestures before the collapse, where they say, "How mistaken we were to have allowed the White House to implement its aggressive foreign policies against the weak without supervision." It is as if they were telling you, the people of America, "Hold to account those who have caused us to be killed, and happy is he who learns from others' mistakes," And among that which I read in their gestures is a verse of poetry, "Injustice chases its people, and how unhealthy the bed of tyranny."

As has been said, "An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure."

And know that, "It is better to return to the truth than persist in error." And that the wise man doesn't squander his security, wealth and children for the sake of the liar in the White House.

In conclusion, I tell you in truth, that your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida.

No.

Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security.

And Allah is our Guardian and Helper, while you have no Guardian or Helper. All Peace be Upon he who follows the Guidance.

Copyright: Aljazeera
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

MAMMA's Footnote:

OK....you may not like the messenger, but....could there be any TRUTH in anything he has to say that could/should make you THINK?

- WHY did the U.S. invade Iraq?
- Is it possible to save a city by destroying it?
- Does launching an assault really PREVENT violence?
- Wouldn't it be easier to fight terrorism if we weren't creating terrorists (AKA collateral damage)?
- Is it fair to burden the elderly and infirm with financial woes by using ALL of the TRUST from Social Security to pay for this war?
- Do you really want to leave your children and grandchildren a legacy of perpetual WAR...what kind of security is that???
- Considering that...
...Pres. Bush invoked the 'Powers Act' to "Shock and Awe" the Sovereign Nation of Iraq (and the rest of the world),
...Pres. Bush called for a 'Halt of all Hostilities',
...Pres. Bush passed the mantle of Responsibility and Accountability to Iraqis, when he restored their (stolen) Sovereignty,
...Pres. Bush says that if there is ONE more RED 'ALERT', the constitution will be suspended and Martial Law will be instituted...
- WHY are coalition forces continuing to occupy and DIE in Iraq...in the name of democracy and freedom????


BACK TO THE TOP                                                  BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS


























The war on Iraq has made moral cowards of us all

More than 100,000 Iraqis have been killed - and where is our shame and rage?

Scott Ritter

11/01/04 "The Guardian"
-- The full scale of the human cost already paid for the war o­n Iraq is o­nly now becoming clear. Last week's estimate by investigators, using credible methodology, that more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians - most of them women and children - have died since the US-led invasion is a profound moral indictment of our countries. The US and British governments quickly moved to cast doubt o­n the Lancet medical journal findings, citing other studies. These mainly media-based reports put the number of Iraqi civilian deaths at about 15,000 - although the basis for such an endorssement is unclear, since neither the US nor the UK admits to collecting data o­n Iraqi civilian casualties.

Civilian deaths have always been a tragic reality of modern war. But the conflict in Iraq was supposed to be different - US and British forces were dispatched to liberate the Iraqi people, not impose their own tyranny of violence.

Reading accounts of the US-led invasion, o­ne is struck by the constant, almost casual, reference to civilian deaths. Soldiers and marines speak of destroying hundreds, if not thousands, of vehicles that turned out to be crammed with civilians. US marines acknowledged in the aftermath of the early, bloody battle for Nassiriya that their artillery and air power had pounded civilian areas in a blind effort to suppress insurgents thought to be holed up in the city. The infamous "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad produced hundreds of deaths, as did the 3rd Infantry Division's "Thunder Run", an armoured thrust in Baghdad that slaughtered everyone in its path.

It is true that, with o­nly a few exceptions, civilians who died as a result of ground combat were not deliberately targeted, but were caught up in the machinery of modern warfare. But when the same claim is made about civilians killed in aerial attacks (the Lancet study estimates that most of civilian deaths were the result of air attacks), the comparison quickly falls apart. Helicopter engagements apart, most aerial bombardment is deliberate and pre-planned. US and British military officials like to brag about the accuracy of the "precision" munitions used in these strikes, claiming this makes the kind
of modern warfare practised by the coalition in Iraq the most humanitarian in history.

But there is nothing humanitarian about explosives o­nce they detonate near civilians, or about a bomb guided to the wrong target. Dozens of civilians were killed during the vain effort to eliminate Saddam Hussein with "pinpoint" air strikes, and hundreds have perished in the campaign to eliminate alleged terrorist targets in Falluja. A "smart bomb" is o­nly as good as the data used to direct it. And the abysmal quality of the intelligence used has made the smartest of bombs just as dumb and indiscriminate as those, for example, dropped during the second world war.

The fact that most bombing missions in Iraq today are pre-planned, with targets allegedly carefully vetted, further indicts those who wage this war in the name of freedom. If these targets are so precise, then those selecting them cannot escape the fact that they are deliberately targeting innocent civilians at the same time as they seek to destroy their intended foe. Some would dismiss these civilians as "collateral damage". But we must keep in mind that the British and US governments made a deliberate decision to enter into a conflict of their choosing, not o­ne that was thrust upon them. We invaded Iraq to free
Iraqis from a dictator who, by some accounts, oversaw the killing of about 300,000 of his subjects - although no o­ne has been able to verify more than a small fraction of the figure. If it is correct, it took Saddam decades to reach such a horrific statistic. The US and UK have, it seems, reached a third of that total in just 18 months.

Meanwhile, the latest scandal over missing nuclear-related high explosives in Iraq (traced and controlled under the UN inspections regime) o­nly underscores the utter deceitfulness of the Bush-Blair argument for the war. Having claimed the uncertainty surrounding Iraq's WMD capability constituted a threat that could not go unchallenged in a post-9/11 world, o­ne would have expected the two leaders to insist o­n a military course of action that brought under immediate coalition control any aspect of potential WMD capability, especially relating to any possible nuclear threat. That the US military did not have a dedicated force to locate and neutralise these explosives underscores the fact that both Bush and Blair knew that there was no threat from Iraq, nuclear or otherwise.

Of course, the US and Britain have a history of turning a blind eye to Iraqi suffering when it suits their political purposes. During the 1990s, hundreds of thousands are estimated by the UN to have died as a result of sanctions. Throughout that time, the US and the UK maintained the fiction that this was the fault of Saddam Hussein, who refused to give up his WMD. We now know that Saddam had disarmed and those deaths were the responsibility of the US and Britain, which refused to lift sanctions.

There are many culpable individuals and organisations history will hold to account for the war - from deceitful politicians and journalists to acquiescent military professionals and silent citizens of the world's democracies. As the evidence has piled up confirming what I and others had reported - that Iraq was already disarmed by the late 1990s - my personal vote for o­ne of the most culpable individuals would go to Hans Blix, who headed the UN weapons inspection team in the run-up to war. He had the power if not to prevent, at least to forestall a war with Iraq. Blix knew that Iraq was disarmed, but in his mealy-mouthed testimony to the UN security council helped provide fodder for war. His failure to stand up to the lies used by Bush and Blair to sell the Iraq war must brand him a moral and intellectual coward.

But we all are moral cowards when it comes to Iraq. Our collective inability to summon the requisite shame and rage when confronted by an estimate of 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians in the prosecution of an illegal and unjust war not o­nly condemns us, but adds credibility to those who oppose us. The fact that a criminal such as Osama bin Laden can broadcast a videotape o­n the eve of the US presidential election in which his message is viewed by many around the world as a sober argument in support of his cause is the harshest indictment of the failure of the US and Britain to implement sound policy in the aftermath of 9/11. The death of 3,000 civilians o­n that horrible day represented a tragedy of huge proportions. Our continued indifference to a war that has slaughtered so many Iraqi civilians, and will continue to kill more, is in many ways an even greater tragedy: not o­nly in terms of scale, but also because these deaths were inflicted by our own hand in the course of an action that has no defence.

Scott Ritter was a senior UN weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998 and is the author of Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America email - WSRitter@aol.com

Copyright: The Guardian
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

BACK TO THE TOP                                                          BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS




























Marine: US Soldiers Routinely Killed Civilians, Including Woman and Children
By: Andrew Buncombe

September 12, 2004
Independent, The

A former US Marine has claimed that he saw American troops in Iraq routinely kill unarmed civilians, including women and children. He said he had also witnessed troops killing injured Iraqi insurgents.

Jimmy Massey, 33, a staff sergeant who served in Iraq before being honourably discharged after 12 years' service, said he had seen troops shooting civilians at road blocks and in the street. A code of silence, similar to that found in organised crime gangs, prevented troops from speaking about it.

"We were shooting up people as they got out of their cars trying to put their hands up," said Mr Massey. "I don't know if the Iraqis thought we were celebrating their new democracy. I do know that we killed innocent civilians." Mr Massey said US troops in Iraq were trained to believe that all Iraqis were potential terrorists. As a result, he had watched his colleagues open fire indiscriminately. In one 48-hour period, he estimated his unit killed more than 30 civilians in the Rashid district of southern Baghdad.

"I was never clear on who the enemy was," he explained. "If you have no enemy or you do not know who the enemy is, what are you doing there?" His claims were made during an immigration hearing in Toronto, Canada, to assess a claim for refugee status made by a former US soldier, Jeremy Hinzman. Mr Hinzman, 26, fled to Canada after refusing to go to Iraq with his colleagues in the 82nd Airborne Division based at Fort Bragg.

Mr Hinzman is seeking permission to remain in Canada with his wife and child and believes he will face a court martial if he returns to the US. "We were told that we would be going to Iraq to jack up some terrorists," he told the hearing.

"We were told it was a new kind of war, that these were evil people and they had to be dealt with." Mr Hinzman is among several American soldiers seeking refugee status in Canada, hoping the country's opposition to the war will help.

Some 30,000 to 50,000 Americans fled to Canada during the Vietnam War and settled there.


Original Link: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=591171


© Copyright 2004 Independent, The

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

BACK TO THE TOP                                    BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS






























US admits the war for ‘hearts and minds’ in Iraq is now lost

By: Neil Mackay,  Investigations Editor

Sunday Herald

December 5, 2004

THE Pentagon has admitted that the war on terror and the invasion and occupation of Iraq have increased support for al-Qaeda, made ordinary Muslims hate the US and caused a global backlash against America because of the “self-serving hypocrisy” of George W Bush’s administration over the Middle East. The mea culpa is contained in a shockingly frank “strategic communications” report, written this autumn by the Defence Science Board for Pentagon supremo Donald Rumsfeld.

On “the war of ideas or the struggle for hearts and minds”, the report says, “American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended”.

“American direct intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature of, and support for, radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single digits in some Arab societies.”

Referring to the repeated mantra from the White House that those who oppose the US in the Middle East “hate our freedoms”, the report says: “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedoms’, but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing support, for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.

“Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that ‘freedom is the future of the Middle East’ is seen as patronising … in the eyes of Muslims, the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. US actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination.”

The way America has handled itself since September 11 has played straight into the hands of al-Qaeda, the report adds. “American actions have elevated the authority of the jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims.” The result is that al-Qaeda has gone from being a marginal movement to having support across the entire Muslim world.

“Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic,” the report goes on, adding that to the Arab world the war is “no more than an extension of American domestic politics”. The US has zero credibility among Muslims which means that “whatever Americans do and say only serves … the enemy”.

The report says that the US is now engaged in a “global and generational struggle of ideas” which it is rapidly losing. In order to reverse the trend, the US must make “strategic communication” – which includes the dissemination of propaganda and the running of military psychological operations – an integral part of national security. The document says that “Presidential leadership” is needed in this “ideas war” and warns against “arrogance, opportunism and double standards”.

“We face a war on terrorism,” the report says, “intensified conflict with Islam, and insurgency in Iraq. Worldwide anger and discontent are directed at America’s tarnished credibility and ways the US pursues its goals. There is a consensus that America’s power to persuade is in a state of crisis.” More than 90% of the populations of some Muslims countries, such as Saudi Arabia, are opposed to US policies.

“The war has increased mistrust of America in Europe,” the report adds, “weakened support for the war on terrorism and undermined US credibility worldwide.” This, in turn, poses an increased threat to US national security.

America’s “image problem”, the report authors suggest, is “linked to perceptions of the US as arrogant, hypocritical and self- indulgent”. The White House “has paid little attention” to the problems.

The report calls for a huge boost in spending on propaganda efforts as war policies “will not succeed unless they are communicated to global domestic audiences in ways that are credible”.

American rhetoric which equates the war on terror as a cold-war-style battle against “totalitarian evil” is also slapped down by the report. Muslims see what is happening as a “history-shaking movement of Islamic restoration … a renewal of the Muslim world … (which) has taken form through many variant movements, both moderate and militant, with many millions of adherents – of which radical fighters are only a small part”.

Rather than supporting tyranny, most Muslim want to overthrow tyrannical regimes like Saudi Arabia. “The US finds itself in the strategically awkward – and potentially dangerous – situation of being the long-standing prop and alliance partner of these authoritarian regimes. Without the US, these regimes could not survive,” the report says.

“Thus the US has strongly taken sides in a desperate struggle … US policies and actions are increasingly seen by the overwhelming majority of Muslims as a threat to the survival of Islam itself … Americans have inserted themselves into this intra-Islamic struggle in ways that have made us an enemy to most Muslims.

“There is no yearning-to- be-liberated-by-the-US groundswell among Muslim societies … The perception of intimate US support of tyr-annies in the Muslim world is perhaps the critical vulnerability in American strategy. It strongly undercuts our message, while strongly promoting that of the enemy.”

The report says that, in terms of the “information war”, “at this moment it is the enemy that has the advantage”. The US propaganda drive has to focus on “separating the vast majority of non-violent Muslims from the radical- militant Islamist- Jihadist”.

According to the report, “the official take on the target audience [the Muslim world] has been gloriously simple” and divided the Middle East into “good” and “bad Muslims”.

“Americans are convinced that the US is a benevolent ‘superpower’ that elevates values emphasising freedom … deep down we assume that everyone should naturally support our policies. Yet the world of Islam – by overwhelming majorities at this time – sees things differently. Muslims see American policies as inimical to their values, American rhetoric about freedom and democracy as hypocritical and American actions as deeply threatening.

“In two years the jihadi message – that strongly attacks American values – is being accepted by more moderate and non-violent Muslims. This in turn implies that negative opinion of the US has not yet bottomed out

Equally important, the report says, is “to renew European attitudes towards America” which have also been severely damaged since September 11, 2001. As “al-Qaeda constantly outflanks the US in the war of information”, American has to adopt more sophisticated propaganda techniques, such as targeting secularists in the Muslim world – including writers, artists and singers – and getting US private sector media and marketing professionals involved in disseminating messages to Muslims with a pro-US “brand”.

The Pentagon report also calls for the establishment of a national security adviser for strategic communications, and a massive boost in funding for the “information war” to boost US government TV and radio stations broadcasting in the Middle East.

The importance of the need to quickly establish a propaganda advantage is underscored by a document attached to the Pentagon report from Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, dated May.

It says: “Our military expeditions to Afghanistan and Iraq are unlikely to be the last such excursion in the global war on terrorism.”

 http://www.sundayherald.com/46389

© Copyright 2004 Sunday Herald

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


BACK TO THE TOP                                                  BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS






























Bush and Blair: Secrets and Lies
By Neil Mackay, Investigations Editor

The rotting albatross that is Iraq still hangs around Blair’s neck, and, after the
revelations of secret government papers laying out the dangers of joining Bush’s war, its
stench has become impossible for anyone to ignore but for the man closest to it – the
Prime Minister


September 19, 2004

 
BLAIR’S secrets are out, and this is what he knew a full year before the invasion of Iraq: the war was illegal, it would turn into a quagmire that could last for generations and it was more than likely that, once Saddam was overthrown, a new Iraqi government, even a democratic one, would start developing weapons of mass destruction.

These warnings were contained in a series of top-secret documents that Blair read and digested long before the invasion. It’s little wonder that Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, says these revelations are “the crown jewels”.

The documents show that, despite the reservations of his own foreign secretary and the Cabinet Office Overseas and Defence Secretariat, Blair was swept along by George W Bush into a war that the British people did not want. His motive? The preservation of the transatlantic special relationship. America, under Bush, was going to take out Saddam no matter what happened – and the White House clearly expected its loyal ally the UK to follow in step behind the US.

On Monday, Blair began his week by trying to draw a line under Iraq. At the TUC conference in Brighton, he attempted to put Iraq on the back burner by talking up his domestic agenda. His choice of words couldn’t have been more ironic: “Even if I’ve never been away, it’s time to show I’m back”. He could have been talking about the spectre of Iraq hanging over his career and British politics: Iraq has never been away, but today it’s back with a vengeance.

The contents of the documents couldn’t have been revealed at a worse time for Blair. Last week, Kofi Annan said the invasion of the Iraq was “illegal”. The forthcoming report by the Iraq Survey Group, which has been hunting for WMD in Iraq, will say Saddam had no stockpiles of banned weapons.

President Bush, yesterday, warned that guerrilla attacks in Iraq will probably get worse, and a highly classified US National Intelligence Estimate, put together this summer by the government’s most senior analysts, says Iraq could spiral into full-blown civil war. The Foreign Relations Committee in the US is also furious at a request from the State Department to divert some £2.82 billion out of reconstruction funds, worth £15bn, to security and economic development, such as the improvement of the oil industry.

The claims in the secret documents are yet another nail in the coffin for a Prime Minister who is fixated on his place in the history books. They show that he was not motivated by passion or commitment but by a carefully calculated mix of electoral self-interest and loyalty to America.

The secret documents show that, a full year before the invasion, Blair was told that any hope of getting a stable government for post-invasion Iraq would take “many years” and would be impossible without putting thousands of British troops into the country. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw also expressed grave reservations about the war. His officials told Blair that Iraq could “revert to type” and start to build up stockpiles of anthrax, sarin and nuclear weapons. Blair was also warned that Bush considered taking out Saddam Hussein to be “unfinished business” – a “grudge match” – and that if Britain wanted to go to war legally against Iraq, Blair would have to “wrongfoot” Saddam and get him to slip up over weapons inspections in order to give the UK an excuse for war.

Straw told Blair in March 2002, in a letter stamped “Secret and Personal” that there was no proper understanding of what would happen in Iraq post-invasion. “There seems to be a larger hole in this than anything,” he wrote. Referring to the American thirst for regime change, Straw added: “No-one has satisfactorily answered how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be any better. Iraq has no history of democracy so no-one has this habit or experience.”

Straw was deeply worried about the legality of any invasion. He said British action had to be “narrated with reference to the international rule of law”. Straw added that his legal advisers had told him it would take a new UN resolution to make the war legal. The US had no interest in these kinds of niceties.

In an options paper dated March 8, 2002, prepared by senior ministerial advisers and marked “Secret UK Eyes Only”, the Cabinet Office Overseas and Defence Secretariat spelled out just how depressing the interlocked futures of Iraq and Britain had become. It said that: “The greater investment of Western forces, the greater our control over Iraq’s future, but the greater the cost and the longer we would need to stay”.

It added: “The only certain means to remove Saddam and his elite is to invade and impose a new government, but this would involve nation-building over many years.” Putting a “Sunni strongman” in place in order to get British troops out of Iraq quickly would be completely counter-productive. “There would be a strong risk of the Iraqi system reverting to type. Military coup could succeed coup until an autocratic Sunni dictator emerged who protected Sunni interests. With time he could acquire WMD,” the paper added.

Even a democratic government would be likely to try to acquire WMD for two reasons: firstly, because of the nuclear capabilities of its two enemy states – Israel and Iran – and secondly, because the Palestine question was the unresolved source of conflict in the Middle East.

If a democratic government was to survive in Iraq, “it would require the US and others to commit to nation-building for many years. This would entail a substantial international security force.”

Lord Butler, who oversaw the inquiry into the use of intelligence to make the case for war, referred to the Cabinet Office options paper in his report, saying it indicated that regime change was illegal and had “no basis in international law”. The policy paper said there were serious difficulties in finding a legal justification for war, adding: “Subject to law officers’ advice, none currently exists”.

Not only that, but the paper also said Saddam was not an increased risk and that there was no evidence Saddam was backing international terror. “This makes moving to invade legally very difficult,” the options paper concluded.

The US believed a legal basis for war already exis ted, because of Saddam’s flouting of UN resolutions on disarmament, and was dead set against continuing a policy of containment. “The swift success of the war in Afghanistan, distrust of UN sanctions and inspections regimes, and unfinished business from 1991 are all factors,” the document said.

Washington, the paper warned, would not be “governed by wider political factors. The US may be willing to work with a much smaller coalition than we think desirable”. Peter Ricketts, Foreign Office policy director, said there were “real problems” with the US policy line.

“Even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years,” Ricketts wrote. “Military operations need clear and compelling military objectives. For Iraq, ‘regime change’ does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge match between Bush and Saddam.”

Ricketts, however, advised that Blair should stick close to Bush: “By sharing Bush’s broad objective, the Prime Minister can help shape how it is defined, and the approach to achieving it. In the process, he can bring home to Bush some of the realities which will be less evident from Washington. He can help Bush by telling him things his own machine probably isn’t.” Ricketts also explained why the war was an inevitability. “The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein’s WMD programmes, but our tolerance of them post-September 11.”

At the same time, MI6 was arguing against Blair’s decision to publish a dossier of declassified information designed to convince the British public that Saddam was dangerous. MI6 was saying that the intelligence didn’t support the claims that Blair wanted to make. Jack Straw felt the dossier would be meaningless.

A Joint Intelligence Committee assessment dated March 15, said intelligence on Saddam’s WMD was “patchy”. The toughest the language could get was: “We believe Iraq retains some production equipment and some small stocks of chemical precursors, and may have hidden small quantities of agents and weapons. There is no intelligence on any biological agent production facilities.”

Blair was advised in the Cabinet Office options paper to work slowly towards a legal justification for war, by building international support and ramping up the pressure on Saddam by pushing for weapons inspectors to return to Iraq.

The chance to wrongfoot Saddam could come from him refusing to re-admit the inspectors or blocking their inspections. “He has miscalculated before,” the paper says. Other documents show that the Foreign Office and the Bush administration were poles apart in terms of how they saw the conflict unfolding. The Foreign Office was alarmed at just how eager the US was to hit Iraq, whether or not it had the support of its allies.

In a letter to the Prime Minister marked “Secret – Strictly Personal”, Sir David Manning, Blair’s foreign policy adviser, summed up the talks he had in Washington in March 2002, saying: “I think there is a real risk that the administration underestimates the difficulties. They may agree that failure isn’t an option, but this does not mean they will necessarily avoid it.”

Bush “still has to find answers to the big questions”, Manning wrote, including a solution to the most vital problem: “What happens on the morning after?”

The Americans were fully aware of the invidious position in which Blair found himself. He was being dragged two ways at the same time: the US expected the UK, its closest ally, to get onboard for a war in Iraq, but more than half the British people were polled as opposed to the war.

Manning had briefed Sir Christopher Meyer, the then British ambassador to the US, and had spoken to US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. Manning told her that Blair wanted Bush not to rush into war until the invasion was deemed legal – something that would need the full support of the UN Security Council. A memo from Meyer was circulated which warned UK policy not to underestimate Bush’s passion for ousting Saddam. With Washington pushing for war with Iraq in the autumn of 2002, Blair’s advisers told him that: “if any invasion is contemplated this autumn, then a decision will
need to be taken in principle six months in advance”. That left Blair little or no time to make the case for war legally watertight.

Manning was dispatched to Washington to explain to the administration just how difficult life was for Blair. Manning’s memo on the trip read: “Prime Minister, I had dinner with Condi [Condoleezza Rice] on Tuesday … these were good exchanges, and particularly frank when we were one-on-one at dinner. We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq. It is clear that Bush is grateful for your support and has registered that you are getting flak.

“I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge on your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option. Condi’s enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed. But there were some signs, since we last spoke, of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks.

“From what she said, Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions: how to persuade international opinion that military action against Iraq is necessary and justified; what value to put on the exiled Iraqi opposition; how to co-ordinate a US/allied military campaign with internal opposition (assuming there is any any); what happens on the morning after? Bush will want to pick your brains. He will also want to hear whether he can expect coalition support. I told Condi that we realised that the administration could go it alone if it chose. But if it wanted company, it would have to take account of the concerns of its potential coalition partners.”

Manning told Rice that pushing for weapons inspections could help bring Europe along, adding: “Renewed refusal by Saddam to accept unfettered inspections would be a powerful argument.” Manning also told Rice that it was “paramount” that Israel and Palestine be dealt with. Failure to do so could lead to the allies “bombing Iraq and losing the Gulf”.

Manning told Blair: “Bush wants to hear your views on Iraq before making a decision. He also wants your support. He is still smarting from the comments by other European leaders on his Iraq policy. This gives you real influence: on the public relations strategy; on the UN and weapons inspections; and on US planning for a military campaign. This could be critically important. I think there is a real risk that the administration underestimates the difficulties. They may agree that failure isn’t an option, but this does not mean that they will avoid it.”

Manning added that the “US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda is so far unconvincing. To get public and parliamentary support for military options we have to be convincing that the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for”.

Blair travelled to Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, in March 2002 to talk war with the President. Here was how Jack Straw interpreted the meeting: “The rewards from your visit to Crawford will be few. The risks are high both for you and the government.” Straw said there was a long way to go before parliament could be convinced about “the scale of the threat from Iraq and why this has got worse recently; what distinguishes the Iraqi threat from that of for example Iran and North Korea so as to justify military action; military action in terms of international law; and whether the consequences of military
action really would be a compliant, law-abiding replacement government.”

Straw added: “I know there are those who say that an attack on Iraq would be justified whether or not weapons inspectors were re-admitted, but I believe that a demand for the unfettered re-admission of weapons inspectors is essential, in terms of public explanation, and in terms of legal sanction for military action.”

Straw said there were “two potential elephant traps”: firstly, wanting regime change did not justify military action; and secondly, US opposition to a “fresh mandate”. Straw added that: “The weight of legal advice here is that a fresh mandate may well be required.”

© Copyright 2004 Sunday Herald
http://www.sundayherald.com/44911

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


BACK TO THE TOP                                                      BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS































New Papers Suggest Detainee Abuse Was Widespread

Wed Dec 22, 2:55 PM ET http://www.washingtonpost.com

By R. Jeffrey Smith and Dan Eggen, Washington Post Staff Writers

The Bush administration is facing a wave of new allegations that the abuse of foreign detainees in U.S. military custody was more widespread, varied and grave in the past three years than the Defense Department has long maintained.

 New documents released yesterday detail a series of probes by Army criminal investigators into multiple cases of threatened executions of Iraqi detainees by U.S. soldiers, as well as of thefts of currency and other private property, physical assaults, and deadly shootings of detainees at detention camps in Iraq.

In many of the newly disclosed cases, Army commanders chose noncriminal punishments for those involved in the abuse, or the investigations were so flawed that prosecutions could not go forward, the documents show. Human rights groups said yesterday that, as a result, the penalties imposed were too light to suit the offenses.

The complaints arose from several thousand new pages of internal reports, investigations and e-mails from different agencies, which, with other documents released in the past two weeks, paint a finer-grained picture of military abuse and criminal behavior at prisons in Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan than previously available.

The documents disclosed by a coalition of groups that had sued the government to obtain them make it clear that both regular and Special Forces soldiers took part in the abuse, and that the misconduct included shocking detainees with electric guns, shackling them without food and water, and wrapping a detainee in an Israeli flag.

The variety of the abuse and the fact that it occurred over a three-year period undermine the Pentagon (news - web sites)'s past insistence -- arising out of the summertime scandal surrounding the mistreatment at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison -- that the abuse occurred largely during a few months at that prison, and that it mostly involved detainee humiliation or intimidation rather than the deliberate infliction of pain.

After the latest revelations, including the disclosures that officials in other federal agencies had objected to these actions by soldiers -- to the point of urging, in some cases, war crimes prosecutions -- White House spokesman Scott McClellan responded yesterday with a promise that President Bush expects a full investigation and corrective actions "to make sure that abuse does not occur again."

The details of the abuse appeared to catch some administration officials by surprise, although five agencies for weeks have been culling releasable records from their files, under an agreement worked out by U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. He was responding to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by five independent groups seeking anything pertinent to detainee deaths, abuse and transfers to other countries since Sept. 11, 2001.

McClellan said that he did not know whether the White House was informed about the incidents detailed in the documents released on Monday. These included the use of dogs to intimidate prisoners at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the impersonation of FBI agents by military interrogators -- two of many practices that provoked concern among FBI agents stationed there.

"In terms of specifics, this information is becoming public, so we're becoming aware of more information as it becomes public, as you are," McClellan said. He also said that he did not know whether FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III has notified the Defense Department about his concerns but that the Pentagon takes abuse allegations "very seriously."

Amrit Singh -- a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites), one of the four groups that sued to obtain the documents -- said that she thinks the disclosure rrequirement will eventually encompass hundreds of thousands of pages of internal administration documents, although only 9,000 pages have been released so far. Yesterday, the judge told the CIA that it could not delay making its own disclosures until an internal probe of the abuse is completed, Singh said.

"What the documents show so far was that the abuse was widespread and systemic, that it was the result of decisions taken by high-ranking officials, and that the abuse took place within a culture of secrecy and neglect," Singh said.

Col. Joseph Curtin, the Army's top spokesman, urged a different view of the documents released yesterday, all drawn from the Army's Criminal Investigation Command. In detailing internal probes of 46 cases of misconduct, they show "that the Army does take seriously and investigates any allegation of detainee abuse," he said.

The new documents include several incidents of threatened executions of teenage and adult Iraqi detainees. In one instance, a soldier in a unit that lacked any training in interrogation -- but was nonetheless assigned to process and question detainees -- acknowledged forcing two men to their knees, placing bullets in their mouths, ordering them to close their eyes, and telling them they would be shot unless they answered questions about a grenade incident. He then took the bullets, and a colleague pretended to load them in the chamber of his M-16 rifle.

The documents indicate that the perpetrator, who was investigated on charges of assault and a "law of war violation," was given a nonjudicial punishment by his commander. Threatening detainees with physical harm to compel their testimony is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

In a second case, Army investigators concluded that a sergeant committed offenses including assault, dereliction of duty and cruelty when he conducted "a mock execution of an Iraqi teenager" in front of the boy's father and brother, who were suspected of looting an ammunition factory. Investigators also found that the actions were condoned by a lieutenant who conspired with the sergeant.

An investigative report also details an incident two days earlier, in which the lieutenant ordered a suspected looter to kneel, pointed a 9mm pistol at his head and then pulled the gun away just as he fired a shot. The outcome of both cases is unclear from the records released yesterday.

The documents also divulge a probe of the beatings of three mosque security guards in Baghdad in September 2003. After being arrested and cuffed during a search, the three Iraqis were kicked, stomped and dragged by a group of U.S. soldiers. Five soldiers were given reprimands and reductions in rank after being found guilty of maltreatment of prisoners, assault and other charges, the records show.

In another Baghdad case, a U.S. soldier was accused of trying to force an Iraqi civilian to hold a gun as a justification for killing him. The soldier punched the civilian in the face, held an M-16 rifle to his head and flicked the safety off to threaten him, according to the accounts of 19 witnesses. Another soldier eventually stepped in to protect the civilian, who had been hired by the U.S. Army to guard the Museum of Iraqi Military History, the records show.

Other documents describe the death in 2003 of detainee Abdul Kareem Abdureda Lafta, 44, in a U.S. Army jail in Mosul. He "appeared to be in good health" when taken into custody, and he quickly gained the attention of MPs by continually trying to remove the hood placed on his head and talking when guards told him to be silent, the documents say. One night, Lafta was put to bed with his hands tied behind him. Even so, one guard said he spent much of the night "constantly moving around on the ground" in his cell. In the morning, he was found dead.

A doctor who examined the body told investigators "he did not know what killed him." Another Army document says he was found to have a small laceration on his head. The investigators said "there is no documentation . . . explaining the lack of an autopsy."

In another case, Army investigators found probable cause to court-martial a soldier for shooting to death an Iraqi detainee, Obede Hethere Radad, without warning. But he was punished administratively and discharged.

Khalid Odah, the father of one Guantanamo detainee, said in a telephone interview from Kuwait yesterday that the new revelations make him worry even more about the fate of his son, Fawzi, who was detained by U.S. forces three years ago. "For a very long time, every day, we heard such news but nobody believed us," said Odah, head of the Kuwaiti Family Committee, a group of relatives of Guantanamo detainees. "Now it is coming from inside the government, from the FBI and others. . . . It is very frightening to my family and to other families of Kuwaiti detainees."

U.S. military officials have alleged in legal proceedings that Fawzi Odah is an admitted member of al Qaeda and had connections to the Taliban militia in Afghanistan. Khalid Odah says his son is innocent.

Staff writer John Mintz contributed to this report.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20041222/ts_washpost/a17883_2004dec21

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

MAMMA's Footnote:

When the abused become abusers, the ABUSE cycle continues and escalate and when those who started the abuse are entrusted to investigate and STOP the abuse...nothing changes!

BACK TO THE TOP                                        BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS






























FREE TIMES: Ohio’s Premier News, Arts and Entertainment Weekly

Wednesday, January 05, 2005
http://www.freetimes.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2354

BACK TO IRAQ

A Cleveland soldier returns to the Persian Gulf to fight a second Bush war.
By Joshua Greene


EVER SEEN A SOLDIER STRUGGLE between commitment to his country and to his heart? Ever seen a war rip two lovers apart? Then open your eyes, 'cause it's happening all around. It's happening here at Edison's in Tremont, just a few stools down.

It's New Year's Eve 2004, and while midnight brings the toasts and roars, for the couple at the end of the bar, the new year just brings apprehension. The ringing-in of the new year is like an alarm signifying that the day of his departure nears and their time left together evaporates. At 9 p.m. on the first Wednesday of 2005, he leaves for Iraq.

It's a cruel fact: for this soldier and his lover, the past month has gone by at heart-wrenching speed.

“What the fuck, man? All of a sudden it's like fast forward,” Babe says with ten days left.

Babe's not his real name. We can't use his real name. The Army owns him now, and without their permission, he's not allowed to speak freely. He's pretty sure the Army wouldn't grant him permission to speak his mind. “The First Amendment doesn't exist for us,” he said, 35 days ago.

The month has flown for many reasons. His commitment to the Army is for three years. First he had to sell his Jeep. Then he had to pack up the house, put some stuff in storage and give the rest away. The owner of a $3,000 terrarium, he's had to figure out what to do with his plants. Specifically, who did he know who could take his 127-year-old San Pedro cactus, a species once thought extinct?

And then it was the cat, a playful gray hunter named Professor Dietrich Von Chubsworth, aka Chubs. As D-Day drew near, the cat came down with the same sense of apprehension Babe did. Babe had to drink himself to sleep, but it was Chubs who was puking all over the apartment. Who could blame him? If Babe couldn't find a home for Chubs, he'd have to drop him off at the shelter. After all, a soldier can't take his cat to war. Only eight days to go, and it was Babe's buddy Brian to the rescue: Brian, a fellow pool shark from Edison's, agreed to adopt him.

Yet the reality of quitting jobs, saying farewells, packing up, moving out and keeping track of all the details only partly explains why time launched forward so fast. The rest has to do with chaos and confusion. The reality is, Babe is heading toward a war with an unknown cadence and rhyme.

“I see no political objective that is rational,” he says. To hear him say it, the only reason we're in Iraq is so “some fucking glory whores” — aka Bush and his keepers — “can save face.”

“There's a good chance I might die,” Babe says with eight days left, sitting by himself in a quiet booth at Edison's. He's composing a farewell letter for friends and family.

MEDICALLY SPEAKING, Babe's already died once for his country.

At 33, he's an old soldier. He's been shot seven times. In the leg, the chest and the head. His leg has been rebuilt. His head has a porcelain plate in it. He still carries a round in his chest. He was shot in what he calls “the Gulf War proper,” meaning the first Iraq war. He was shot in Sarejevo and once in a place the Army says the U.S. never was. Once, he was even pronounced dead. “Clinically speaking,” he clarifies.

“I took two in the chest. The helicopter was hit. I fell out. It was pretty fucked up. There were eight of us. It was a cargo helicopter. Six died. Both of the pilots died. That was Iraq, 1997. We lost a lot of guys, dude.”

He's justifiably cynical about his fellow citizens' ignorance and apathy.

“Everyone wants to know, did Sharon Stone have boob surgery? Other than your hardcore peace protester, no one cares [about the war],” he says, 21 days and six hours before his departure. “No one knows about Iraq 1997.”

The reality
“There's a good chance I might die,” says Babe, counting down the days.

In 1998, Babe officially got out of the Army. But on May 19, 2004, Babe, like many other former soldiers, received “an illegal threat letter” ordering him to return to uniform.

With 138,000 soldiers already at war, the Pentagon recently announced that they would add 12,000 more soldiers. Faced with the continuous stream of solemn news from the front, with 1,340 and counting already dead and 10,000 injured in a war with no clear objectives, recruitment of volunteers has been failing. Thus, soldiers already in Iraq are having their “voluntary” service commitments extended, and old soldiers like Babe, who have served and resigned, are being sent back.

“There was no option,” he says. “They said ‘re-enlist or we're going to take you and put you back in whatever field we think you should be in.'”

In mid-May, Babe moved to a new address, one he thought no one knew about. Three days later, the Army and their orders to re-enlist were in his mailbox. When Babe inquired about how they found him, they informed him that they had traced his computer.

But there was still hope. The months ahead held the possibility of a change of national leadership. Surely the campaign season would bring into focus the obscurity and absurdity of the war in Iraq. But instead of real debate about real Americans really dying in Iraq right now, the nation was treated to a discussion about Bush and Kerry's service during Vietnam. A month before the election, neither candidate was seriously discussing the war. Then reality set in. Babe was committed for three more years, and it was looking like they were going to be long ones.

“There is no way out,” Babe says, adding, “It's not our duty to win the war — it's our duty to win them over. It's a kind of PR thing that's going to fail.”

THAT'S THE KIND OF REALISM that could be dismissed as fatalism if not for the fact that Babe, a Shaker Heights High School dropout, is a committed student of history. His travels around the world with his family and later with the military awoke within him a thirst for history that runs as wild as his description of the gorgeous headwaters of the mighty Euphrates in Northern Iraq.

As a further impetus, he says, getting a formal education helps a soldier climb in rank. He got an undergraduate degree in mathematics from the Army. His master's in philosophy is from Cleveland State University. He got kicked out during his third year of law school at John Marshall after accusing a professor of a crime during class.

Babe is now dreaming of a Ph.D. in political histography, which he describes as the “evolution and implementation of and the effects of government on the people.”

For money, he bar-backed at Edison's and pulled shifts at the downtown adult bookstore on West 9th Street. Working the porn store was a job he hated, but it was a place a soldier with a heavy conscience could disappear. Besides, it was a good place to read. The books he read behind the counter didn't have pictures.

On the 26th day before his departure, a day when the conversation started with Babe asking, “Did you hear we're running out of bullets?” he's looking up from his 1889 copy of Vondel's Lucifer .

“The premise of it is, I guess, the fall of Lucifer,” he says. “There's a celestial war and, resulting from that, the fall of man. It's about accepting your destiny because God's an ass.”

Babe's serious about his literature. A $950 tattoo rendition of Picasso's Don Quixote dominates his back. And why not? Cervantes' Don Quixote is Babe's favorite work of fiction. But both Don Quixote and Lucifer are light reading compared to the only book Babe will carry onto the battlefield: History of the Peloppenesian War , known in certain circles only as “The History.” Babe says he thinks he's read every translation published since 1920 and considers it his bible.

Written in 420 B.C. by the Athenian general Thucydides, Babe says “The History” is especially relevant today. It's the story of the Athenians' failed attempt to force democracy on the Spartans.

“It speaks to me,” Babe says, adding that Thucydides actually lived through the war but died before he finished the book. “It's about war. It's about politics. It's about being a better human being in the face of a terrible, terrible war.”

Babe says the Spartans “were hell on earth,” and it was because they were willing to take warfare to another level that they overcame the world superpower of the time, Greece.

“Athens was known for its great fucking navy, but the Spartans outweighed that by the end,” he says. “Of course, war was fought differently back then. They fought in lines. Whoever was the host faced the allies of the enemy. The two warring parties never met each other in battle. The Spartans said, fuck that. They started meeting Athens at the line. They're the ones who started the nighttime raids. Literally that — they would send 12 or 13 people with a bunch of knives. They would sneak in, throw poison in the well and slit a bunch of throats. There are a bunch of parallels, we being Athens. It was [the Spartans'] glory, dying in battle. Spartan women said, ‘Either you die on your sword or you don't come back.'”

Babe says it's the whole concept of suicide bombers, people who blow themselves up for a military objective, that is redefining today's war in Iraq.

“It's a psychological war we are not going to win,” he says. “We're not willing to do what they're willing to do. We're not willing to strap a C-4 to ourselves. What was it Patton said? ‘You don't become a hero for dying for your country. You become a hero by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his.' The majority of our military is not willing to die like that. Mainly they're in there for the college tuition.”

He says suicide bombers “are going to fuck with the nerve of every soldier over there.”

The larger parallel Babe points out is the overarching theme of forcing democracy on an unwilling nation.
   
“The Athenians were trying to enforce democracy in the surrounding city states. The Spartans noticed what was going on and challenged the Athenians. The Spartans? They whooped ass. The Spartan confederacy won the war. They adapted so fast into a better way of warfare then the Athenians. [The United States] thought they were going to blast into Iraq and teach these people democracy,” Babe said 30 days before departure. “You can't teach a blind man to see. Now they don't want to admit they're wrong, and they're willing to lose as many men as they need to prove it. They're a bunch of glory-hound assholes willing to kill me and my brothers so they can go into the history books.”

On this day, Babe's reading “ The History”'s funeral speech by the Athenian Pericles. Babe says the speech is “supposed to honor the dead, sort of like Veterans Day when it meant something. But he turns it into a political speech. It's the same sort of bullshit the Republicans do. It's a bunch of crap.”

DAY 26, BABE IS ANGRY about the controversy surrounding Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's answer to the question of why soldiers in Iraq had to rummage through the dumps to find “compromised ballistic glass” to armor their vehicles.

Babe explains that compromised ballistic glass is actually broken bulletproof glass. Somehow the major news story has changed from the fact that U.S. soldiers are unprotected to the less important story about how a reporter scripted the question for the soldier to ask Rumsfeld. All of this angers Babe, but it's Rumfeld's response that boils him over.

“Sure, you go to war with the Army you have, but you should be ready before you go to war,” Babe says.

By day 20, Babe has given up on politics.

“Did you see that Pentagon report that said every single Humvee will be armored by June? By June? What the fuck?” Babe says. “I definitely have my opinions about it, but politics are not going to save my life. Politics start to give way to survival. My opinions are not changing, but I find myself not caring.”

Babe says it took him a few years after he left the Army, a few years of not being shot at and a few years of not seeing dead people, before he stopped being over-the-edge paranoid. Even so, he continued to be overly cautious. Yet as soon as he began returning to the soldier's mindset of war, he found that old friend, paranoia, returning too.

He found himself second-guessing people's motives and predicting their motions. He noticed himself noticing “a box in the middle of an empty parking lot.” He began scanning rooms for LED lights, putting imaginary crosshairs on strangers and estimating the best location to call in an artillery round on a group of people if he needed to take out any one of them.

That's what Babe does for a living now. He's half-Greek and half-Persian, speaks Arabic and several tribal languages, and has no problem disappearing in a crowd. He rides in a helicopter or hides out in the mountains or in the marketplace and calls in artillery rounds. He brings death.

He says his regiment's specialization in the Army is traditionally known as the Red Legs, because they are the ones who march through the recently lit-up targets. They are in front of the scouts and given their name because of the blood they march through.

“Artillery is such an efficient killer in the battlefield,” he says. “One artillery round would eliminate this whole bar. It neutralizes or destroys the enemy. We simply neutralize them and walk forward. Yeah, it does fuck you up to see it. Lots of people have seen a couple bullets here and there, but when you see something freshly lit up with artillery and organs are still moving…the smell has to be the most godawful thing I ever smelled. But just keep marching forward.”

BABE'S PART OF THE ARMY'S 101st Airborne Division. He's jumped out of a plane 4,426 times. The last time was in the North Atlantic Ocean, known as the coldest, stormiest and saltiest body of water on the planet. His parachute got tangled, and he began falling out of control. He tried to cut himself free but cut himself instead. When he looked up he got blood in his eyes. He tried to remember the mantra “don't panic,” but it was getting harder by the second. When he finally pulled his reserve chute, it too got tangled, and that's all he remembers. When the Coast Guard fished him out, he was way
under. He broke both legs.

Moreover, Babe's been court-martialed several times. Once was for stealing, or rather, “tactically acquiring” a Humvee to get a fellow soldier to a hospital where his wife was having emergency complications during childbirth. The commanding officer had forbidden the soldier leave during a training exercise. Babe was brought up on charges. The charges were dropped, but Babe was given 45 days of restriction to barracks and 45 days' extra service.

But it was the first time Babe was court-martialed, after the first Gulf War, that has given Babe room for thought. He was charged with murder, and the situation was very similar to the recent highly publicized case in which a marine was captured on video shooting an unarmed “enemy.” Babe's situation involved an injured Republican Guard soldier. Babe was supposed to help the man get medical attention. Instead, he shot him.

“The flight commander was like, ‘What the fuck did you just do?'” Babe recalls. He told the commander that it was utilitarian. He told his military lawyer to argue that the Geneva Conventions didn't apply because Congress had not declared war. He was found not guilty.

“I have since changed my opinion about what I did. I was 18,” he says. “It seems like the gung-ho military thing to do, but it's not the human thing to do. It's about being human first. It's this balance thing.”

Babe pulls out a handwritten passage from his wallet. It's a quote from an editorial about the similar incident involving the marine in Fallujah. It reads, “The highest and most difficult challenge is to behave well in the face of everything that drives us towards revenge, retaliation, towards the worst in ourselves…To maintain one's moral balance in the desperation and chaos of war is the highest measure of military discipline, of humanity, of maturity.”

It's somewhere in this balance between being human and being part of something whose “main business is exporting violence” that Babe finds his primary call to duty: helping the young men we've sent to war.

A FEW DAYS BEFORE CHRISTMAS, he says, “Despite what you hear, suicide is alive and well amongst American troops right now.” He says the holidays are the hardest.

And over a month of conversations, he frequently brings up what he sees as the Army's greatest shortfall: that there is no support structure for the troops. He says it is especially hard on the younger soldiers, and that the Army is all about personal training but offers nothing for personal growth.

Babe says when he makes it home alive, he can step toward his dream of becoming a history professor. But for the time being, he has a more important aim.

“I think I'm here for a reason,” he says. “I think I'm a damn good teacher. I plan to teach my soldiers just, basically, how to keep their asses alive. I want to go over there to keep those boys alive.”

Sent to do our dirty work, Babe carries a constant reminder to keep a humble state of mind.

Along with the dog tags around his neck is a 2,500-year-old carbon-dated Roman Legionnaire's ring. He says he found it while digging trenches in Germany. The Romans would bury their prized possessions before heading into battle. If they lived, they would return and exhume their things.

“I found some dude's soul,” he says and smiles a sad smile.

THE LAST WEEK before Babe left went even faster than the rest.

With only eight days to go, he was informed that his departure date had been bumped up. And so the eighth day became the seventh. The seventh night he lay awake in bed until the sun rose, unable even to drink himself to sleep.

“I'm starting to get scared,” he said.

On the sixth night he drank too much, blacked out and ended up locked out of his empty house. So he slept in the garage.

He agreed that it was probably just the uncertainty of not knowing where he's going and the million details that are out of his control that were driving him crazy.

But then, too, he's in love.

“I finally found someone, finally really hitting it off with someone,” he confided at the beginning of this story. “Isn't that how it always happens?”

When asked what he's going to miss while he's gone, only her name kisses his lips.

He planned to spend the last night in her arms.

“That's the last safe night I'm gonna have in a long time,” he says. “They're downplaying the fact that a whole lot of motherfuckers are dying right now.”

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

BACK TO THE TOP                                                     BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS


























Richard W. Behan: 'A Republican businessman vilifies George Bush'
Posted on Monday, October 18 @ 10:21:17 EDT

Mr. Karl Schwarz -- Conservative and Devoutly Christian -- and His Wild Book of Outrage

By Richard W. Behan

George Bush is not a Christian, Karl Schwarz tells you. He is a liar, and Christians don't lie.

Schwarz is telling this to anyone who might listen, including President Bush, to whom he fired off a smoking email entitled "An American Demands the Truth From You."

Other listeners are adding up quickly. First he sent to his stockholders--300,000 people or so--a PowerPoint presentation daylighting the greed, deception, and stupefying corruption of the Bush Administration. Lately he is making the rounds of the talk show circuit, and the wild book of outrage will soon be on the streets.

It is a formidable read. 810 pages. And a comprehensive title to match: One Way Ticket to Crawford, Texas: A Conservative Republican Speaks Out on September 11, 2001; Afghanistan; Iraq; Bush-Cheney 2004; Imperial Oil "Strategeries".


Mr. Schwarz' faith does not surface in the book, but his disgust as a citizen is apparent, and his white-hot anger about the Bush Administration is supported by vivid descriptions of graft and corruption, with dates, names, and places.

The book displays the ongoing transformation of a decent democracy into the functional fascism of corporate empire. The Republicans are not uniquely responsible for this--Schwarz takes directed swipes at the Clinton years--but the Bush Administration's frenzied, happy sellout to the corporate and the wealthy is rapidly completing the process. George Bush and his henchmen, Schwarz asserts, are brazenly using the military might of the United States to enrich their political supporters and their associated corporate interests.

Karl W. B. Schwarz lives in Little Rock, Arkansas. He was twice asked by his party (but declined) to run for governor, opposing Bill Clinton. He was a top fundraiser for the Republican National Committee, as a close personal friend of RNC treasurer, William J. "Mr. Mac" McManus. Schwarz was active at the highest levels in the re-election campaign of George H.W. Bush. He has not been a lightweight Republican.

But neither is he dogmatically partisan. More than victory in politics, Schwarz seeks integrity in public life and truth in the flow of information to the public.

One Way Ticket to Crawford, Texas is a comprehensive expose of the Bush Administration's systematic deflecting of public policy to favor private, corporate interests. The Administration leapt on the opportunity provided by the anthrax scare, for example, to inoculate 550,000 servicemen and women with a vaccine known to be dangerous. Hugely profitable to a pharmaceutical corporation benefactor, there is clinical evidence the vaccine caused widespread respiratory disease, heart attacks, strokes, and pulmonary embolisms. The book also details the Bush Administration complicity in Enron's savaging of the California electricity market. And so forth.

Schwarz' signature revelation is the story of what happened to an obscure Argentinean company, the Bridas Corporation--and how that might explain 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

There is $7.34 trillion worth of petroleum and another $3 trillion of natural gas in the Caspian Basin. A pipeline across Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India could bring it to market. (Included in this "market" are a number of gas-fired power plants in Pakistan, owned by US corporations, and, at the time, an Enron project in Dabhol, India.)

In 1995 the Bridas Corporation was negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan to build the pipeline. The U.S. Government and the Unocal Corporation were pressing the Taliban fiercely to decline. In January of 1996, however, Bridas signed the contract to proceed: it now controlled the flow of Caspian riches.

Fast forward to1998. The Project for a New American Century is staffed by a group of "neoconservatives," starkly rightwing political thinkers and activists. It is committed to maintaining the military and economic supremacy in the world accorded the United States by the collapse of the Soviet Union. On January 26, 1998, the PNAC sent a letter to President Clinton urging the removal of Saddam Hussein by military means, if necessary. Should he remain in power, much would be put at hazard, including "a significant portion of the world's supply of oil." Signing the letter were Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Zalmay Khalilzad, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, and Elliott Abrams.

Fast forward now to 2000, an election year. Eleven members of the PNAC would assume prominent roles in the upcoming administration of George W. Bush: the signers of the 1998 letter to Clinton, plus Richard Cheney, Douglas Feith, and Lewis Libby. In September the PNAC made public another document, a 90-page report entitled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses." The new document advocated pre-emptive war--something never done in the history of the nation--but it realized how sharp a departure this would be. The "transformation" would be long and difficult, in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor." President Bush, early in his Administration, formally adopted the concept when he signed and issued the National Security Strategy document.

One more fast forward: to January of 2001. The Bush Administration has taken office, and the linkages with the oil industry are intimate, historic, and huge. The president and vice president are just the openers: eight cabinet members and the National Security Advisor were drafted directly from the oil industry, and so were 32 other officials, in the Departments of Defense, State, Energy, Agriculture, Interior, and the Office of Management and Budget.

Vice President Dick Cheney convenes his supersecret "Energy Task Force." Its membership and deliberations remain deliberately obscured, but Schwarz is certain the forced removal of the Taliban and the Bridas Corporation was discussed. The citizen group Judicial Watch did force the release of a few documents, however, with a lawsuit. Prominent among them is a map of the Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, tanker terminals, and oil exploration blocks: the Cheney Task Force had more than a passing interest in Iraqi oil, as well.

From Paul O'Neill and others we know the new Bush people, from their first days in office, intended to invade Iraq. Less well known was the covert planning, undertaken in the spring of 2001, for an attack on Afghanistan. The State Department gained the concurrence of both India and Pakistan for the attack, but as late as August 2, U.S. negotiators were still asking the Taliban to rescind the pipeline contract with the Bridas Corporation. The negotiations were fruitless.

On August 6, 2001, President Bush ignored the CIA's warning of a terrorist attack contained in the "Presidential Daily Briefing," and 36 days later the World Trade Center was rubble. Was this the "catastrophic and catalyzing event" the Project for a New American Century anticipated, and was the Bush Administration in any way involved?

The Internet is full of assertions that it was. Websites, books, and DVD's abound, making their cases--some alarming, others hyperbolic, conspiratorial, or looney. Michael Ruppert's book Crossing the Rubicon is alarming. Ruppert lays the blame for 9/11 directly at the feet of Vice President Cheney, and his argument was worthy enough to stimulate an invitation from the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco--hardly on the lunatic fringe--to present it in person. Speaking on August 31, 2004, Ruppert did so. Attorney Stanley Hilton, on the other hand, claims George Bush personally signed the order
authorizing the attacks of 9/11, and he intends to prove it in a court of law. Mr. Hilton was chief of staff for Senator Robert Dole, which is a decent enough credential to keep him out of the looney bin, but his assertion does give pause to reasonable people.

The reasonable people of New York City, however, are evenly split: a Zogby International poll in late August found 49.3% of those interviewed believed the Bush Administration had foreknowledge of the attacks on the Trade Towers and "consciously failed" to act.

To Karl Schwarz' credit, he chooses only to establish the dots of fact, leaving it to others to connect them and find culpability. But his dots show the Bush Administration was fully aware of the Bridas contract and its threat to the domestic oil industry.

Anyone past middle school can understand how desperately the Bush Administration needed a credible excuse to proceed with its planned attack on Afghanistan. To suggest 9/11 was engineered is risky, but to consider it an unrelated coincidence is asking a great deal. Can anyone be that lucky? There is, of course, a middle ground between engineering and random good fortune: the Bush Administration might in fact have known about the impending disaster but chose, as half of the New Yorkers believe, to do nothing.

On October 7, 2001 the attack on Afghanistan--planned long before 9/11--was undertaken. On December 31, Hamid Karzai is appointed by the Bush Administration to be interim president of Afghanistan, and much has been made of his former service to the Unocal Corporation, as a consultant on the Trans Afghanistan pipeline.

With the Taliban deposed, the Bridas Corporation's contract to build the pipeline was now in play, and on February 8, 2002 its fate was sealed. Presidents Karzai of Afghanistan and Musharraf of Pakistan agreed to a new plan for a pipeline, and by the end of the year a project known as the Central Asia Pipeline was born. The Bridas contract was, in Karl Schwarz' words, breached by US military force.

On February 23, 2003 the Bush Administration agreed to finance the Central Asia Pipeline and protect it with US troops, stationed at permanent bases in the region.

The $10 trillion of hydrocarbon fluids in the Caspian Basin are now firmly controlled by US oil companies, including BP/Amoco, Chevron-Texaco, Amerada Hess, Devon Energy, and Remington/Western Resources. (These companies also have in common a law firm to represent them: Baker Botts of Houston, Texas. The senior partner in the firm is James Baker, the engineer of George Bush's selection as President by the Supreme Court, and former Secretary of State in the first Bush Administration. Baker Botts has been retained also by Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, the Defense Minister of Saudi
Arabia. Prince Aziz has been accused of complicity in 9/11--and sued--by the families of World Trade Center victims, and Baker Botts is defending him.)

In Afghanistan, neither the Bridas Corporation--nor Osama bin Laden--has been seen or heard of since.

Does the Afghanistan episode demonstrate the influence of the oil industry in the administration of George W. Bush? Does it explain what happened next?

With "Mission Accomplished" in Afghanistan, the doctrine of pre-emptive war can now be applied elsewhere.

President Bush spoke repeatedly of an al Qaida-Iraqi linkage, deliberately and successfully (and we know now falsely) persuading the American public Saddam Hussein was an accessory to 9/11. Chemical weapons, biological weapons, soon-to-be nuclear weapons. Months and months of lies and deception at home, of arm twisting abroad and at the United Nations. And then came the "pre-emptive" invasion.

Now that the lies of the Bush Administration have been exposed, we are told the Iraqi adventure was undertaken to bring freedom and democracy to that tragic region of the world. Liberation to the Iraqis, however, looks more like occupation. And the construction, once more, of permanent military bases in Iraq provides ample reason to feel that way.

US military might has now cordoned off, during the Bush Administration, both the $10 trillion in Caspian Basin resources and the world's second largest pool of petroleum in Iraq. This is a fact, one of Karl Schwarz' dots. Is it truly just a collateral result, a mere by-product of bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East?

Ask who benefits from the fact. Ask who bears the costs. And ask how it happened. Karl Schwarz can answer all three questions, with names, dates, and places. He will let you connect his dots.

Mr. Schwarz has seen what other Republicans need to see: Emperor Bush is utterly naked. He is a geopolitical Wizard of Oz. Behind the curtain of his "freedom and democracy" rhetoric there lies indeed a world-class liar, a wretched charlatan.

As no other president in history, George W. Bush has directed a Big Lie campaign against his own country, disgracing our nation in the eyes of the world and dividing our people at home

We need to honor, by reinstating it, our proud national heritage of honesty, decency, and generosity in both foreign and domestic affairs. We need to regain the respect of the community of nations. We need to salvage our democracy.

We need to give George W. Bush a one-way ticket home.

This essay is deliberately not copyrighted, so permission to reproduce it is unnecessary. Richard W. Behan's latest book is Plundered Promise: Capitalism, Politics, and the Fate of the Federal Lands (Island Press, 2001). For information about the book go to http://www.rockisland.com/~rwbehan/. Behan is currently working on a more broadly rendered critique, Degenerate Democracy: A Failing U.S. Constitution and the Triumph of Corporate Avarice. He can be reached at rwbehan@rockisland.com.

Karl W. B. Schwarz, President, Chief Executive Officer, Patmos Nanotechnologies, LLC


BACK TO THE TOP                                               BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS





























Bush, Osama and Israel

Concealing Causes and Consequences

By William A. Cook

01/10/05 "Counterpunch.org" -- As we approach the crowning of our Emperor for another four years, a short two months to the day when he launched the United States into its imperialist policy of pre-emptive invasions of foreign states, we might pause to reflect on how deeply this administration analyzed the causes that gave rise to the atrocity of 9/11, the ostensible basis for our attacking a nation that had done nothing to the US to warrant its destruction and occupation. Consideration might be given, for example, to the two antagonists who entered the lists recently, appearing almost simultaneously before
the American public, Osama bin Laden via a recent tape aired by al Jazeera and Mr. Anonymous, Michael Scheuer, author of the recent CIA approved Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. Interestingly, while they carry lances from opposing Lords, bin Laden's lifted on behalf of Allah and Scheuer's questioning our Lord of Misrule, George W, both proffered the same perspective, the causes that gave rise to the atrocity of 9/11 have never been addressed.

Osama stated it this way in his address to the American people: "thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for causes, in order to prevent it happening again. But I am Amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred." Scheuer made this observation: "(Osama's) genius lies in his ability to isolate a few American policies that are widely hated across the Muslim world. And that growing hatred is going to yield growing violence." Scheuer goes on to say that Osama " is remarkably eager for Americans to know why he doesn't like us, what he intends to do about it, and then following up and doing something about it in terms of military actions." Yet our President continues to claim that the al Quaeda terrorists hate us because of our freedoms while the real causes for their actions go unaddressed.

As I contemplate the horrendous consequences of this election and the solidifying of Bush's neo-con crew and right-wing evangelical Zionist supporters into positions of power, I am forced to reflect on 9/11 once again, the catalyst that propelled America into Bush's unending war against the forces of evil. America awoke that morning to an atrocity incomprehensible to contemplate, an act that defied common sense, a wanton act of inane dimensions that inflicted catastrophic destruction on innocent people, an act we could not grasp because we had never experienced its like before, an act that galvanized
our people in brotherhood, in anger, and in fear.

I was driving my stepdaughter to her high school that morning and stopped at a convenience store. As we entered, we saw two proprietors, mid-eastern by descent, transfixed before the TV screen, horror struck at the burning towers, transfixed by images that seemed at the time to come from some Hollywood action film. There before us, she in her teens, I having lived sixty years in the last century, lay the ruins of America's might symbolically destroyed in the World Trade Towers, the first instance of such destruction on American soil by a foreign force.

How incomprehensible those images to a teenager, the unfathomable realization that humans could inflict such suffering on another human; indeed, how incomprehensible to a man who lived while the firestorms of Dresden raged, while the US firebombed 64 Japanese cities before the dropping of the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while Nixon lit up the skies with the Christmas bombing of Cambodia and Hanoi, and while I witnessed in a hotel room in Prague the shock and awe destruction of Baghdad less than two years ago.

Though I had lived five decades longer than she, I had not, as is true of all Americans who have lived between our far flung shores, ever heard the drone of Super fortresses far overhead, the screech of bombs hurtling toward earth, the wrenching split of buildings bursting beneath the explosive power of tons of TNT, the intense heat generated by thousands of phosphorus bombs that roll in waves of fire over cars, down streets, into buildings turning everything into an inferno of searing heat that melts human flesh, sucks the breath of life from the lungs, and leaves the landscape a barren waste, miles and miles of debris, the shattered remnants of human toil.

These reflections struck home with a vengeance, when I received an email in response to an article I wrote for Counterpunch, October 22, titled "Killing for Christ." That article described pictures of death in Iraq, death wrought in part by Christians goaded to war by fanatical ministers. "Not until the US lies in ruin - the same carnage I witnessed as a child in post-war Europe - will Americans be forced to face the kind of evil they have unleashed upon the world," Sandy wrote; "....These wars are not about religion, or even oil ­ they're about ignorance. Ignorant people who have never watched their cities burned, have never dug through the rubble of their bombed out home for the dismembered remains of their children, have never shuddered to hear the tanks and planes coming to destroy their homeland."

The thought contained in that letter, ignorance and hence indifference resulting from America's isolation from aerial devastation, surfaced again in Osama bin Laden's "talk to the American people" printed in al Jazeera, October 24. As Osama describes the events that brought him to imagine the destruction of the Twin Towers, events resulting from "the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon," he recounts unforgettable scenes of carnage, "blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining on our home without mercy And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children."

How terrible the thought, ignorance of what we Americans have wrought on others believing in our hearts that what our leaders did in our name was done to ensure peace, to ensure our freedom, to bring Democracy to the rest of the world. But that is not the thought present in Osama's head. He reacted to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon as it hurled American bombs from American supplied planes in a totally different and personal way. "And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and
democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance."

Michael Scheuer confirms what bin Laden says according to the CBS "60 Minutes" interview: "Right or wrong, he (Scheuer) says Muslims are beginning to view the United States as a colonial power with Israel its surrogate, and with a military presence in three of the holiest places in Islam: the Arabian peninsula, Iraq, and Jerusalem. And he says it is time to review and debate American policy in the region, even our relationship with Israel."

But there is no discussion of this as a cause in the United States; indeed, as Scheuer notes, "But the idea that anything in the United States is too sensitive to discuss or too dangerous to discuss is really, I think, absurd," a comment directed specifically at the Congress, the administration, and the main stream media to open discussion about the impact of our Israeli policies as it can be a cause of the terror that confronts America. "No one wants to abandon the Israelis," Scheuer comments, "but I think the perception is, and I think it's probably an accurate perception, that the tail is leading the dog ­ that we are giving the Israelis carte blanche ability to exercise whatever they want to do in their area." In short, Bush policy, essentially that designed by his neo-con controllers, has put the United States in danger, made it an accomplice in Sharon's oppression and occupation of the Palestinian land and his savagery against its people, not the least of which is the stridently visible manifestation of it in the illegal and inhumane Wall of Fear he's erected around their homes and villages, and, for the past year and a half, the occupation and devastation of Iraq by America, seen as a joint venture by the United States with Israel.

From Osama's perspective, the United States has moved to take control of Arab land and resources using Israel as its accomplice in the area. That perception of US policy nourishes the hate, a hate that flows from two sources: the hard right Israeli Zionists and the mentality that guides Osama's fanatical brethren who drink from the same well, the mythological stories that prophecy an inevitable war of destruction between Jews and Arabs, the religious war of Armageddon. America's support for Zionist goals is, therefore, a direct attack on Allah and can only be repelled by counteractions that will result in
destruction of America. That is the kernel of Osama's talk to America. Address the cause or suffer the consequences. That means, as Scheuer notes, open debate on America's policies in support of Israel or we continue our steady march to the ditch of doom.

Open debate, however, means more than an investigation into the neo-cons' paper trail from 1991 to March of 2003 calling for and carrying through the invasion of Iraq; it means as well an opening of America's soul to a catharsis caused by an acute and painful examination of the chaos and havoc it has wrought throughout the world. Osama's glib yet understandable comment that Sweden was not attacked points the finger at America as an instigator of actions that have raised the hatred of people in nations throughout the world. Witness our emperor's recent reception in Chile.

But Americans, for the most part, know little or nothing of the actions taken in their name that have given birth to the visceral hatred, evident throughout the world, that plagues their every step. What graphic pictures have we seen of our devastation of the holy city of Falujah? What pictures show the bodies buried beneath the rubble of bombed homes? What images of humans mangled and eaten by roaming dogs have we seen in our press or on TV? What pictures show the terrorism of Israeli forces and their indiscriminate murder of innocent civilians? What graphics depict the horror of the wall that incarcerates women and children, steals farms and orchids depriving families of their livelihood? What graphs show the American taxpayer how his or her money is being used, not just to surround and decimate a people but to implicate America in the carnage caused by Sharon and his government? How terrible the thought: the ignorance and indifference of the perpetrators of the devastation, that allows for its continuation, becomes the source of hatred for those who see themselves the victims of the government Americans elect to lead them.

The Twin Tower atrocity allowed for a moment of reflection, a chance for Americans to look inward, to see the world as those beyond our borders see us, victims of a horror too incredible to contemplate, the intentional detonation of civilian structures with the explicit and calculated knowledge that innocent lives would be cremated beyond recognition. And, indeed, the reaction was visceral in the heart of every American! How instantaneous the response to the crumbling towers, not only by my teenager 3000 miles away from the carnage, but on the part of all Americans. How galvanized the response across America, with an outpouring of money for the fallen firefighters and police, the mourning for the relatives of the victims, and the flooding of the blood banks. All felt the impact, shared the loss, and suffered the anguish of those who fled in terror the flaming debris, the falling stone, the blowing ash. Americans knew first hand the horror of war at home.

That awareness drove them to follow without question their leader's plea to go to war against the evil forces that wanted to destroy America's "freedoms." That war, first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq, sent wave upon wave of bombers to unleash untold tons of explosives on untold numbers of civilians who suffered the revenge of America's determination to destroy its unknown enemy. But as I reflect on this galvanizing of America's desire to eradicate its enemy, I begin to understand that we have not merged our feelings with the feelings of those who have suffered at our hands in Europe, in Asia, and in the mid-East. What we experienced on 9/11, a deplorable atrocity that took the lives of 3000 people, that brought havoc and chaos to our people for weeks on end, that destroyed a collection of buildings on approximately four acres of land in the middle of a city, could not compare to the totality of devastation wrought by American bombing on Falujah, or Baghdad, or Lebanon, or Hanoi, or Tokyo, or Hiroshima, or Dresden. That these acts were seen as acts of war by most Americans does not erase the impact of the slaughter they brought to thousands of innocent people caught in the accepted euphemism that allows the innocent to be sacrificed on the altar of collateral damage.

To bring the American mind to a point of recognition that allows for comparison of the suffering we have inflicted against others as a possible rationale for the hatred that has been leveled at America is a task beyond our powers. But something has driven millions around the world to look at America as a fearsome power willing and able to devastate smaller states to achieve its goals and to protect its purported interests. Why? Why this attitude about America?

As I reflect on times in my own life when America unleashed its mighty power on those incapable of defending themselves, I need only consider the firebombing of Dresden. "On the evening of February 13, 1945, an orgy of genocide and barbarism began against a defenseless German city, one of the great cultural centers of northern Europe. Within less than 14 hours, not only was it reduced to flaming ruins, but an estimated one third of its inhabitants, possibly as many as half a million, had perished in what was the worst single event massacre of all time." ("The WWII Dresden Holocaust"). Dresden had no military installations, no aircraft to defend it, no munitions factories, only factories that produced cigarettes and china, and a hospital filled to overflowing.

Winston Churchill and Roosevelt needed a "trump card" over Stalin for the upcoming Yalta meeting, "a devastating 'thunderclap' of Anglo-American annihilation' with which to impress him," in effect, an act of unimaginable terror. That thunderclap took the lives of half a million people. It took the form of a firestorm where huge masses of "air are sucked in to feed the inferno, causing an artificial tornado. Those persons unlucky enough to be caught in the rush of wind are hurled down entire streets into the flames. Those who seek refuge underground often suffocate as oxygen is pulled from the air to feed the blaze, or they perish in a blast of white heat, heat intense enough to melt human flesh." 700,000 phosphorus bombs dropped on 1.2 million people, 1 for every 2 people, where the heat reached 1600 degrees centigrade, in a bombing raid that lasted over 14 hours. Those who lived through this Hell on earth had to pile the bodies on huge pyres for cremation, 260,000 bodies counted; the remaining dead, indistinguishable, melted into the cement or charred beyond recognition. "In just over an hour, four square miles of the city ­ equivalent to all of lower Manhattan from Madison Square Garden to Battery Park ­
was a roaring inferno." (Murray Sayle, "Did the Bomb End the War?") We Americans gasped at the horror of four acres of destruction and 3000 dead; we could now, should we but reflect on time past, understand how others felt when they endured a slaughter of far greater proportions.

This horrendous description of our might has been repeated over and over again since WWII and during it. Tokyo and 63 other Japanese cities felt the brunt of America's air power. "334 Super fortresses flew at altitudes ranging from 4,900 feet to 9,200 feet above their target (Tokyo) ... For three hours waves of B-29s unleashed their cargo upon the dense city below... the water in the rivers reached the boiling point. ...83,793 killed and 40,918 injured, a total of 265,171 buildings were destroyed and 15.8 square miles of the city burned to ashes."(Christian Lew, "The Strategic Bombing of Japan"). Then came Hiroshima. "... the bomb instantly vaporized, at a temperature of several million degrees centigrade, creating a fireball and radiating immense amounts of heat....Heat radiated by the bomb exposed skin more than two miles from the hypocenter...between seventy thousand and eighty thousand people are estimated to have died on August 6th, with more deaths from radiation sickness spread over the ensuing days, months, and years." (Murray Sayle, "Did the Bomb End the War"?). Why did we drop the bomb? Without going into detail, suffice it to say, "Some scholars ... have found it hard to believe that the act that launched the world into nuclear war could have come about so thoughtlessly, by default."

Consider these statistics: the Germans "dropped 80,000 tons of bombs on Britain in more than five years"; America dropped over 100,000 tons in a month on Indochina, and between Lyndon Johnson and Nixon, America delivered "7 million tons of bombs on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos," far more than we, and the British, unleashed on Germany and Japan in all of WWII. Nixon found reason for this devastation in his anger that North Vietnam had broken off peace talks in Paris.

That brings us to our illegal invasion of Iraq, an invasion we now know was engineered years in advance of 9/11 and for reasons that had nothing to do with the purported "war on terror." We also know that we did it to aid Israel in its desire to destroy one of their enemies, a nemesis that supported "freedom fighters" against Israeli occupation of the land of Palestine. And today we have a second letter from Osama bin Laden, delivered via video, that proclaimed for a second time that Israel's subjugation of the indigenous population in Palestine and its continued "cleansing" to rid the land of them, is a reason for the destruction caused by 9/11. Now, 100,000 civilian deaths later, more than 1300 American soldiers dead, cities in ruins, and the people in revolution against the American oppressor, we, as a nation, have chosen to continue our unilateral aggression making America more of a pariah nation and even less likely to share the grief of millions who have suffered at our hands.

And that returns me to that horrific morning of 9/11 when I attempted to share with a teenager the inhumane nature of humans. How to demonstrate the enormity of that act, yet put it in relationship to time past that we might share the torment of those who have felt the oppressor's boot and the wanton slaughter of innocents? In reflection days after 9/11, I had a vision of Hiroshima's ashen landscape stretching for miles as far as the eye could see, an image indelibly marked on my mind as a young child, but in that barren waste rose the Twin Towers, silhouetted against the distant hills and sky, a reference
point for reflection just before the planes struck, turning them into candles to light the darkness that shrouds the fields of death that once stood as the city of Hiroshima. Perhaps in the light of those candles we might see, what we have not wanted to see in our ignorance, that we have spread pestilence and death throughout the world and now we are reaping the whirlwind.

William A. Cook isa professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California. His new book, Psalms for the 21st Century, was published by Mellen Press. He can be reached at: cookb@ULV.EDU

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

MAMMA's Footnote:

Professor Cook's reflective comments have stirred some very disquieting thoughts, thoughts centered on perspective
.

Have you seen the
movie; "Independence Day"? Do you recall the scenes where...

- Following the 'Shock and Awe' destruction of some major cities and the capture of an 'alien', the query of peaceful coexistence meets with the reply: "Peace? NO Peace!"?

- Following an unsuccessful onslaught of weaponry, the call goes out to "plow the road" for Mr. Case who is "packing" and ends up making the ultimate sacrifice as he notes the words of his generation, "Ain't pay back a bitch?" and his son is told he should be proud of his dad?

- The crumpled wreckage of the invading 'ship'  serves as a backdrop for a jubilant celebration of 'Independence Day!'?

Depending on the location (New York City or Bagdad) and the casting:
- President...Bush or Hussein?
- 'alien'...American or Iraqi?
- Mr. Case...Patriot or Insurgent (refer to 'alien' casting)?
- 'ship'...vehicle or (ship of) state?
the disturbing question
that clamors for an answer is...Does Art reflect Life or does Life reflect Art?
 



BACK TO THE TOP                                                           BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS






























Friday, January 14, 2005 posted by POA: 10:31 AM

Is Al Qaeda Just a Bush Boogeyman?
Robert Scheer

January 11, 2005 - Is it conceivable that Al Qaeda, as defined by President Bush as the center of a vast and well-organized international terrorist conspiracy, does not exist?

To even raise the question amid all the officially inspired hysteria is heretical, especially in the context of the U.S. media's supine acceptance of administration claims relating to national security. Yet a brilliant new BBC film produced by one of Britain's leading documentary filmmakers systematically challenges this and many other accepted articles of faith in the so-called war on terror.

"The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear," a three-hour historical film by Adam Curtis recently aired by the British Broadcasting Corp., argues coherently that much of what we have been told about the threat of international terrorism "is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services and the international media."

Stern stuff, indeed. But consider just a few of the many questions the program poses along the way:

• If Osama bin Laden does, in fact, head a vast international terrorist organization with trained operatives in more than 40 countries, as claimed by Bush, why,despite torture of prisoners, has this administration failed to produce hard evidence of it?

• How can it be that in Britain since 9/11, 664 people have been detained on suspicion of terrorism but only 17 have been found guilty, most of them with no connection to Islamist groups and none who were proven members of Al Qaeda?

• Why have we heard so much frightening talk about "dirty bombs" when experts say it is panic rather than radioactivity that would kill people?

• Why did Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claim on "Meet the Press" in 2001 that Al Qaeda controlled massive high-tech cave complexes in Afghanistan, when British and U.S. military forces later found no such thing?

Of course, the documentary does not doubt that an embittered, well-connected and wealthy Saudi man named Osama bin Laden helped finance various affinity groups of Islamist fanatics that have engaged in terror, including the 9/11 attacks. Nor does it challenge the notion that a terrifying version of fundamentalist Islam has led to gruesome spates of violence throughout the world. But the film, both more sober and more deeply provocative than Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," directly challenges the conventional wisdom by making a powerful case that the Bush administration, led by a tight-knit cabal of Machiavellian neoconservatives, has seized upon the false image of a unified international terrorist threat to replace the expired Soviet empire in order to push a political agenda.

Terrorism is deeply threatening, but it appears to be a much more fragmented and complex phenomenon than the octopus-network image of Al Qaeda, with Bin Laden as its head, would suggest.

While the BBC documentary acknowledges that the threat of terrorism is both real and growing, it disagrees that the threat is centralized:

"There are dangerous and fanatical individuals and groups around the world who have been inspired by extreme Islamist ideas and who will use the techniques of mass terror — the attacks on America and Madrid make this only too clear. But the nightmare vision of a uniquely powerful hidden organization waiting to strike our societies is an illusion. Wherever one looks for this Al Qaeda organization, from the mountains of Afghanistan to
the 'sleeper cells' in America, the British and Americans are chasing a phantom enemy."

The fact is, despite the efforts of several government commissions and a vast army of investigators, we still do not have a credible narrative of a "war on terror" that is being fought in the shadows.

Consider, for example, that neither the 9/11 commission nor any court of law has been able to directly take evidence from the key post-9/11 terror detainees held by the United States. Everything we know comes from two sides that both have a great stake in exaggerating the threat posed by Al Qaeda: the terrorists themselves and the military and intelligence agencies that have a vested interest in maintaining the facade of an overwhelmingly dangerous enemy.

Such a state of national ignorance about an endless war is, as "The Power of Nightmares" makes clear, simply unacceptable in a functioning democracy.

posted by POA |10:31 AM
http://www.pissedoffamerican.blogspot.com/

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


BACK TO THE TOP                                                                     BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS






















Explosive BBC Doc Exposes
Decades-Old Neocon Deceits
Hyping Terror For Fun, Profit - And Power

By Thom Hartmann
12-28-4

For those who prefer to read things online, an unofficial but complete transcript is here: http://www.silt3.com/index.php?id=573

What if there really was no need for much - or even most - of the Cold War?

What if, in fact, the Cold War had been kept alive for two decades based on phony WMD threats?

What if, similarly, the War On Terror was largely a scam, and the administration was hyping it to seem larger-than-life?

What if our "enemy" represented a real but relatively small threat posed by rogue and criminal groups well outside the mainstream of Islam?

What if that hype was done largely to enhance the power, electability, and stature of George W. Bush and Tony Blair?

And what if the world was to discover the most shocking dimensions of these twin deceits - that the same men promulgated them in the 1970s and today?

It happened.

The myth-shattering event took place in England the first three weeks of October, when the BBC aired a three-hour documentary written and produced by Adam Curtis, titled "The Power of Nightmares http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm
 
If the emails and phone calls many of us in the US received from friends in the UK - and debate in the pages of publications like The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1327904,00.html are any indicator, this was a seismic event, one that may have even provoked a hasty meeting between Blair and Bush a few weeks later. According to this carefully researched and well-vetted BBC documentary, Richard Nixon, following in the steps of his mentor and former boss Dwight D. Eisenhower, believed it was possible to end the Cold War and eliminate fear from the national psyche. The nation need no longer be afraid of communism or the Soviet Union.
 
Nixon worked out a truce with the Soviets, meeting their demands for safety as well as the US needs for security, and then announced to Americans that they need no longer be afraid. In 1972, President Richard Nixon returned from the Soviet Union with a treaty worked out by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the beginning of a process Kissinger called "détente."

On June 1, 1972, Nixon gave a speech in which he said, "Last Friday, in Moscow, we witnessed the beginning of the end of that era which began in 1945. With this step, we have enhanced the security of both nations. We have begun to reduce the level of fear, by reducing the causes of fear-for our two peoples, and for all peoples in the world." But Nixon left amid scandal and Ford came in, and Ford's Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) and Chief of Staff (Dick Cheney) believed it was intolerable that Americans might no longer be bound by fear.

Without fear, how could Americans be manipulated? Rumsfeld and Cheney began a concerted effort - first secretly and then openly - to undermine Nixon's treaty for peace and to rebuild the state of fear and, thus, reinstate the Cold War. And these two men - 1974 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Ford Chief of Staff Dick Cheney - did this by claiming that the Soviets had secret weapons of mass destruction that the president didn't know about, that the CIA didn't know about, that nobody but them knew about. And, they said, because of those weapons, the US must redirect billions of dollars away from domestic programs and instead give the money to defense contractors for whom these two men would one day work.
 
"The Soviet Union has been busy," Defense Secretary Rumsfeld explained to America in 1976. "They've been busy in terms of their level of effort; they've been busy in terms of the actual weapons they 've been producing; they've been busy in terms of expanding production rates; they've been busy in terms of expanding their institutional capability to produce additional weapons at additional rates; they've been busy in terms of expanding their capability to increasingly improve the sophistication of those weapons. Year after year after year, they've been demonstrating that they have steadiness of purpose. They're purposeful about what they're doing."

The CIA strongly disagreed, calling Rumsfeld's position a "complete fiction" and pointing out that the Soviet Union was disintegrating from within, could barely afford to feed their own people, and would collapse within a decade or two if simply left alone. But Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted Americans to believe there was something nefarious going on, something we should be very afraid of. To this end, they convinced President Ford to appoint a commission including their old friend Paul Wolfowitz to prove that the Soviets were up to no good.

According to Curtis' BBC documentary, Wolfowitz's group, known as "Team B," came to the conclusion that the Soviets had developed several terrifying new weapons of mass destruction, featuring a nuclear-armed submarine fleet that used a sonar system that didn't depend on sound and was, thus, undetectable with our current technology. The BBC's documentarians asked Dr. Anne Cahn of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during that time, her thoughts on Rumsfeld's, Cheney's, and Wolfowitz's 1976 story of the secret Soviet WMDs. Here's a clip from a transcript of that BBC
documentary:
 
"Dr ANNE CAHN, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1977-80: They couldn't say that the Soviets had acoustic means of picking up American submarines, because they couldn't find it. So they said, well maybe they have a non-acoustic means of making our submarine fleet vulnerable. But there was no evidence that they had a non-acoustic system. They're saying, 'we can't find evidence that they're doing it the way that everyone thinks they're doing it, so they must be doing it a different way. We don't know what that different way is, but they must be doing it.'
 
"INTERVIEWER (off-camera): Even though there was no evidence.

"CAHN: Even though there was no evidence.

"INTERVIEWER: So they're saying there, that the fact that the weapon doesn't exist.

"CAHN: Doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means that we haven't found it."

The moderator of the BBC documentary then notes:

"What Team B accused the CIA of missing was a hidden and sinister reality in the Soviet Union. Not only were there many secret weapons the CIA hadn't found, but they were wrong about many of those they could observe, such as the Soviet air defenses. The CIA were convinced that these were in a state of collapse, reflecting the growing economic chaos in the Soviet Union. Team B said that this was actually a cunning deception by the Soviet régime. The air-defense system worked perfectly. But the only evidence they produced to prove this was the official Soviet training manual, which proudly asserted
that their air-defense system was fully integrated and functioned flawlessly. The CIA accused Team B of moving into a fantasy world."

Nonetheless, as Melvin Goodman, head of the CIA's Office of Soviet Affairs, 1976-87, noted in the BBC documentary,

"Rumsfeld won that very intense, intense political battle that was waged in Washington in 1975 and 1976. Now, as part of that battle, Rumsfeld and others, people such as Paul Wolfowitz, wanted to get into the CIA. And their mission was to create a much more severe view of the Soviet Union, Soviet intentions, Soviet views about fighting and winning a nuclear war."

Although Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld's assertions of powerful new Soviet WMDs were unproven - they said the lack of proof proved that undetectable weapons existed - they nonetheless used their charges to push for dramatic escalations in military spending to selected defense contractors, a process that continued through the Reagan administration.
 
But, trillions of dollars and years later, it was proven that they had been wrong all along, and the CIA had been right. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz lied to America in the 1970s about Soviet WMDs.
 
Not only do we now know that the Soviets didn't have any new and impressive WMDs, but we also now know that they were, in fact, decaying from within, ripe for collapse any time, regardless of what the US did - just as the CIA (and anybody who visited Soviet states - as I had - during that time could easily predict). The Soviet economic and political system wasn't working, and their military was disintegrating. As arms-control expert Cahn noted in the documentary of those 1970s claims by Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld:
 
"I would say that all of it was fantasy. I mean, they looked at radars out in Krasnoyarsk and said, 'This is a laser beam weapon,' when in fact it was nothing of the sort. ... And if you go through most of Team B's specific allegations about weapons systems, and you just examine them one by one, they were all wrong."

"INTERVIEWER: All of them?

"CAHN: All of them.

"INTERVIEWER: Nothing true?

"CAHN: I don't believe anything in [Wolfowitz's 1977] Team B was really true."

But the neocons said it was true, and organized a group - The Committee on the Present Danger http://www.fightingterror.org - to promote their worldview. The Committee produced documentaries, publications, and provided guests for national talk shows and news reports. They worked hard to whip up fear and encourage increases in defense spending, particularly for sophisticated weapons systems offered by the defense contractors for whom neocons would later become lobbyists.
 
And they succeeded in recreating an atmosphere of fear in the United States, and making themselves and their defense contractor friends richer than most of the kingdoms of the world.
 
The Cold War was good for business, and good for the political power of its advocates, from Rumsfeld to Reagan.

Similarly, according to this documentary, the War On Terror is the same sort of scam, run for many of the same reasons, by the same people. And by hyping it - and then invading Iraq - we may well be bringing into reality terrors and forces that previously existed only on the margins and with very little power to harm us.
 
Curtis' documentary suggests that the War On Terror is just as much a fiction as were the super-WMDs this same group of neocons said the Soviets had in the 70s. He suggests we've done more to create terror than to fight it. That the risk was really quite minimal (at least until we invaded Iraq), and the terrorists are - like most terrorist groups - simply people on the fringes, rather easily dispatched by their own people. He even points out that Al Qaeda itself was a brand we invented, later adopted by bin Laden because we'd put so many millions into creating worldwide name recognition for it.
 
Watching "The Terror of Nightmares" is like taking the Red Pill in the movie The Matrix.
 
It's the story of idealism gone wrong, of ideologies promoted in the US by Leo Strauss and his followers (principally Wolfowitz, Feith, and Pearle), and in the Muslim world by bin Laden's mentor, Ayman Zawahiri. Both sought to create a utopian world through world domination; both believe that the ends justify the means; both are convinced that "the people" must be frightened into embracing religion and nationalism for the greater good of morality and a stable state. Each needs the other in order to hold power.
 
Whatever your plans are for tonight or tomorrow, clip three hours out of them and take the Red Pill. Get a pair of headphones (the audio is faint), plug them into your computer, and visit an unofficial archive of the Curtis' BBC documentary at the Information Clearing House website http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm (The first hour of the program, in a more viewable format, is also available here
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/ 121104powerofnightmares.htm

For those who prefer to read things online, an unofficial but complete transcript is on this Belgian site http://www.acutor.be/silt/index.php?id=573

But be forewarned: You'll never see political reality - and certainly never hear the words of the Bush or Blair administrations - the same again.
===
Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show. http://www.thomhartmann.com

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


BACK TO THE TOP                                                 BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS   




























Criminals the lot of us

The invasion of Iraq was a crime of gigantic proportions, for which politicians, the media and the public share responsibility

By Scott Ritter

01/27/05 "The Guardian" -- The White House's acknowledgement last month that the United States has formally ended its search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq brought to a close the most calamitous international deception of modern times. This decision was taken a month after a contentious presidential election in which the issue of WMD and the war in Iraq played a central role. In the lead-up to the invasion, and throughout its aftermath, President Bush was unwavering in his conviction that Iraq had WMD, and that this posed a threat to the US and the world. The failure to find WMD
should have been his Achilles heel, but the Democratic contender, John Kerry, floundered, changing his position on WMD and Iraq many times.

Ironically, it was Kerry who forced the Bush administration to acknowledge that it was WMD that solely justified any military action against Iraq. Before the US Senate in 2002, secretary of state Colin Powell responded to a question posed by Kerry about what would happen if Iraq allowed UN weapons inspectors to return and they found the country had in fact disarmed.

"If Iraq was disarmed as a result of an inspection regime that gave us and the security council confidence that it had been disarmed, I think it unlikely that we would find a casus belli."

When one looks at the situation in Iraq today, the only way that it would be possible to justify the current state of affairs - a once secular society now the centre of a global anti-American Islamist jihad, tens of thousands of civilians killed, an unending war that costs almost £3.2bn a month, and the basic principles of democracy mocked through an election process that has generated extensive violence - is if the invasion of Iraq was for a cause worthy of the price.

The threat to international peace and security represented by Iraqi WMD seemed to be such a cause. We now know there were no WMD, and thus no justification for the war. And yet there are no repercussions.

The culpability for the war can be traced to those same Senate hearings in 2002, when Colin Powell said:"We can have debates about the size of the stockpile ... but no one can doubt two things. One, they [Iraq] are in violation of these resolutions ... And second, they have not lost the intent to develop these weapons of mass destruction."

Politicians, the mainstream media and the public alike accepted this line of argument, without debate, thus setting the stage for an illegal war.

UN weapons inspections were never given a chance. Ever since the Clinton administration ordered them out of Iraq in 1998, the US has denigrated the efficacy of the inspection process. This was a policy begun by Clinton, but perfected by Bush in the build-up to war. In October 2002, a month after Saddam Hussein agreed to the unfettered return of weapons inspectors, the US defence department postulated the existence of secret production facilities, protected by a "concealment mechanism" designed to defeat inspectors. Thus, even if they returned, a finding of no WMD was meaningless.

Inspectors did return, and they found nothing. Iraq submitted a complete declaration of its WMD holdings, which was dismissed as lies by the Bush administration. Everyone seemed to accept this rejection of fact. "Intelligence information" was assumed to be infallible. And yet it was all just hype.

There was never any serious effort undertaken by the Bush administration to find Iraqi WMD. Prior to the invasion, the US military re-designated an artillery brigade as an "exploitation task force" designed to search for WMD as the coalition advanced into Iraq.

It did little more than serve as a vehicle for its embedded reporter, Judith Miller of the New York Times, to recycle fabricated information provided by Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress, creating dramatic headlines that had no substance. Once Iraq was occupied, Miller was sent home, and the taskforce disbanded.

A new organisation was created, the CIA-led Iraq survey group (ISG), led by David Kay. His job was not to find WMD but to spin the data for the political benefit of the White House. He hinted at dramatic findings, only to suddenly reverse course once Saddam Hussein was captured. Kay told us that everyone had got it wrong on WMD, that it was no one's fault. He was replaced by Charles Duelfer, whose task was to extend the WMD cover-up for as long as possible. Duelfer was very adept at this, having done similar work while serving as the deputy executive chairman of the UN weapons inspection effort.

I witnessed him manipulate reports to the security council, rejecting all that didn't sustain his (and the US government's) foregone conclusion that Iraq had WMD.

As the head of the ISG, he was called upon to again manipulate the data. As it was virtually impossible to conjure up WMD stockpiles where none existed, he did the next best thing - he re-certified Colin Powell's pre-war assertion that Saddam Hussein had the "intent" to re-acquire WMD. Duelfer provided no evidence to support this supposition. In fact, the available data seems to reject the notion of "intent". But once again, politicians, the mainstream media and the public at large failed to let facts get in the way of assertions. The ISG had accomplished its mission - not the search for WMD, but the establishment of a viable alibi. Its job done, the ISG slipped quietly away, its passing barely noticed by politicians, media and a public all too willing to pretend that no crime has been committed.

But, through the invasion of Iraq, a crime of gigantic proportions has been perpetrated. If history has taught us anything, it is that it will condemn both the individuals and respective societies who not only perpetrated the crime, but also remained blind and mute while it was being committed.

· Scott Ritter was a senior UN weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998 and is the author of Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America
Email WSRitter@aol.com
 
Copyright: The Guardian
 
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

BACK TO THE TOP                                                         BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS




























TIMESONLINE
www.timesonline.co.uk

THE SUNDAY TIMES - Comment
January 23, 2005

Comment: Michael Portillo: An army that bullies its own is ready to abuse prisoners

On a Caribbean island Piers Morgan is spluttering with rage. The former Daily Mirror editor was forced into a life of leisure for publishing faked photographs of British soldiers mistreating Iraqis. He was denounced for recklessly endangering the lives of our boys.

Now a court martial in Germany has released similar images that the prosecution says are genuine. While the Mirror’s images were false, the abuse story was well founded. Morgan feels vindicated, just as Gavyn Davies and Greg Dyke do. They lost their posts running the BBC because of a radio report that the government had sexed up its dossier on the reasons for the war in Iraq. Who would quibble with that now?

I feel not nearly so indignant about the British photographs as I did about the repellent images of American torture in Abu Ghraib prison. The “British” picture of a man tied to a forklift truck is appalling, but it looks like an extempore and disorganised event. The use by GIs of hoods, electric cables and dogs appeared systemic.

When Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, was first given the file he took no action to prevent recurrences. How far up the American chain of command responsibility passes remains a moot point. I feel sure that abuse was not authorised by senior ranks in the British Army, let alone by politicians.

The British government bears the blame for one thing: it is wrong that we do not count the number of Iraqis who have been killed. It suggests that we place no value on their lives. The policy is dehumanising and racist. Soldiers pick up those messages. Highfalutin rhetoric about spreading freedom, repeated in President George W Bush’s inaugural address, rings hollow if we do not care how many of those that we liberate are dead.

The pictures compound other unwelcome publicity. A week ago newspapers carried  photographs of Sandhurst officer cadets wearing Nazi uniforms. In November five members of the Household Cavalry were arrested after a bottle attack on Adnan Said, a 23-year-old Syrian student, who lost his left eye. The parents of Sally Geeson want to know why the army left a sexual predator, Lance-Corporal David Atkinson, free to strangle her before killing himself.

Those could be dismissed as one-off events if there were not evidence of institutionalised problems. Four soldiers have died from firearm wounds at Deepcut barracks in Surrey (two while I was defence secretary). In some of those cases coroners have recorded open verdicts. Even if they were all suicides, as the army says, the implications are worrying.

That the deaths occurred over a seven-year period implies that there is an underlying malaise and officers have failed to deal with it.

Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, has refused to set up a public inquiry. A Surrey police report on Deepcut revealed 61 allegations of assault, 12 of indecent assault and eight of rape or gang rape. Leslie Skinner, a training instructor, was jailed last year for 4Å years after admitting indecent assaults on four soldiers aged between 17 and 21.

Responses to the army’s continuous attitudes survey based on 2,000 interviews revealed that 85% believed there was bullying. The finding was omitted from the version of the survey supplied to MPs by the government.

In the 1990s several cases of racial abuse shamed the armed forces. When Mark Parchment enlisted in the Royal Marines he was made to carry a spear on parade. He was given a special initiation for “niggers”. He was soaked with urine, attacked and had his genitals shaved. Richard Stokes resigned from the Household Cavalry when a banana was thrown at him during a rehearsal for trooping the colour. But in 1998 the Commission for Racial Equality decided not to take enforcement action against the armed forces in view of improvements in policies and practice.

A few days ago the Ministry of Defence was forced to admit that Staff Sergeant David Howard, a soldier with 22 years’ experience, had suffered racial discrimination and harassment. An employment tribunal was told that Major Robert Turnbull called Howard “Bubba” to his face, a reference to the black character with learning difficulties in the movie Forrest Gump. Turnbull has since been promoted.

All this tells me that the army’s top command is doing too little to end disgraceful practices. That is unforgivable. The army’s effectiveness is seriously hampered because many units are under strength. The bad publicity must deter recruits.

Andrea Levy’s novel Small Island focuses on the discrimination faced by Jamaicans who enlisted in the RAF during the second world war. To our national shame many of the 8,000 recruits from the West Indies experienced racism. But the book also touches on the much worse situation at the time in the American forces where blacks and whites were segregated  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2c%2c2088-1452385%2c00.html

Armed services recruit strongly among the poor. Blacks are over-represented in those groups in America and Britain, so you would expect them to be over-represented in the forces, too. After 1945 the US army was swiftly integrated and by the 1980s it was about one third black. Today, maybe as ethnic minorities have become richer, the proportion has fallen back to a quarter. The percentage of black officers has risen to about 13% today. One black officer, Colin Powell, rose to become chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in the 1990s.

We have performed less well. Documents released under the new Freedom of Information Act reveal that from 1957 the army imposed ceilings, unit by unit, on ethnic minority recruitment. The policy was kept secret from ministers and was publicly denied. But this government’s race equality scheme is producing positive results. The percentage of ethnic minorities has climbed and is now about 7% of the army, although still less than 3% of officers. Ministers’ recent success should encourage them to apply a similar focus to eliminating bullying and criminal behaviour.

I make those criticisms as a fervent admirer of the army. The privilege that I enjoyed of being close to the armed forces while I was secretary of state remains one of the most powerful influences of my life. Against those who have argued this week that war corrupts soldiers, I would mention countless examples of young people in whom the army has encouraged the highest standards of behaviour. The ethos of service brings forth not only courage but also decency, magnanimity, team spirit and self-sacrifice. You see those effects even among people who in civilian society were regarded as no-hopers.

In Northern Ireland I saw private soldiers who spent hours in discomfort with unfaltering concentration logging the movements of suspects. They repaid the trust placed in them in an important intelligence-gathering task. They did not miss a face or a car registration number. Others took extraordinary risks working in territory dominated by the IRA, even though they might share the fate of Captain Robert Nairac, an SAS officer who, having infiltrated the terrorists, was caught and tortured to death.

It amazed me that most soldiers wanted to be where there was action and therefore danger. The only miserable troops I met were on the island paradise of Cyprus. There was little for them to do. Boredom lured them to the discotheques of Ayia Napa where they got into fights and trouble.

The British Army has a unique capability in peace enforcement operations. Officers in Bosnia were assiduous in briefing their troops on the region’s history and the ethnic divisions. Despite the photographs from the court martial, the army has applied the same respectful and intelligent approach to soldiering in Iraq.

I would not claim that the photographs reveal a unique occurrence. The army is full of tough people who can act roughly and some may make errors. But neither is this the tip of an immense iceberg of prisoner abuse. This high-profile case will alert high command to the price that Britain pays if our standards slip even once.

More worrying to me, because I think it more widespread, is the mistreatment of our own recruits. The army denies and covers up too much. It is puzzling that an organisation whose officers are normally excellent can sometimes fail so badly in its duty of care to those who enlist. We need more aggressive leadership to clean out the army’s sewers. It can start with Deepcut barracks.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1452385_2,00.html

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


BACK TO THE TOP                                                               BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS



























USA TODAY
Washington/Politics
 

Posted 1/25/2005 10:22 AM Updated 1/25/2005 11:47 AM

Bush wants $80B more for wars; new deficit forecast released

WASHINGTON (AP) — As Congress started to digest a new Bush administration request of $80 billion to bankroll wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its top budget analyst on Tuesday projected $855 billion in deficits for the next decade even without the costs of war and Bush's Social Security plan.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the administration would outline its request for more money for Iraq and Afghanistan later Tuesday. He would provide no detail, but congressional aides said the package would total about $80 billion and be mostly for U.S. military operations in the two countries.

Congress approved $25 billion for the wars last summer. Using figures compiled by the Congressional Research Service, which prepares reports for lawmakers, the newest request would push the totals provided for the conflicts and worldwide efforts against terrorism past $300 billion. That includes $25 billion already provided for rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan.

McClellan said the administration would request what is needed for U.S. troops and "to support the Iraqi people as they move forward on building a democratic and peaceful future."

Amid the White House's preparations, the Congressional Budget Office predicted the government will accumulate another $855 billion in deficits over the next decade.

The projection, for the years 2006 through 2015, is almost two-thirds smaller than what congressional budget analysts predicted last fall. But the drop is largely due to estimating quirks that required it to exclude future Iraq and Afghanistan war costs and other expenses. Last September, their 10-year deficit estimate was $2.3 trillion.

The CBO also projected this year's shortfall will be $368 billion. That was close to the $348 billion deficit for 2005 that it had forecast last fall. The two largest deficits ever in dollar terms were last year's $412 billion and the $377 billion gap of 2003.

The budget office estimated if U.S. troop strength in Iraq and Afghanistan declines gradually after 2006, those wars would add $590 billion to deficits over the next decade. Including war costs, this year's shortfall should hit about $400 billion, the budget office said.

Besides lacking war costs, the budget office's deficit estimates also omitted the price tags of Bush's goal of revamping Social Security, which could cost $1 trillion to $2 trillion and dominate this year's legislative agenda.

Also left out were the price of extending Bush's tax cuts and easing the impact the alternative minimum tax would have on middle-income Americans, which could exceed $2.3 trillion, the report said.

When those items are included, Bush is a long way from his goal of cutting deficits in half by 2009, Democrats said.

"Republicans control the House, the Senate and the White House, but they can't control the budget and they can't escape responsibility for its dismal condition," said Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina, top Democrat on the House Budget Committee.

Republicans used the deficit figures to underscore the need to find budget savings this year, including from popular benefit programs, which include Medicaid.

"If we do nothing, our kids and grandkids will be overwhelmed by the costs of our inaction," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H.

Bush won't send the war financing package to Congress until after he unveils his full 2006 budget on Feb. 7, congressional aides said.

White House officials declined to comment on the war package, which will come as the United States confronts continued violence in Iraq leading up to that country's Jan. 30 elections.

Aides said about three-fourths of the $80 billion was expected to be for the Army, which is bearing the brunt of the fighting in Iraq. It also was expected to include money for building a U.S. embassy in Baghdad, estimated to cost $1.5 billion.

One aide said the request will also include funds to help the new Afghan government combat drug trafficking. It might also have money to help two new leaders the U.S. hopes will be allies, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and Ukraine President Viktor Yushchenko.

The aides said the package Bush eventually submits to Congress will also include money to help Indian Ocean countries hit by the devastating December tsunami.

The forthcoming request highlights how much war spending has soared past initial White House estimates. Early on, then-presidential economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey placed Iraq costs at $100 billion to $200 billion, only to see his comments derided by administration colleagues.

By pushing war spending beyond $300 billion, the latest proposal would approach nearly half the $613 billion the United States spent for World War I or the $623 billion it expended for the Vietnam War, when the costs of those conflicts are translated into 2005 dollars.

The White House had not been expected to reveal details of the war package until after the release of the full budget.

But lawmakers, as they did last year, want to include war costs in the budgets they will write. They argue that withholding the war costs from Bush's budget would open it to criticism that it was an unrealistic document, one aide said. Last year, the spending plan omitted war expenditures and received just that critique.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-25-deficit_x.htm?csp=24&RM_Exclude=Juno

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


BACK TO THE TOP                                                               BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS
























Belfast Telegraph
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=605352

Is the world safer now?
As war ended, correspondents examined key questions about Iraq's future. With the elections looming, the updated answers highlight the global impact of the conflict

Analysis by Rupert Cornwell, Andrew Grice, Patrick Cockburn, Anne Penketh, Andrew Buncombe, Ben Russell, Stephen Castle and Elizabeth Davies
28 January 2005

 WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?

As we know now, they were never in Iraq, cutting away the rationale for going to war. But next door, Iran, the state most feared by Saddam Hussein, is now accused of being less than a year from a "point of no return" in building its own nuclear bomb - a direct result of the Iraq war. It has also emerged since the war that the Americans turned a blind eye to the export of nuclear parts by the top nuclear scientist in Pakistan, a major US ally in the "war on terror". The network of A Q Khan, the architect of Pakistan's nuclear programme, was in the business of selling nuclear technology to the highest bidder, including the arch-enemies of America - Libya and North Korea. Even South Korea has been conducting clandestine nuclear experiments, fearing its northern neighbour may have built six nuclear bombs. Far from shutting down the nuclear peril, the Bush administration has actually increased the global threat.

WHO ARE THE INSURGENTS AND ARE THEY LINKED TO AL-QA'IDA?

The presence of al-Qa'ida in Iraq was cited by President George Bush as one of the main reasons for going to war, even though there was never any proof of a link to Saddam Hussein. Iraq, back then, was devoid of terrorism. How times have changed - again, as a direct consequence of the war.

There is no single resistance movement. It is made up of different groups - many of which only operate in a single district. The US has sought to portray the insurgents as consisting of either foreign fighters or bloodthirsty Islamic fanatics, though US military intelligence admits that 95 per cent of fighters are Iraqi. The common element among the different groups is opposition to the US occupation. And they are bent on disrupting the elections to speed up the Americans' departure.

The military backbone of the resistance which developed with great speed after the fall of Saddam was made up of former members of the security forces and Baath party. But they could not have gathered support and sympathy from the population so swiftly if the US administration, devoid of a post-war plan, had not so rapidly discredited itself. Most Iraqi men have some military training. They are traditionally armed and after the war Iraq was awash with weapons.

The resistance rapidly took on an Islamic colouring, the very aspect the US feared. Since August 2003, there has been a wave of suicide bombing unprecedented in history. Here, the foreign volunteers were important and they appear to have provided the bulk of the bombers. Islamic fundamentalists outside Iraq provided large sums of money.

The insurgents have become more expert. There are greater signs of co-ordination. A few days after the US Marines started their assault on Fallujah in November, the resistance attacked Mosul and captured most of the city.

How sectarian is the resistance? The Salafi or militant fundamentalist Sunni wing of the insurgency has repeatedly targeted Shia with suicide bombs in Baghdad, Najaf and Kerbala, causing horrendous casualties. These attacks ensured that the uprising remains confined to the Sunni Arabs.

Since early 2004 the US has promoted Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as the man behind the uprising. This probably began as a propaganda ploy but Zarqawi revelled in the publicity and American denunciations meant local groups began to call themselves al-Qa'ida.

At any rate, the invasion - and the lack of planning - has created the very conditions the US cited as reason for going to war. Trouble was, they never existed then.

WHERE IS THE ANTI-WAR ALLIANCE NOW?

Still sulking on the sidelines although trying to mend fences with the Bush administration. The "gang of three" who opposed the invasion from within the Security Council, France, Germany and Russia, have never sent troops to Iraq as part of the multinational force. Mr Bush's visit to continental Europe next month will be aimed at improving relations with France and Germany. He will also hold a summit with the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, on neutral ground in the Slovakian capital. The problem for all three states is that they want to do business with Iraq - in particular France and Russia which were owed billions of dollars by Saddam's regime - but they have refused to endorse the occupation.

HOW HAS TONY BLAIR EMERGED?

Whenever Tony Blair crosses his fingers and starts to think that Iraq is fading as a domestic political issue, it returns to haunt him. With hindsight, the war itself was the easy bit. The aftermath has been much more messy. Two inquiries, by lords Hutton and Butler, kept the issue in the spotlight, even if they failed to find the smoking gun Mr Blair's critics hoped for.

Time has not proved the healer that Mr Blair hoped it would be: public opinion has hardened since the war. After the weapons of mass destruction failed to materialise, Mr Blair's personal trust ratings fell through the floor.

His allies hope desperately that Sunday's elections in Iraq will pass the credibility test. If they do, then Iraq may play less strongly during the general election expected on 5 May. If they fail the test, the issue will continue to dog Mr Blair.

Labour strategists admit that, at present, about 3 per cent of the electorate say they will not support the party because of Iraq - enough to have a significant impact on the election result. Labour hopes that, as the election approaches, critics will focus more on the economy and public spending than Iraq.

Between now and the election, Mr Blair will talk up issues they care about - such as climate change and poverty in Africa - and speak less about Iraq. He will also mount a subtle campaign to distance himself from President Bush, who will not visit Britain when he tours Europe next month.

Mr Blair will urge his critics to address the future rather than the past, and to support democracy in Iraq, offering the carrot of a "timeline" for the withdrawal of coalition forces.

HOW DOES THE EU COME OUT OF IT?

One year after a conflict that split Europe down the middle, a battered EU is finally starting to recover some of its unity. The war was a brutal reminder of the frailty of Europe's foreign policy, dividing member states and casting a giant cloud over relations with Washington.

France, Germany and Belgium led the opponents, while Britain, Spain (whose government subsequently changed) and a clutch of "new" European countries from the former Communist bloc including Poland, sided with the US.

The two sides then continued to fight the war by proxy. Last year Mr Blair helped block France and Germany's preferred candidate for the job of European Commission president, Guy Verhofstadt, the Belgian premier. In return the French President, Jacques Chirac, stalled efforts to establish a Nato role in Iraq via a military training mission.

But there are signs that the EU is beginning to salvage some internal cohesion. The EU is now poised to offer the US a small olive branch by offering to train Iraqi police, administrators and judges (although that work will probably take place outside Iraq). And, significantly, Britain agrees with Germany and France - rather than the US - on two key issues: the need for diplomacy rather than force in dealings with Iran, and the desirability of lifting an EU arms embargo on China.

DO IRAQIS FEEL LIBERATED?

The key question, and the one answer showing the biggest change since our investigation in April 2003. Just after the war, polls showed that Iraqis were evenly divided about whether they felt liberated or occupied. We said back then that Iraqis have a strong sense of nationhood, and predicted that any sense of being subjected to American hegemony would be strongly resisted. By the time the US ended direct rule of Iraq through the Coalition Provisional Authority in the summer of 2004, only 2 per cent of Arab Iraqis supported the occupation. The overthrow of Saddam had brought none of the political and
economic benefits they expected. Today, the only large group in Iraq which still overwhelmingly feels liberated is the Kurdish community, which makes up about 17 percent of the population.

Despite the supposed handover of power to an Iraqi interim government last year, Iraqis see the US as the controller of the government. Many of them this week referred to the election as "a movie" staged for the benefit of the outside world. Significantly many of those who say they will vote also blame the US for their woes. This is the greatest mistake made by US analysts: the belief that because the Shia are increasingly hostile to the Sunni this means that they accept the occupation. The prestigious Brussels-based International Crisis Group sees the growth of hostility to the US as the most important development in Iraq since 2003. It says in a recent report: "Of all the many changes that have affected popular attitudes since the fall of the Baathist regime, perhaps the most notable has been the precipitous drop in the confidence in the US."

IS IYAD ALLAWI, THE INTERIM PRIME MINISTER, A US PUPPET?

Back in 2003, the question concerned Ahmed Chalabi, then the key US protégé in Iraq. Now it focuses on Mr Allawi, appointed interim Prime Minister by the US in June 2004. He depends on the 150,000-strong US Army in Iraq to stay in power. His political party, the Iraqi National Accord, was funded by the CIA. Mr Allawi was always in the past a man of the shadows. His defence of his former intelligence links is to say that he took money from any foreign agency which offered him funds. It is also true that all the Iraqi exiled leaders were supported by foreign intelligence agencies. With the exception of the Kurdish parties, few of them had a network within Iraq and all the returning exiles are viewed with suspicion as carpetbaggers by Iraqis who never left the country under Saddam Hussein. Mr Allawi has achieved a surprising degree of acceptance since he became Prime Minister. This is more for what he is not than what he is. He is a Shia and secular candidate in a country where the Shia political parties are predominantly religious. Even Ahmed Chalabi, former favoured friend of the Pentagon, is part of the United Iraqi Alliance, the largely Shia list put together under the auspices of Grand Ayatollah Ali
al-Sistani.

Mr Allawi is also attractive to many Sunni because he is a former Baathist even if he is close to the Americans.

Mr Allawi and the other returning exiles are all dependent on the US. But the American position in Iraq has weakened steadily since the invasion. It therefore needs Mr Allawi and would find it difficult to replace him. This gives him some leeway in dealing with them. But in the past six months he has not been able to distance himself enough from the US to win over nationalist supporters of the resistance looking for a compromise.

IS THE UN RELEVANT ANY LONGER?

The Bush administration has pushed the UN back into a role of talking-shop, enabling the world's most powerful state to kick the most intractable problems into the long grass. That is why the US is content to let the UN take the lead in dealing with the atrocities in Darfur and even the Iranian nuclear threat. Washington can play for time while seeming to be doing something, while knowing that no decisions will ever emerge from the strategically divided major powers on the UN Security Council. Basically, the UN is only relevant when its member states want it to be.

The Bush administration, being ideologically opposed to the UN, is more likely to form "coalitions of the willing" outside the UN framework for conflict resolution. But even the Bush administration admits that the UN does have some relevance, in coping with humanitarian disasters such as the Asian tsunami, and in organising elections and their aftermath in failed states. As we predicted in April 2003, despite their prosecution of the war without UN authority, Mr Blair and Mr Bush felt obliged to seek UN blessing for the post-war phase.

WILL THE KURDS TRY FOR STATEHOOD?

Unlikely. The Kurds are the only Iraqis to have got from what they wanted from the overthrow of Saddam. It has been a narrow squeeze. Just before the invasion, the US was happy to go along with a Turkish invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan as the price for the Turks allowing US troops to open a northern front against Saddam. In the event, the Turks turned the offer down and the US had to rely on the Kurds as their local allies.

During the war, the Kurds were able to recapture all the territory in Kirkuk and Mosul provinces from which they had been evicted over the past 40 years. The Kurds are now the dominant force in northern Iraq. They also hold Kirkuk and its oilfields. Emotionally, Kurds would like statehood but they already have the reality of independence without the dangers of declaring an independent state. For the first time they have the support of a great power: the US. With America so short of allies inside Iraq, it cannot abandon the only community which supports it.

HOW LONG WILL THE SOLDIERS STAY?

In April 2003, we wrote that neither Britain nor the US could sustain their troop levels, which at the time were 225,000 US soldiers and 45,000 UK troops. The British were saying then that they would keep troops in Iraq for a maximum of six months. Now, with 150,000 US and 10,000 British troops in Iraq, neither side is likely to pull out before the end of the current mandate, which runs until December. The official line from the White House and Downing Street is that it all depends on the speed with which Iraqi police and troops are trained. At the moment, there are less than half the number of Iraqi security forces that officials believe are required to deal with the insurgency.

Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, recently told senators: "I am really reluctant to try to put a timetable on that, because I think the goal is to get the mission accomplished, and that means that the Iraqis have to be capable of some things before we lessen our own responsibility." Members of Congress have privately been told by senior uniformed officers to expect at least 100,000 to remain in Iraq not only throughout this year but to the end of 2006. At the same time, a growing number on the right is calling for a rapid withdrawal. Some believe the setting of a timetable for leaving might focus efforts on
training Iraqi forces. The Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, recently told reporters "it was bleedingly obvious" that Britain and the US would leave Iraq if the Iraqi national assembly to be elected on Sunday asks them. A major, single loss of US troops - such as the attack in Beirut in 1983 in which 241 US Marines were killed - rather than the steady drip of casualties would almost certainly hasten a departure.

IS THERE A HUMANITARIAN CRISIS?

The crisis is of a different nature to that in April 2003, when the war had compounded the effects of sanctions, and is absorbing the attention of Iraqis more than the election. Long queues of cars and trucks snake around Baghdad as drivers wait for fuel. Often they sit in their cars for more than 24 hours. There is also a shortage of kerosene, essential for heating, bottled gas for cooking and electricity for all purposes. In recent weeks there has even been a shortage of water for the first time. Because transport is more expensive food prices go up. The rise in prices hits a population with very small earnings. Iraqis expected after the fall of Saddam that their standard of living would improve. Instead they have seen their lives in most cases get worse. It is disappointment which partly fuels the uprising. Young men are desperate for jobs. It is as easy for the resistance to recruit men as it is for the police or army. For a year after the invasion Iraqis were patient but during this past winter they saw the electricity supply falling again to three or four hours a day.
While Iraq is caught up in a permanent economic and social crisis it is difficult to believe that the political crisis will ever end.

HOW MANY DIED IN THE WAR

In April 2003, 119 American soldiers had been killed and 30 British soldiers. Now the total has jumped to 1,420 American soldiers dead and 76 British servicemen. The Iraq Body Count website calculates that the total number of Iraqi civilians killed by military intervention could be as many as 17,721. There are no reliable figures for Iraqi military casualties but we do know that at least 6,370 Iraqi soldiers died during the war itself.

The fact that the allies have never bothered to count the dead is seen as an insult in Iraq.

WAS THE WAR LEGAL?

It still depends who you talk to. Critics of the war maintain that the failure to uncover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has undermined the legal case for war by demonstrating that Saddam was not a threat to international security. However, ministers insist that it was Saddam's breaches of United Nations resolutions which made the war legal under international law.

The one-page legal opinion released on the eve of the invasion used successive UN Security Council resolutions to justify war. Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, said that authority to use force against Iraq derived "from the combined effect of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441" which were under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter, which allows the use of force to restore international peace and security. He said the authority for war stemmed from UN Security Council resolution 678, the resolution that first authorised force to expel Iraq from Kuwait in 1990.

Lord Goldsmith insisted that resolution 687, which set the terms of Iraq's ceasefire at the end of the Gulf War, merely "suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force". The Attorney General said resolution 1441, passed before Christmas, made clear Iraq was in material breach of its ceasefire and in effect "provived" the legal authority for war originally confirmed in 1990. The government has rebuffed attempts by The Independent, anti-war campaigners and MPs for publication of the Attorney General's full legal advice before the invasion amid suspicions it contained caveats not included in the summary
released to MPs. MPs believe that Lord Goldsmith changed his advice in the run-up to war and demanded an explicit statement from Mr Blair that Iraq was in breach of its obligations under UN resolutions before confirming the legality of the invasion. But, while all this legal debate goes on, it seems the public has made up its mind: no WMD equals no legitimacy.

DID THE ALLIES STICK TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS?

No way. Already in April 2003 the allies had violated the conventions in their treatment of the civilians they were obliged to protect. But since then, the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and in British custody has sickened the world in the blatant disregard for international humanitarian law. The taking of photographs of prisoners is only permitted in order to identify the captives. Contrast this with the soldiers who took the shocking pictures of a hooded man attached to electric cables standing on a box, the piles of naked bodies, and the simulated sex scenes.

DID BUSH'S CRONIES GET THE BIGGEST CONTRACTS?

In essence many of them did. In the aftermath of the war, US companies lined up to receive more than $18bn set aside for reconstruction. Many of the biggest winners were companies who had donated heavily to the Republicans.

In most cases, their bids for the work were non-competitive. Bechtel Group, for instance, won a $680m contract for emergency infrastructure repair. Bechtel had previously given $1.3m to US political candidates from 1999 to 2002 - about 60 per cent to Republicans. Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Vice-President Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton, which donated $708,770 - 95 per cent to Republicans - received an open-ended contract for fighting oilwell fires. The no-limit contract was subsequently expanded to include the "operation of facilities and distribution of products." Congressman Henry Waxman has estimated the contract to provide meals, laundry and other support services to troops could be worth $7bn over two years.

In 2003 it was announced that countries that opposed the war such as France and Germany would be banned from bidding for contracts though this was later loosened. The Bush administration says 103,142 Iraqi workers are currently employed in more than 2,500 reconstruction projects.

HAS THE RUMSFELD DOCTRINE BEEN VINDICATED?

Iraq has been both dazzling confirmation and humbling repudiation of the "Rumsfeld Doctrine", of a smaller, nimbler military, where overwhelming firepower would make up for any decline in troop strength. The formula worked brilliantly for the invasion itself, a "blitzkrieg" that saw a relatively small US force complete the conquest of Iraq in less than a month, with the capture of Saddam's redoubt of Tikrit on 17 April 2003. But the 21-month occupation has exposed every limitation of the doctrine. Having spurned his senior commanders' warnings that "several hundred thousand" troops would be needed to
provide security, Mr Rumsfeld has tried to do the job with just 140,000. The US Army, and reserve units and the National Guard in particular, have been stretched close to breaking point. In a tacit admission that the Army is too small, the Pentagon is seeking to expand the 500,000 active duty force by 30,000 on a "provisional" basis until 2008. The Defence Secretary, meanwhile, is accelerating his intended reform of the military, by cutting back or scrapping sophisticated new weapons systems. This would free tens of billions of budget dollars to equip the military better for the unconventional conflicts of the future. The loser, as we wrote in April 2003, is Colin Powell, who challenged Mr Rumsfeld and who has now left the Bush administration.

WHAT WAS THE WAR REALLY ABOUT?

Astonishingly, two years on there is no clear answer. The Bush White House claimed the invasion was to get rid of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, and destroy a regime that was linked to terrorism. When the WMD failed to materialise, the war was justified (on legally shaky grounds) as a mission to remove an odious and repressive regime, the first step in a democratic transformation of the Middle East.

In truth, Iraq was at the top of the administration's hit list long before 9/11. The neo-conservatives in charge of US security policy had been calling for Saddam's overthrow for five years or more. This they argued, would give the US a new strategic base in the Gulf to replace Saudi Arabia. It would place the region's second oil producer firmly within the US orbit. It would step up the pressure on Iran, meeting a longstanding desire of Israel. Finally, there is a family factor: did Bush the son invade to finish the job started by Bush the father? Somewhere in this mixture of fear, grand strategy and blinkered ideology lies the explanation for the war.

IS THIS THE FIRST STEP TO REORDERING THE MIDDLE EAST?

That was, and remains, Mr Bush's goal, as his extraordinary second inauguration address shows. Turn Iraq into a functioning democratic regime, the theory runs, and the Islamic extremists and insurgents "who hate our freedom" would be on the retreat across the Muslim world.

Seduced by a benign version of the domino theory, Washington imagined that other authoritarian regimes would realise there was no alternative to liberalisation and democratisation. Thus would be achieved an economic and political rebirth of the Middle East, including the most elusive prize of all, a peace settlement between Israel and Palestine.

But even if the Iraqi election on Sunday goes (relatively) smoothly, those ambitions now appear to be hopelessly overblown.

The initial goals of Mr Blair's Palestinian conference in March have been watered down under Israeli pressure. Mr Bush's once-trumpeted Greater Middle East Initiative, designed to foster free thinking, free markets and free media across the region, has been drastically scaled back after complaints from allies such as Egypt that the US was trying to impose its views.

WHAT ABOUT SADDAM?

Saddam Hussein is in custody awaiting trial in the US military base at Baghdad airport. But his appearances in court have not benefited the interim government as much as they had hoped. His capture has, surprisingly, highlighted difficulties, and his is the spectre overhanging the elections.

His strong, defiant demeanour before his accusers last year quickly replaced in the public psyche the earlier images of a bedraggled and beaten former Iraqi leader dragged from his hole in December 2003. His trial will be difficult to arrange if it is to appear in any way fair. Nor will it be easy to find evidence of Saddam directly ordering massacres. And controversy has already engulfed the trial. Salem Chalabi, initially in charge, was accused of murder and dismissed.

Saddam's prosecution will cause division. The Kurds want to execute the man who oppressed and slaughtered them. The Shia, too, want him convicted for the killings after their uprising in 1991 and the murder of their leaders. But the Sunni are more ambivalent, not because of loyalty to Saddam, but because they see a trial as a veiled attack on their community. Many Iraqis also feel that however bad conditions were under Saddam they were better than today. The destruction of Fallujah by the US Marines and the torture of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers in Abu Ghraib have made them less willing to condemn
Saddam, a feat most would have found incredible two years ago.

IS NORTH KOREA NEXT ON THE AMERICAN HITLIST?

No, for the simple reason that the Americans are more concerned about stopping countries from obtaining a nuclear weapon rather than going after those that have one. Experts agree North Korea probably has half a dozen nuclear bombs, or enough to deter an American attack. So Iran - which is suspected of developing a nuclear bomb - is now "top of the list of potential troublespots", according to the American Vice-President, Dick Cheney.

It is also the reason Iraq was a target in the first place, rather than North Korea, which from a nuclear perspective was a far more dangerous threat. Iran must have realised it would be safer from attack the sooner it developed nuclear capability. In that sense, the invasion of Iraq has made the world much less safe.

The countries that the Americans want quaking in their boots have been branded "outposts of tyranny" by the new US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. The list is Cuba, Burma, North Korea, Iran, Belarus, and Zimbabwe. She did not indicate an order of priority, and left off her list other states which happen to be US allies.

Taking strong-arm action against a geo-strategically important state like Iran will be tricky: Iranian officials say Tehran would respond vigorously to any military attack by the United States or Israel. "Iran is not Iraq, Iran is not North Korea," said an Iranian diplomat.

DOES GROWING SHIA POWER MEAN AN INCREASE IN IRANIAN INFLUENCE IN IRAQ?

This was always the fear of the US, and was one of the reasons why Washington allowed Saddam Hussein to crush the Shia uprising after the first Gulf War in 1991. But the Iranian and Iraqi Shias have always had different attitudes. The Shia clergy in Iraq would like an Islamic state but not a theocracy. During the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqi Shia made up the bulk of the Iraqi army and fought their co-religionists.

Iran has great influence in southern Iraq. For years, it funded the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and its Badr brigade militia, now one of the main Shia parties. It has funded Shia organisations in Iraq.

"The Iranians are very clever: they give money to the pro-Iranian groups and also to the anti-Iranian groups," said a Shia leader.

Given that the US is continually threatening to attack Iran, it is not surprising that Tehran wants to make sure it can cause problems for Washington in Iraq, so there may be a big impact on the election.

Source: Independent

2005 Independent News and Media (NI)
a division of Independent News & media (UK) Ltd

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


BACK TO THE TOP                                                                           BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS


























Fallujah: the truth at last

Socialist Worker - online
February 19, 2005

Doctor Salam Ismael took aid to Fallujah last month. This is his story of how the US murdered a city

IT WAS the smell that first hit me, a smell that is difficult to describe, and one that will never leave me. It was the smell of death. Hundreds of corpses were decomposing in the houses, gardens and streets of Fallujah. Bodies were rotting where they had fallen—bodies of men, women and children, many half-eaten by wild dogs.

A wave of hate had wiped out two-thirds of the town, destroying houses and mosques, schools and clinics. This was the terrible and frightening power of the US military assault.

The accounts I heard over the next few days will live with me forever. You may think you know what happened in Fallujah. But the truth is worse than you could possibly have imagined.

In Saqlawiya, one of the makeshift refugee camps that surround Fallujah, we found a 17 year old woman. “I am Hudda Fawzi Salam Issawi from the Jolan district of Fallujah,” she told me. “Five of us, including a 55 year old neighbour, were trapped together in our house in Fallujah when the siege began.

“On 9 November American marines came to our house. My father and the neighbour went to the door to meet them. We were not fighters. We thought we had nothing to fear. I ran into the kitchen to put on my veil, since men were going to enter our house and it would be wrong for them to see me with my hair uncovered.

“This saved my life. As my father and neighbour approached the door, the Americans opened fire on them. They died instantly.

“Me and my 13 year old brother hid in the kitchen behind the fridge. The soldiers came into the house and caught my older sister. They beat her. Then they shot her. But they did not see me. Soon they left, but not before they had destroyed our furniture and stolen the money from my father’s pocket.”

Hudda told me how she comforted her dying sister by reading verses from the Koran. After four hours her sister died. For three days Hudda and her brother stayed with their murdered relatives. But they were thirsty and had only a few dates to eat. They feared the troops would return and decided to try to flee the city. But they were spotted by a US sniper.

Hudda was shot in the leg, her brother ran but was shot in the back and died instantly. “I prepared myself to die,” she told me. “But I was found by an American woman soldier, and she took me to hospital.” She was eventually reunited with the surviving members of her family.

I also found survivors of another family from the Jolan district. They told me that at the end of the second week of the siege the US troops swept through the Jolan. The Iraqi National Guard used loudspeakers to call on people to get out of the houses carrying white flags, bringing all their belongings with them. They were ordered to gather outside near the Jamah al-Furkan mosque in the centre of town.

On 12 November Eyad Naji Latif and eight members of his family—one of them a six month old child—gathered their belongings and walked in single file, as instructed, to the mosque.

When they reached the main road outside the mosque they heard a shout, but they could not understand what was being shouted. Eyad told me it could have been “now” in English. Then the firing began.

US soldiers appeared on the roofs of surrounding houses and opened fire. Eyad’s father was shot in the heart and his mother in the chest.

They died instantly. Two of Eyad’s brothers were also hit, one in the chest and one in the neck. Two of the women were hit, one in the hand and one in the leg.

Then the snipers killed the wife of one of Eyad’s brothers. When she fell her five year old son ran to her and stood over her body. They shot him dead too.

Survivors made desperate appeals to the troops to stop firing.

But Eyad told me that whenever one of them tried to raise a white flag they were shot After several hours he tried to raise his arm with the flag. But they shot him in the arm. Finally he tried to raise his hand. So they shot him in the hand.

The five survivors, including the six month old child, lay in the street for seven hours. Then four of them crawled to the nearest home to find shelter.

The next morning the brother who was shot in the neck also managed to crawl to safety. They all stayed in the house for eight days, surviving on roots and one cup of water, which they saved for the baby.

On the eighth day they were discovered by some members of the Iraqi National Guard and taken to hospital in Fallujah. They heard the Americans were arresting any young men, so the family fled the hospital and finally obtained treatment in a nearby town.

They do not know in detail what happened to the other families who had gone to the mosque as instructed. But they told me the street was awash with blood.

I had come to Fallujah in January as part of a humanitarian aid convoy funded by donations from Britain.

Our small convoy of trucks and vans brought 15 tons of flour, eight tons of rice, medical aid and 900 pieces of clothing for the orphans. We knew that thousands of refugees were camped in terrible conditions in four camps on the outskirts of town.

There we heard the accounts of families killed in their houses, of wounded people dragged into the streets and run over by tanks, of a container with the bodies of 481 civilians inside, of premeditated murder, looting and acts of savagery and cruelty that beggar belief.

Through the ruins

That is why we decided to go into Fallujah and investigate. When we entered the town I almost did not recognise the place where I had worked as a doctor in April 2004, during the first siege.

We found people wandering like ghosts through the ruins. Some were looking for the bodies of relatives. Others were trying to recover some of their possessions from destroyed homes.

Here and there, small knots of people were queuing for fuel or food. In one queue some of the survivors were fighting over a blanket.

I remember being approached by an elderly woman, her eyes raw with tears. She grabbed my arm and told me how her house had been hit by a US bomb during an air raid. The ceiling collapsed on her 19 year old son, cutting off both his legs.

She could not get help. She could not go into the streets because the Americans had posted snipers on the roofs and were killing anyone who ventured out, even at night.

She tried her best to stop the bleeding, but it was to no avail. She stayed with him, her only son, until he died. He took four hours to die.

Fallujah’s main hospital was seized by the US troops in the first days of the siege. The only other clinic, the Hey Nazzal, was hit twice by US missiles. Its medicines and medical equipment were all destroyed.

There were no ambulances—the two ambulances that came to help the wounded were shot up and destroyed by US troops.

We visited houses in the Jolan district, a poor working class area in the north western part of the city that had been the centre of resistance during the April siege.

This quarter seemed to have been singled out for punishment during the second siege. We moved from house to house, discovering families dead in their beds, or cut down in living rooms or in the kitchen. House after house had furniture smashed and possessions scattered.

In some places we found bodies of fighters, dressed in black and with ammunition belts. But in most of the houses, the bodies were of civilians. Many were dressed in housecoats, many of the women were not veiled—meaning there were no men other than family members in the house. There were no weapons, no spent cartridges.

It became clear to us that we were witnessing the aftermath of a massacre, the cold-blooded butchery of helpless and defenceless civilians.

Nobody knows how many died. The occupation forces are now bulldozing the neighbourhoods to cover up their crime. What happened in Fallujah was an act of barbarity. The whole world must be told the truth.

Copyright Socialist Worker. You may republish if you include an active link to the original.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=5891

Eyewitness in Fallujah
February 19, 2005

Dr Salam Ismael, now 28 years old, was head of junior doctors in Baghdad before the invasion of Iraq. He was in Fallujah in April 2004 where he treated casualties of the assault on the city.

At the end of 2004 he came to Britain to collect funds for an aid convoy to Fallujah. Now the British government does not want Dr Salam Ismael’s testimony to be heard.

He was due to come here last week to speak at trade union and anti-war meetings. But he was refused entry. The reason given was that he received expenses, covering the basic costs of his trip, when he came to Britain last year and this constitutes “illegal working”.

Dr Salam Ismael merely wishes to speak the truth. Yet it seems the freedom that Bush and Blair claim to champion in Iraq does not extend to allowing its citizens to travel freely.
 
Legal challenges, supported by the Stop the War Coalition, were launched this week in an effort to allow Dr Salam Ismael to come to Britain.

Copyright Socialist Worker. You may republish if you include an active link to the original
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=5892

MAMMA's Footnote:

On Tuesday, June 15, 2004, Congressman Christopher Shays (R-CT), Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations convened an oversight hearing in room 2247 of the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, D.C.  

Entitled, "Iraq: Winning Hearts and Minds", this hearing was part of an attempt by the United States and its Coalition partners to "win the hearts and minds of the people in Iraq while providing military security and support to economic and political reform programs." (see http://reform.house.gov/GovReform/News/DocumentPrint.aspx?DocumentID=4242 ). Heralded as an effort to build on the February 10, 2004, subcommittee hearing entitled, "Public Diplomacy in the Middle East" (to examine regional efforts to convey U.S. policies and values to diverse audiences), this hearing was to focus on the past year's faulty assumptions and some policy decisions that had proven controversial and had created more doubt than confidence in U.S. intentions. Three panels of witnesses were expected to review the questionable assumptions and policy decisions and be prepared to "describe corrective actions that might be undertaken to regain the confidence and cooperation (hearts and minds) of the Iraqi people, improve public diplomacy messages, and help chart the course for future efforts in Iraq."

During the testimony of Panel III, discussion turned to the (then) recent outrage that centered on the deaths of four U.S. contractors whose bodies had been mutilated and hung from a bridge. Some members of the panel, while uncomfortable with the nature of such a public demonstration, were opined that prior events, most notably the questionable and violent deaths of 13 Iraqi civilians, made this a matter of retaliation. The most notable dissenter of that opinion was Mr. Richard Galen, Former Director, Strategic Media, Coalition Provisional Authority, who promptly labeled the incident as a terrorist attack that warranted
(his words), "...turning Fallujah into a parking lot".

READ MORE ABOUT IT:

Sorrow and fury as the dead are buried in Fallujah
Socialist Worker - online
February 19, 2005

THE RESPECTED cameraman and producer Michael Burke co-operated with Dr Salam Ismael to produce powerful material that was due to be shown on Channel 4 News this week. It included film taken of mass burials near Saqlawiya, on the outskirts of Fallujah.

The bodies that were interred there were collected mainly from the Jolan district in the city. Socialist Worker’s Simon Assaf saw the unedited footage and describes its graphic content.


The first truck arrives, it has 77 bodies. One by one the black body bags containing the remains are unloaded. Each bag is numbered. They are lined up to match the number painted on bricks that are to serve as tombstones.

The bags are carefully opened and each corpse is checked for some form of identification. Only five have names. Many of the bodies are swollen and blackened, their faces and limbs eaten by dogs. They have been dead for some time.

There are murmurs of prayers from the men preparing their last resting place. Each person is carefully laid to rest in a carved hollow inside a long trench.

Occasionally one of the bodies is recognised and a howl of tears and rage goes up from the crowd.

After the bodies of some of the fighters are laid to rest, one of the gravediggers makes a speech to them, praising their sacrifice. “They call you terrorist,” one man cries. “But you are the sons of Fallujah. The martyrs of Iraq and god’s loved ones. You have sacrificed yourself for our freedom and for our country.”

The cry and the chants of “God is great” rise from a small crowd that has started to gather. All join in pushing the earth to cover the tombs. Another truck arrives and another trench is prepared. Now the crowd is bigger.

Word has gone round the camp that the Americans have finally allowed the bodies of fighters to be buried. In the Muslim and Arab tradition the dead must be washed and buried within a day. These men lay where they fell for days, sometimes weeks, as the US army declared that those they deemed to be fighters “should be left to the dogs.”

The bodies of the fighters are buried in the clothes they fell in. Now 22 bodies are unloaded. Each is carefully checked, placed in order then laid gently into a new trench.

The speeches become more angry. One man shouts, “These are our sons, not terrorists. Today we are burying our martyrs, yesterday with our hands we buried whole families. “Yesterday I buried a ten year old girl. Is she the terrorist that the Americans and Iraqi prime minister Iyad Allawi say were in Fallujah? Are all the old men, the women, the children, terrorists? If they are terrorists then we all are terrorists!”

The crowd, now in their thousands, push the earth over the graves.

And then another truck comes. This time there are 33 bodies. But with it comes further disturbing news. The rescue workers have discovered a street in the Jolan quarter full of dead civilians. Many of the civilian dead were buried soon after they were killed. The civilians are buried in graves inside the city, in their gardens or are carted off to be stored in a container outside the city.

These newly discovered civilian bodies had been overlooked. “In one street there are ten houses full of families,” one of the gravediggers explains. “We found 22 bodies. The houses have also been looted.”

“The Iraqi National Guard are traitors,” someone shouts. “They are worse than the Americans.” The crowd again begins to shout slogans of defiance, and pledges to continue the resistance.

Among the final batch of bodies to be buried was that of a young man, barely in his teens. I recognised him from an image we printed in Socialist Worker. He was killed weeks after the Americans claimed the resistance had been crushed.

Wrapped around the young man’s hand is a white flag. He was dressed in a new jeans jacket and his hair was neatly combed. The rescue workers said he was found in one of Jolan’s many streets. No one knows who he is, and he does not carry a copy of the Koran with his name in it—the resistance fighters write their names in their Koran so they can be identified if they are killed.

As the sun begins to set a small cluster of civilians laden with belongings emerge from Fallujah.

They have been told to leave their houses by the US troops and their Iraqi allies.

They claim that the US troops were clearing out the houses so they can demolish their neighbourhood. They join the thousands of others now living in tents around the shattered city.

Copyright Socialist Worker. You may republish if you include an active link to the original.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=5885

MAMMA's Footnote:

Iraq has a huge new "parking lot", but at what cost?

When a country has the power (and uses it) to make a city, like Fallujah, into a "parking lot", can such an action be termed anything other than Abuse of Power?

If you haven't read the article, "Questioning Ethics of Abu Ghraib Doctors: the tip of the iceberg" by Willow Marie Maze,
now would be a  good time to read (or review) it because the question is...Can the world afford the consequences of leaving such Power Abuse unrecognized, unchallenged and unchecked? 


BACK TO THE TOP                                                                BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS
 

OR BETTER YET....CONTINUE READING:


Iraqi Elections
by Naomi Klein  

Stop the War Coalition

Saturday February 12, 2005
The Guardian  

'The Iraqi people gave America the biggest thank you in the best way we could have hoped for." Reading this election analysis from Betsy Hart, a columnist for the Scripps Howard News Service, I found myself thinking about my late grandmother.

Half blind and a menace behind the wheel of her Chevrolet, she adamantly refused to surrender her car keys. She was convinced that everywhere she drove (flattening the house pets of Philadelphia along the way), people were waving and smiling at her. "They are so friendly!" We had to break the bad news. "They aren't waving with their whole hand, grandma - just with their middle finger."

So it is with Betsy Hart and the other near-sighted election observers. They think the Iraqi people have finally sent America those long-awaited flowers and sweets, when Iraq's voters just gave them the (purple) finger. Judging by the millions of votes already counted, Iraqis have voted overwhelmingly to throw out the US-installed Ayad Allawi, who refused to ask the United States to leave. A decisive majority voted for the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA); the second plank in the UIA platform called for "a timetable for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from Iraq".

There are more single-digit messages embedded in the winning coalition's platform. Some highlights: "Adopting a social security system under which the state guarantees a job for every fit Iraqi ... and offers facilities to citizens to build homes"; the alliance also pledges "to write off Iraq's debts, cancel reparations and use the oil wealth for economic development projects". In short, Iraqis voted to repudiate the radical free-market policies imposed by the former chief American envoy Paul Bremer and locked in by a recent agreement with the International Monetary Fund.

So will the people who got all choked up watching Iraqis flock to the polls support these democratically chosen demands? Please. "You don't set timetables," George Bush said four days after the Iraqis voted for exactly that. Likewise, Tony Blair called the elections "magnificent" but dismissed a firm timetable out of hand. The UIA's pledges to expand the public sector, keep the oil and drop the debt will likely suffer similar fates. At least if Adel Abd al-Mahdi gets his way - he's Iraq's finance minister and the man suddenly being touted as the leader of Iraq's next government.

Al-Mahdi is the Bush administration's Trojan horse in the UIA. (You didn't think they were going to put all their money on Allawi, did you?) In October, he told a gathering of the American Enterprise Institute that he planned to "restructure and privatise [Iraq's] state-owned enterprises", and in December he made another trip to Washington to unveil plans for a new oil law, "very promising to the American investors". It was al-Mahdi himself who oversaw the signing of a flurry of deals with Shell, BP and ChevronTexaco in the weeks before the elections, and it is he who negotiated the recent austerity deal with the IMF.

On troop withdrawal, al-Mahdi sounds nothing like his party's platform, and instead appears to be echoing Dick Cheney on Fox News: "When the Americans go will depend on when our own forces are ready and on how the resistance responds after the elections." But on Sharia law, we are told, he is very close to the clerics.

Iraq's elections were delayed time and time again while the occupation and resistance grew ever more deadly. Now it seems that two years of bloodshed, bribery and backroom arm-twisting were leading up to this: a deal in which the ayatollahs get control over the family, Texaco gets the oil, and Washington gets its enduring military bases (call it the "oil-for-women programme"). Everyone wins except the voters, who risked their lives to cast their ballots for very different policies.

But never mind that. January 30, we are told, was not about what Iraqis were voting for; it was about the fact of their voting and, more important, how their plucky courage made Americans feel about their war. Apparently, the election's true purpose was to prove to Americans that, as George Bush put it, "the Iraqi people value their own liberty". Stunningly, this appears to come as news. The Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown said the vote was "the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people". On The Daily Show, CNN's Anderson Cooper described it as "the first time we've sort of had a gauge of whether or not they're willing to sort of step forward and do stuff".

This is some tough crowd. The Shia uprising against Saddam in 1991 was clearly not enough to convince them that Iraqis were willing to "do stuff" to be free. Neither was the demonstration of 100,000 people held one year ago demanding immediate elections, nor the spontaneous local elections organised by Iraqis in the early months of the occupation - both summarily shot down by Bremer. It turns out that on American television, the entire occupation has been one long episode of the reality TV show Fear Factor, in which Iraqis overcome ever more challenging obstacles to demonstrate the depths of their desire to win their country back. Having their cities levelled, being tortured in Abu Ghraib, getting shot at checkpoints, having their journalists censored and their water and electricity cut off - all of it was just a prelude to the ultimate endurance test: dodging bombs and bullets to get to the polling station. At last, Americans were persuaded that Iraqis really, really wanted to be free.

So what's the prize? An end to occupation, as the voters demanded? Don't be silly, the US government won't submit to any "artificial timetable". Jobs for everyone, as the UIA promised? You can't vote for socialist nonsense like that. No, they get Geraldo Rivera's tears ("I felt like such a sap"); Laura Bush's motherly pride ("It was so moving for the president and me to watch people come out with purple fingers"); and Betsy Hart's sincere apology for ever doubting them ("Wow - do I stand corrected").

And that should be enough. Because if it weren't for the invasion, Iraqis would not even have the freedom to vote for their liberation, and then to have that vote completely ignored. And that's the real prize: the freedom to be occupied. Wow - do I stand corrected.

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/new/news/NaomiKlein.htm

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


BACK TO THE TOP                                                        BACK TO PUBLIC ALERTS




























****************************************************************************************


Subject: US Census 2000 data causes heightened fright: 451,000 GulfWar1 soldiers disabled

Peter Glaser
Elmegade 11
Aarhus N 8200
Denmark
tel/fax: (0045) 86108502
 
http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/01statab/defense.pdf
 
Forboding Future for Persian Gulf war veterans.
 
A quick look at US Census 2000 statistics for Disabled Veterans would put the estimated number of US military men and women disabled
from the first Persian Gulf war at circa 451,000 (40,000 new cases per year + 20% average increase over three year period) by end of fiscal year 2003.
 
GWVIS figures for August 2003 (which have always excluded, and continue to omit the 150,000 activated National Guard women and men who served in the Gulf) reveal that death rates hold steady at about 4 per day, or 114 per month.

Compensation and Pension Statistics
August 2003
Category     Conflict     Theater     Deployed
Service Members     696,841    432,462    1,129,303
Estimated Living Veterans     585,359    299,213    884,572
Claims Filed     218,328    88,533    306,861
Claims Processed     197,957    79,539    277,496
Claims Granted     172,066    72,950    245,016
Claims Denied     25,891    6,589    32,480
Claims Pending     20,371    8,994    29,365


Gulf War Service Member Statistics
August 2003

Category         Conflict     Theater     Deployed

Service Members     696,841     432,462     1,129,303

Service Member
Separations     594,549     301,958     896,507

Active Duty
Separations     479,745     296,594     776,339

Activated Reservist
Separations     114,804     5,364     120,168

Veteran Deaths 2     9,190     2,745     11,935

Estimated Living
Veterans         585,359     299,213     884,572