US Image

Agent Orange in Vietnam: Ignoring the Crimes Before Our Eyes

dlindorff — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:51:19 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

On Oct. 13, the New York Times ran a news story headlined
“Door Opens to Health Claims Tied to Agent Orange,” which was sure to
be good news to many American veterans of the Indochina War. It
reported that 38 years after the Pentagon ceased spreading the deadly
dioxin-laced herbicide/defoliant over much of South Vietnam, it was
acknowledging what veterans have long claimed: in addition to 13
ailments already traced to exposure to the chemical, it was also
responsible for three more dread diseases—Parkinson’s, ischemic heart
disease and hairy-cell leukemia.

Under a new policy adopted by the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, the VA
will now start providing free care to any of the 2.1 million
Vietnam-era veterans who can show that they might have been hurt by
exposure to Agent Orange.

This is another belated step forward in the decades-long struggle
by Vietnam War veterans to get the Defense Department and the VA to
acknowledge the American government’s responsibility for poisoning them
and causing permanent damage to them and often to their children and
grandchildren. Dioxin, one of the most poisonous substances known to
man, is known to cause many serious systemic diseases, autoimmune
illnesses, cancers and birth defects. (It is also a warning about the
general Pentagon and government approach to other hazards caused by its
battlefield use of toxins—most significantly the increasingly common
use of depleted uranium projectiles in bombs, shells and bullets—an
approach which features lack of concern about health effects on troops
and civilians, denial of information to troops, and denial of care to
eventual victims.)

Missing from the Times article, written by military
affairs reporter James Dao, which did include mention of the
obstructionist role the government has played through this whole sorry
saga, was a single mention of the far larger number of victims of Agent
Orange in Vietnam—the people on whose heads and lands the toxic
chemical was actually dropped, or of the adamant refusal by the US
government to accept any responsibility for what it did to them.

Thai Thi Nga, 16, 2nd-generation victim of US Agent Orange use in Vietnam

According to the article, the VA estimates that there may be as
many as 200,000 US veterans who are suffering from Agent Orange-related
illnesses. But according to a court case brought on behalf of
Vietnamese victims, which was dismissed by a US Federal District Judge
who ruled that there was “no basis for the claims,” there are at least
three million Vietnamese, and possibly as many as 4.8 million, who are
suffering the same Agent Orange-related illnesses as American veterans
and their children. It is estimated that as many as 800,000 Vietnamese
in the country’s south currently suffer from chronic health problems
due to Agent Orange exposure, either to themselves, or to a parent or
grandparent. Most of these victims, some of whom are retarded, and
others of whom cannot walk or have no use of their arms, need constant
care.

Veterans for Peace,
an organization whose membership includes a large number of Vietnam War
veterans, has issued a call for the US to provide funds for health
care, education, vocational education, chronic care, home care and
equipment to clean up hotspots of dioxin in Vietnam—a call which
Congress and the White House have consistently ignored. Tests have
found dioxin levels around the sites of the three main former US bases
in what was South Vietnam to be 300-400 times recognized safe levels.
The US dumped huge amounts of Agent Orange for miles around those bases
to kill off jungle cover that Vietnamese fighters could use to approach
the bases, but it was never cleaned up when the US pulled out.

One organization that includes a number of American veterans of the
way, including former military doctors or soldiers who later became
physicians, is the Vietnam Friendship Village Project USA Inc., which raises funds to help establish communities in Vietnam to care for the victims of Agent Orange.

It may seem a pathetic stab at principle given America’s use of two
nuclear weapons against civilian targets in Japan a few years later,
but back in World War II, in the midst of the most brutal
island-to-island fighting during the Pacific War, a US Judge Advocate
General in the Pentagon ruled that a military request for permission to
use herbicides against the Japanese on Pacific islands would be illegal
under the Hague Convention (forerunner of what are now called the
Geneva Conventions). He ruled that trying to destroy the crops of
civilians on those islands to deny food to the Japanese troops would be
a war crime. The US went ahead and used the herbicides anyway, arguing
that even though it was illegal, the US was free to go ahead, since the
Japanese had already broken the laws of war by using strychnine to kill
military guard dogs in Siberia. Under the rules of war, if one side
breaks a rule, the other side is no longer bound by it.

But the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese never used toxic materials
against US forces or against South Vietnamese forces. And the Pentagon
in the Vietnam War never even considered whether spraying a highly
toxic herbicide over 1.4 million hectares—12% of the total land area of
Vietnam and almost 25% of the southern half of the country—might be a
war crime.

Moreover, the Pentagon knew, before it began its massive
defoliation campaign, about studies showing that Agent Orange was
heavily laced with deadly dioxin, but covered up those studies, some by
the chemical’s makers, Dow Chemical and Monsanto, and never even warned
the troops who handled the material daily, or who were sent out to
fight in areas that had been heavily sprayed.

The ongoing medical disaster in Vietnam caused by America’s
criminal use of Agent Orange to defoliate a nation would be a good
place for President Obama to start earning his just-awarded Nobel Peace
Prize. He could kick off his peace campaign by finally honoring
President Richard Nixon’s immediately broken promise to provide several
billion dollars in reconstruction aid to Vietnam at the conclusion of
peace talks at the end of the war. Not a dollar of such aid was ever
given.

Meanwhile, perhaps the New York Times could salvage a bit
of its journalistic reputation by having Dao or some other reporter
write a piece about the impact of America’s Agent Orange use on the
people of Vietnam.
_______________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest book is
“The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work is
available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

WTF? Obama Gets the Nobel Peace Prize?

dlindorff — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:13:53 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

It’s not as much of a travesty as when Henry Kissinger, a war criminal of the first order who was an architect of the latter stages of the Indochina War, and was personally responsible for the slaughter of well over a million innocent people, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973, while that war was still raging, but the awarding of the latest Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama is travesty enough.

We’re talking about a man whose practically first act upon taking office early this year was to escalate the ugly and pointless war in Afghanistan with the addition of some 20,000 troops, and who, even as the Nobel committee was discussing his award, was meeting with his military and political advisors to consider expanding that war even further, both in Afghanistan and across the border into Pakistan.

The Nobel Committee claimed that during Obama’s short period as president, the US “is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened."

Well, certainly when compared to the prior presidency of George W. Bush, that statement is correct, but that’s not saying much. After all, under President Obama, Guantanamo’s terrorist prison is still in operation and is holding people whom even the government admits are guilty of nothing. Under President Obama, the US has also blocked the Goldstone Report which condemns Israel of war crimes in its recent assault on Gaza. And under Obama, the US military in Afghanistan has continued to slaughter disproportionate numbers of civilians through its wanton use of aerial bombardment, pilotless Predator drones, and antipersonnel weaponry.

President Obama may have, as the Nobel Committee states, put forward a vision of nuclear disarmament, but his administration at the same time continues to refuse to sign the international anti-landmine treaty (putting America in the wretched company of just Russia, India and China). And under Obama, the US continues its role as not only the leading producer and exporter of arms, but also as the major initiator of wars in the world. Under Obama the US continues to outspend the rest of the world’s nations combined on its military. And don’t forget, Obama, like President Bush before him, continues to threaten to attack Iran, over that nation’s alleged nuclear weapons program—a program the very existence of which remains highly debatable.

As for climate change policy, President Obama in practice has taken a largely hands-off approach to getting Congress to act, not using his considerable political clout to force action on climate change legislation. It is now conceded that the US will go to the international climate conference in December with no bill passed to limit or reduce the nation’s CO2 emissions. Nor is the Obama administration likely to push for any significant program of CO2 reductions in the future.

Nominations for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize closed on Feb. 1, less than two weeks after Obama took the oath of office as President, but the Nobel Committee in Norway had a good nine months since then to observe this president’s actions—and his lack of actions—on the key issues weighing on the decision. In the end, committee members were bamboozled by this president’s rhetoric of hope just as were the American people during the election campaign. As the committee wrote in announcing its decision: "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future."

If Nobel Peace prizes are being awarded to people who are simply giving the world hope, surely the judges could have found any number of worthy speechifiers. Hell, even the dictatorial leaders of China and North Korea can make flowery speeches about peace and human dignity. More to the point, the committee had under consideration at least two far more deserving nominees for the award who were actually acting at great personal risk to further peace and human rights: Chinese freedom-fighter Hu Jia and Afghani women’s rights advocate Simi Samar. It is an insult to the memory of former award winners like the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jody Williams, Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi the Dalai Lama, Lech Walesa, and others who put their lives and careers on the line to struggle for peace and human dignity to give this award to a man who has accomplished so little, and who, in fact, in his short time in office, has managed to expand one war, to block the international condemnation of the brutality of another, and who has done nothing to reverse his own country’s leading role as a promoter of war and international violence.

Henry Kissinger hung his blood-drenched Nobel Peace Award on his office wall on Wall Street and continued to make obscene sums of money off human suffering in his dotage. One can only hope (ah, that intoxicating word!) that President Obama will take his award seriously, and will use his new status as official man of peace to halt America’s campaign of violence in Afghanistan, calling a regional peace conference to settle that conflict instead of simply expanding the war, that he will announce a major cut in American military spending and a halt to arms exports, that he will sign the landmine treaty and voluntarily end the production and use of antipersonnel weapons of all kinds, and that he will finally have the US join the International Criminal Court of Justice.

Right. Now that’s the audacity of hope.
_______________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Bush Exits with a Bang: Toxic Bailout and Two More Wars?

Heather Wokusch — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:53:09 -0400

The Bush administration is heading us towards more disaster with its 'toxic debt' bailout and destabilization of Pakistan and Iran. We can't afford to go down this road again. In this short video, Heather Wokusch provides background, context and ideas for taking action.

Links for sources cited in this video:

Bailout:

Crisis talks over $700B 'toxic debt' rescue plan

Bush: "The American people have got to know that I made this decision along with a lot of experts because it was necessary to protect them."

Pakistan:

Washington is Risking War with Pakistan

The American War Moves to Pakistan

Iran:

Preparing The Battlefield July 07, 2008

Dutch intel: US to strike Iran in coming weeks September 1, 08

Israel asks U.S. for arms, air corridor to attack Iran September 11, 08

U.S. to sell IAF smart bombs for heavily fortified targets September 14, 08

Bush could still attack Iran Sept 17 08

Yankee Doodle Deadly!

RegAv — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 23:14:12 -0400

Excerpted from TVNL

Here they come again – the Sousa bands, the waving flags,
the cheering crowds, and the fabulous fireworks. Ah, yes, it’s Yankee
Doodle time again in America. So let’s get ready to party.

It’s just that I really don’t understand what we’re celebrating.

I don’t really understand why millions of people in this country still
pretend that they live in America the Beautiful. I don’t understand why
they are not wailing in grief because Yankee Doodle is no longer
“dandy.” I don’t understand why there is no widespread sadness about
the tragic transformation of their national image.

In fact, in this eighth year of our Bush/PNAC captivity, far too few
people in the United States are willing to acknowledge that Yankee
Doodle Dandy has now become Yankee Doodle Deadly. The sad truth is that
too few people are even remotely aware that the American flag, like
Yankee Doodle, has lost every bit of its meaning. (More.....)

Supreme Court to EPA: Regulate Green House Gases

Chip — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:34:29 -0400

In a ground-breaking 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ruled today that the Environmental Protection Agency has the power to regulate the polluting emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from vehicles. The decision moves Bush administration further along the path from its former position of complete and aggressive denial of global warming to tepid acknowledgment, now forcing the Bush administration to recognize and regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The court's decision underscores the reality of human activities contributing to global warming.

The Bush Administration had argued that the EPA had no authority to regulate motor vehicle admissions under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court’s decision also throws into question the Bush Administration’s rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, further embarrassing the Bush Administration in the world community.

"A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related," Justice Stevens wrote. Noting that the administration offered "no reasoned explanation" for not acting on the question of whether greenhouse gases should be regulated, the majority opinion cited the EPA’s position as "arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law."

The agency plans to review the ruling and decide how best to interpret it, which could take through the end of Bush’s term.

The decision comes at a time when American automakers are bankrupt and struggling to stay afloat in the face of foreign competition more appealing and responsive to consumer needs and desires. American auto makers are reintroducing ways to appeal to global markets. An electric car was introduced in 1890. Popular electric vehicles were introduced for lease in California and a popular film "Who Killed the Electric Car?" tells the story of its crushing demise early in the decade.

The majority opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter. Dissenters were Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.

Justice Scalia wrote in his dissent: "The Court's alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation...No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency."

Beyond Impeachment: The Case for Pursuing Justice

Syndi — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:24:36 -0400

Beyond Impeachment: The Case for Pursuing Justice
By Syndi Holmes,
Co-founder of the Piedmont Centre for Peace, Justice and Cultural Exchange, Winston-Salem, NC
18 March 2007

Even if impeachment were politically possible, it is getting far too late into the year to begin the process. It will not occur because the now Speaker took the option off the table before this past November’s election.
The stark reality is that impeachment will not occur because there is no political will by either party to seek justice because politics has no morals, it thrives only on expediency. Hence, the 2008 Presidential race was deliberately started early as a distraction for the populace with the blessings of both parties to obscure any lingering thoughts of such an action.
Focusing our energies on a futile cause is a best case scenario for the Bush Administration because they all know this action is simply busy work that will keep their opponents occupied while they continue on with their nefarious activities. The Administration patronises us by allowing us to march on the streets of D.C. because they know we are of no threat to them. The Administration knows we are attempting to lobby an ineffectual Congress that cannot even pass a resolution to consider another resolution so what do they truly have to be concerned with?
What we, as the opposition, need to vigorously focus on developing a legal process that will bring this administration to justice as soon as they step outside the White House in January 2009. We need to be prepared to meet them at the door with arrest warrants for crimes against peace and crimes against humanity and a plane waiting to take them all to The Hague for arraignment and trial.
We need to seek every avenue for obtaining justice by developing viable legal strategies for filing law suits in every civil and/or criminal court in the country so that our words are backed up with concrete action.
We also need to hold Congress accountable in the same manner for their gross derelictions of Constitutional duty.
We, as members of the human race and as believers in the rule of law need to do this for absolution of our country’s soul for the crimes and actions we allowed to occur through our neglect of our duties as citizens. To regain our freedoms and Constitution for our children and to show the world that no one anywhere in the world is above the law we must need to commit ourselves to bringing to justice our leaders who have placed themselves outside the law by defying the rules of law and human decency.

John Bolton's Greatest Hits by Ian Williams

CactusPat — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 07:14:48 -0500

The Nation's Ian Williams counts the ways and assesses the damage done by John Bolton during his tenure at the United Nations...

John Bolton's Greatest Hits by Ian Williams
posted December 4, 2006
In a rare midterm election in which foreign policy was a major issue, it is not too much of a stretch to say that American voters put UN Ambassador John Bolton out of office. Bolton's resignation from his unconfirmed recess appointment at the UN removes the residual fear that the Bush team had something up its sleeve to bypass senatorial resistance to his confirmation. The White House had claimed the support of a bipartisan silent majority for his appointment--even though it was vociferous defections from GOP ranks that helped thwart his confirmation... (more)

In fact, Bolton's determination to hang on up to this point suggests that his obsession with the United Nations is as serious as Ted Haggard's with sin: He just can't keep away from it. For three decades of work at conservative think tanks and at the State Department, Bolton has angled for appointments that would in some way keep him grappling at close quarters with the organization even if they sometimes involved him in contradictory positions.

Even when the Bushes were out of office, Bolton filled in his time working with former Secretary of State James Baker when he was appointed UN special envoy for the Western Sahara. The Moroccan annexation of the territory has been on the UN agenda for more than thirty years and a standing invitation to complaints about the organization's ineffectiveness; Bolton has been remarkably reticent to highlight it.

Bolton's other job in exile was to advise the Taiwanese government on how to get into an organization that he had spent decades advising the United States to get out of. No sooner had he arrived at the UN in 2005 than he cooked up a deal with Beijing's ambassador to scuttle the efforts of Germany, Japan and India--all US allies--to get permanent seats on the Security Council. He may have had a point about the undesirability of the changes--but a more diplomatic envoy would not have left American fingerprints so messily obvious.

From the White House point of view, Bolton's appointment appeased the know-nothing foreign policy crowd while rewarding his longstanding loyalty to the Bush dynasty. That loyalty had been shown most memorably in 2000, when the man who has spent the past year preaching democracy to the members of the United Nations strode into a library polling place in Florida yelling, "I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count."

To be fair, while Bolton's tenure has from the standpoint of any rational diplomacy been a disaster, it has not been an unmitigated one. He has been a very well-trained attack dog, always coming to heel when the White House wanted and chewing his own words when necessary.

One of his proudest achievements in his previous job at the State Department was to "unsign" the treaty that committed the United States to the International Criminal Court, and then to bully and browbeat small countries across the world into signing agreements not to extradite US citizens to its seat in the Hague. And then this year he had to allow a Security Council resolution setting the Court's prosecutors on the perpetrators in Darfur.

As pious commentators talk about how effective he was, it is worth remembering that while he was in charge of arms control, North Korea joined the nuclear club and that, according to him and Bolton and his allies, Iran is about to. It is an achievement--but of a dubious sort for an alleged arms control maestro. To be fair, within the Administration, he reportedly opposed the US-Indian nuclear deal, although he remained silent on Israeli nuclear capabilities.

Otherwise, Bolton's most memorable "achievement" occurred while he was in charge of arms control at the State Department before moving to the UN. He was a major saboteur of Congressional efforts to improve and tighten the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If these measures had been passed, countries would not have been able, as North Korea did, to drop out of the treaty after reaping its dual-use benefits, and the voluntary protocols on inspection that Iran stopped observing would have been compulsory.

However, his greatest legacy may be his semi-successful attempt to wreck the UN reform proposals last year. By introducing hundreds of unilateral amendments after long months of painstaking negotiations between the members, he certainly managed to destroy the efforts of Kofi Annan to persuade the Third World members that managerial reforms were not some form of American and Western plot. In fact, almost every public statement he made pretty much confirmed their suspicions.

Bolton leaves unfinished business at the UN. His attempt to enforce on Iran an international law in which he professes disbelief comes to nothing as Security Council members try to insure that Washington has no excuse to take military action. The resolution is stalemated and diluted.

Although he is now implying personal credit for the appointment of Ban Ki-moon, the incoming Secretary General, Ban is astute enough to know that he was far from Washington's first choice for the position. Ban differed from Bolton on issues ranging from the International Criminal Court to how to deal with Pyongyang.

Bolton has clearly relished his role at the UN, and one nightmare scenario would be intense White House pressure on Ban to grant him a senior UN appointment. If that sounds farfetched, just consider the recent appointment of Bush supporter and former Washington Times editor Josette Sheeran Shiner as head of the World Food Program.

One cannot help but suspect that Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman will soon have competition in xenophobic grandstanding. Bolton's media prominence, his longstanding credentials as a Goldwater supporter and his newly acquired status as a martyr for conservatism would certainly equip him for a political career in the GOP's new confederate heartland, where tough talk regularly obscures lack of achievement.

Dodd Urges Bush to Delay Implementation of Torture Bill

Bob Geiger — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:21:02 -0500

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) yesterday called on George W. Bush to postpone putting the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) into place until a new Secretary of Defense is confirmed and can examine the hideous piece of legislation passed by the Republican Congress in September.

“I strongly believe that terrorists who seek to destroy America must be punished for any wrongs they commit against this country,” said Dodd, who introduced a bill last week to effectively neuter the MCA -- also known as the Torture Bill -- entirely. “But in my view, in order to sustain America’s moral authority and win a lasting victory against our enemies, such punishment must be meted out only in accordance with the rule of law. It is my belief that the provisions of the Military Commissions Act run counter to these very aims, and may actually undermine the judicial system established by the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

Dodd, whose Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act amends the MCA to, among other things, strike the provision allowing for torture of detainees and restore the rights of habeas corpus, also sent a letter to Bush asking that the law's implementation be delayed.

"I am writing to urge you to refrain from any action that would essentially implement Public Law 109-366, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, until the new Secretary of Defense has been confirmed and has had the opportunity to undertake his own review of this statute and related draft implementing regulations," wrote Dodd to Bush.

"With the nomination of a new Secretary of Defense, I believe that you took a commendable step toward establishing a new direction in U.S. national security policy, and, what I hope is a renewed commitment to universally accepted principles of human rights."

I'm sure Bush got a real laugh out of the part about "…universally accepted principles of human rights." Let's not forget that Bush is the same compassionate conservative who executed so many people as Governor of Texas that they had to replace the electric chair with electric bleachers.

Dodd also recommended to Bush that his new Secretary of Defense consult with Congress about the law, a passage I'm sure also made soda squirt out of the president's nose.

At a November 16 speech at Howard University in Washington DC, Dodd spoke movingly of his vision of America and the wrong path we have been on since the beginning of the new century.

"The world has watched with admiration as each generation, almost without exception, inspired by idealism, took America to better places," he said while speaking of the nation's history. "Now, they watch an American leadership that does not challenge us to be better and seems indifferent to the principles that we affirmed before the world."

"Travel around America today and there is a sense that something is being lost. Something is missing," the Connecticut Senator continued. "I’m not just referring to jobs or the tragic loss of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, as significant as those losses are. I’m talking about something else, something deeper. I’m talking about a sense of who we are as a people, of what we stand for."

Dodd also emphasized the further impact on America's reputation when Republicans trash our nation's moral foundation, while lazily avoiding real solutions to the challenges the country faces:

"When we look to our leaders to take a bold stand on these issues that are so important to our lives – we see an American President who takes a bold stand on torture instead. It is impossible to imagine a John Kennedy or a Bill Clinton – or a Ronald Reagan – signing that shameful torture bill that our President signed into law a month ago.

"What people like my father understood and what Dr. King knew so well: that America’s ability to bring about a world of peace and justice was rooted not only in our military might, but also in our moral authority.

"For six years now, America has succumbed to the politics of small solutions and low expectations. We don’t try to solve the big problems we face. In many cases, we don’t even talk about them.

"As a nation, I believe America once again needs to be unapologetic about being idealistic."

And Dodd summed up both his speech, his stance on the MCA and the direction required of the new Congress in very eloquent, but simple terms.

"It’s time we reassert the principle that fairness is not weakness, that being principled is patriotic, and being strong also means being smart."

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

Survey Says Iraqis Want U.S. Out of Their Country

Bob Geiger — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:54:20 -0500

A survey of the Iraqi people just released by WorldPublicOpinion.org (WPO) shows that most Iraqis support insurgent attacks on American troops and the majority of those polled want the U.S. out of their country.

What a coincidence: Every poll done in the United States in recent months shows that Americans also want us the hell out of Iraq. The only people who seem deaf to this are George W. Bush, his administration and the bulk of Congressional Republicans.

The WPO poll, which took place in September, showed that 71 percent of the Iraqi people want the U.S. military occupation to end within a year, with 61 percent of them favoring violence against our troops.

"Support for attacks on U.S.-led forces has grown to a majority position—now six in ten," said the WPO's formal report on the survey. "Support appears to be related to widespread perception, held by all ethnic groups, that the U.S. government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq and would not withdraw its forces from Iraq even if the Iraqi government asked it to. If the U.S. were to commit to withdraw, more than half of those who approve of attacks on US troops say that their support for attacks would diminish."

Other poll results:

58 percent of Iraqis said inter-ethnic violence would decrease if the U.S.-led forces pulled out.

78 percent of respondents say that U.S. military presence is “provoking more conflict than it is preventing.”

53 percent believe a U.S. timeline to withdraw would strengthen, not weaken, the Iraqi government.

Of course, George W. Bush said on his trip to Southeast-Asia this week that the lesson he believes America should observe from the catastrophic Vietnam war and apply to Iraq is that “we’ll succeed, unless we quit.”

Which is why, despite the opinions of most Iraqis, most Americans and the clear mandate of our midterm elections, Bush continues to oppose a timetable for bringing our troops home.

When Bush gets back to Washington, he should go visit the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, look at the 58,000 names of our war dead there and ask himself how many of those would be alive and nearing retirement age right now if we had not "stayed the course" in another war for so many years.

But I feel confident he would miss that lesson as well.

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

Kill Bill - Neutering Bush's Torture Law

Bob Geiger — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:15:49 -0500

Of the many good things we are beginning to see before the newly-constituted Democratic Congress even assumes power, one of the most gratifying is the move by Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) to neuter the hideous Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), passed by the Republicans, and signed by George W. Bush in October.

On Friday, Dodd introduced legislation to amend Bush's "torture bill," remove the almost-dictatorial powers it has given the White House and neutralize the bastardizing effect it's had on the United States Constitution.

"I strongly believe that terrorists who seek to destroy America must be punished for any wrongs they commit against this country," said Dodd, in introducing this important measure. "But in my view, in order to sustain America’s moral authority and win a lasting victory against our enemies, such punishment must be meted out only in accordance with the rule of law."

The text of the MCA may fill almost 40 pages, but it only takes a few paragraphs of Dodd's 10-page Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act (S.4060) to render its most onerous aspects moot.

I analyzed Dodd's bill over the weekend and am writing this piece to give you the basics of how it fixes the Constitutional ruin imposed by the MCA and puts the power of the executive branch of government back in its rightful place.

This should tell you all you need to know about both the disease and the cure.

Restoring Habeas Corpus Protections

No area of the MCA has drawn more justifiable fire than the section suspending Habeas Corpus -- the rights of people deemed by the White House to be "enemy combatants" to challenge the legality of their arrest and detention.

Section 7 of the MCA says that "No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."

In other words, don’t bother calling a lawyer, because you have no rights.

The fact that so many of these enemy-combatant determinations rest in the president's hands and the sheer vagueness of the law, combine to create a wide variety of scenarios whereby any American citizen could be arrested and held indefinitely without Constitutional protections.

Scary stuff indeed and, as surgical as the Dodd amendment is in many ways, this area is dealt with via a repeal of that entire section, thus killing this debasement of our Constitution in one fell swoop.

"The Administration-backed law eliminates the principle of Habeas Corpus which has served as the backbone of common law since before the Magna Carta in the 13th century," said Dodd. "Under the writ of Habeas Corpus independent courts may review the legality of custody decisions. My legislation would restore this basic tenet in the context of military commissions."

And it does it with one short sentence -- "Section 7(a) of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, is repealed," reads Dodd's legislation.

Simple, to the point, and necessary to stopping the Founding Fathers from spinning in their graves.

Narrowing the Definition of 'Unlawful Enemy Combatant'

The MCA defines an unlawful enemy combatant as follows:

"A person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces).

The Dodd bill amends the definition as:

"An individual engaged in hostilities as part of an armed conflict against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant.’’

Essentially, this narrows the definition to someone who would traditionally be considered an armed enemy and removes the broad discretion that would allow the government to arbitrarily define any U.S. citizen who they believe "purposefully and materially supported hostilities" against us (or our allies) as the enemy.

Says Senator Dodd: "The Administration’s approach allows the president to remove anyone he so chooses from America’s standard jurisprudence and designate him or her as an 'unlawful enemy combatant.' My legislation allows the designation of 'unlawful enemy combatants' only for those individuals engaged in armed conflict against the United States. This provision seeks to curtail potential abuse of the enemy combatant designation so that holding individuals in detention indefinitely without a trial will prove to be the exception rather than the norm."

Prohibiting Use of Information Gained by Torture as Evidence

Dodd's legislation acknowledges that torture has been proven ineffective in extracting intelligence information and points out that America's standard for treatment of prisoners will be the bare minimum used by others against our own troops.

"My bill further promotes humane treatment of military personnel by prohibiting the use of evidence gained by coercion in a trial," said Dodd last week. "Such a provision is critically important for two reasons. First, the use of torture has been proven ineffective in interrogations when a detainee simply says what he believes an interrogator wants to hear in order to stop the torture. Second it deprives foreign militaries the ability to cite US actions to justify their own misconduct toward future American POWs."

As it was passed, the MCA says the following regarding torture:

A statement obtained before December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that--

- the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value; and

- the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.

The interrogation methods used to obtain the statement do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment prohibited by section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

What this means: The ends justifies the means and we can torture anyone the White House says might be a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer.

Dodd's legislation strikes these sections entirely and replaces them with this:

A statement obtained by use of coercion shall not be admissible in a military commission under this chapter, except against a person accused of coercion as evidence that the statement was made.

What this means: We're the United States of America and we don’t torture people.

Empowering Military Judges to Exclude Unreliable Hearsay Evidence

The Republican torture bill basically puts the burden of proof on the defense, not the prosecution which, prior to the Bush administration, was not the way our justice system worked.

The MCA says:

Hearsay evidence not otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence applicable in trial by general courts-martial shall not be admitted in a trial by military commission if the party opposing the admission of the evidence demonstrates that the evidence is unreliable or lacking in probative value."

So, when it comes to hearsay -- which is information not based on direct knowledge of the truth -- you're essentially guilty until proven innocent under the existing law.

The Dodd bill replaces the last (italicized) part of that section with the following: "…if the military judge determines, upon motion by counsel, that the evidence is unreliable or lacking in probative value.’’

In other words, the judge can toss hearsay evidence if it's questionable or utter nonsense -- the defense doesn’t need to prove it's nonsense.

Authorizing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to Review Decisions by Military Commissions

The MCA provides for appeal not from traditional courts of appeals, but by a special Military Commissions Review Board, that would undoubtedly just rubber-stamp the military tribunals' verdicts. The Dodd bill kills that entire section of the MCA and instead says that cases will be reviewed by the "Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces."

Limiting the Authority of the President to Interpret the Geneva Conventions and Mandating Congressional and Judicial Oversight

If there's been one president in my lifetime that I don’t want interpreting the college football rankings, much less something serious, it's George W. Bush and one of the scariest parts of the MCA is the power it gives Bush in deciding for himself what the Geneva Conventions mean.

According to the MCA:

As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

Dodd's bill simply strikes the italicized part above about Bush interpreting the Geneva Conventions and replaces it with this:

"… the President has the authority, subject to congressional oversight and judicial review, to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

That modification -- now that we'll have a Congress that will actually perform oversight -- should make about 300 million Americans sleep better at night.

The amended law would also say that Bush will issue "standards" and not "interpretations" on the Geneva Conventions.

Providing for Expedited Judicial Review of the Military Commissions Act

This is an entirely new section inserted by Dodd, saying that findings under the MCA must be reviewed by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and that an appeal can be made all the way to the Supreme Court.

Here's the new stuff that keeps the Bush administration from being able to detain you forever without trial:

"An interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in an action under paragraph(1) shall be reviewable as a matter of right by direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. Any such appeal shall be taken by a notice of appeal filed within 10 days after the date on which such judgment, decree, or order is entered. The jurisdictional statement with respect to any such appeal shall be filed within 30 days after the date on which such judgment, decree, or order is entered.

"It shall be the duty of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of any action or appeal, respectively, brought under this section."

This is another big step in neutralizing the MCA and taking us back to the good old days of the Sixth Amendment which says we are entitled to "… a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury."

"I believe that the United States Congress made a crucial mistake," said Dodd about the lack of this wording in the MCA. " And that is why the final provision in my bill is perhaps the most important one -- it will ensure that each of the provisions of the Administration’s Military Commission Act is quickly reviewed by our nation’s courts, and appropriately evaluated for their constitutionality."

So there you have it -- that's the gist of how enormously important just 10 short pages of Democratic legislation can be to our country in reversing what the Republicans did to the Constitution in September.

Sadly, it looks unlikely that it will pass, based on the fact that, even with Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, Bush will almost certainly exercise his veto power and it's a longshot that a super-majority can be achieved in the House and Senate to override Bush's veto. But it will at least renew the dialog and get Americans thinking more about our country's creed.

The "short title" of Senator Dodd's legislation is the ‘‘Military Commission Civil Liberties Restoration Act’’ and that's about as apt as it can possibly be.

When the MCA was passed, George Washington University Professor of Constitutional Law, Jonathan Turley, said that most Americans "don‘t realize what a fundamental change this is about who we are as a country."

"People have no idea how significant this is. What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system," said Turley. "What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values."

And Dodd, whose father was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, ended his floor speech on his legislation by reinforcing the importance of a nation maintaining its long-held ideals, regardless of temporary dangers.

"America has always stood for something more. Our leaders at Nuremberg, including the young prosecutor Thomas Dodd, my father, rejected the certainty of execution for the uncertainty of a trial," said Dodd. "In doing so, we reaffirmed the ideal that this nation should never tailor its eternal principles to the conflict of the moment, because if we did, we would be walking in the footsteps of the enemies we despised."

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.