When I directed Iraq for Sale, it became appallingly evident that private contractors like CACI and Titan played a critical role in the torture and abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. Much like Blackwater, KBR, and others, these war profiteers were never held accountable for their unconscionable crimes. Instead, they were rewarded with hundreds of millions in new contracts. The Obama administration has already taken some laudable steps to prevent another Abu Ghraib: ordering the CIA to end enhanced interrogation techniques and follow a more lawful code of conduct; and ordering the Justice Department to investigate the use of torture. However, the President’s recent objection to a provision in the 2010 defense funding bill that would make interrogation an “inherently governmental function” is a huge step backwards.
This provision, backed by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), states “the interrogation of enemy prisoners of war, civilian internees, retained persons, other detainees, terrorists, and criminals when captured, transferred, confined, or detained during or in the aftermath of hostilities is an inherently governmental function and cannot be transferred to contractor personnel.” In other words, our government would no longer be able to hand off interrogation duties (and the lavish contracts that come with them) to mercenary firms out to profit from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What’s more, if interrogators are caught violating the law and abusing detainees, our government would have the power to hold those interrogators accountable.
According to The Washington Post, both the White House and the Pentagon have a litany of excuses for opposing this provision. They don’t want US forces to be “limited” in conducting lawful interrogations, but the whole point of the provision is to set limitations and create transparency for interrogation practices. And either the US military should be training new interrogators themselves, as a senior Senate aide has suggested, or, lacking enough soldiers to accomplish this goal, perhaps our government should seek diplomatic alternatives to military escalation in Afghanistan.
Last month, Jeremy Scahill reported that the use of “private security contractors” has shot up 23 percent in Iraq and 29 percent in Afghanistan during the second quarter of 2009. Scahill estimated that there are over 242,000 contractors working on these two wars, and that contractors comprise a whopping 50 percent of our total forces in the region.
Our morals mean nothing if we do not act on them. Our tax dollars are funding this abuse and we must not be complacent. Call your senators today 202-224-3121 and tell them contractors have no place in interrogations, and you expect them to support Senator Levin’s government-only interrogation provision. Once you have done that, call the White House 202-456-1414 and leave a message for President Obama, urging him to stand with you to end prisoner abuse.
If you’ve seen the news today, you know Goldman Sachs exceeded its second quarter expectations for earnings, making $3.44 billion after dividends. As I wrote yesterday, this gigantic, much better than expected profit is largely from engaging in the same risks that got Goldman and other companies into trouble in the first place- taking massive risks on things like volatile currencies. The same risks that has helped lead the country to economic collapse. Apparently the only thing Goldman learned from the financial collapse was that the government would bail it out if it kept taking big gambles, which isn’t the lesson I was hoping it would learn.
And hey look, even more thrilling, it’s been reported in late June that the company plans to pay its employee record bonuses. Congrats, guys.
Okay, Goldman. So as long as you’re paying record bonuses to many of the same employees that engaged in these wildly speculative trading ventures, how about paying back the $13 billion you got from AIG by way of the U.S.Treasury? Or the unrevealed billions (likely many tens of billions) from the Federal Reserve?
The US media have reported on the withdrawal of American troops from Iraqi cities. But 130,000 troops remain in Iraq and many argue that the occupation will continue only under a different guise. Have things really changed? Or has the occupation simply been rebranded?
Today, all U.S. troops must be withdrawn from Iraqi cities, including U.S. bases in Baghdad, according to the Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the U.S. and Iraq. The Iraqi government will also take legal responsibility for the actions of U.S. troops and have legal jurisdiction over American soldiers who commit crimes off-base and off-duty, and the SOFA will grant permission to U.S. troops for military operations, as well as ban the U.S. from staging attacks on other countries from Iraq.
While it may seem like a step forward toward ending the six-year occupation of Iraq, the Pentagon is doing what it can to dodge or play down these SOFA stipulations. In recent weeks, it has been re-classifying bases and troops, hiring “corporate security” mercenaries, and preventing Iraq from having jurisdiction over those actions. It’ll get away with it too, as Congress never ratified the SOFA, and because many are justifying further occupation under the banner of keeping Iraq secure.
The Obama administration has just come up with another way to sweep torture under the rug — allowing detainees facing the death penalty to plead guilty without a full trial. What’s the point of that? The New York Times explains:
The provision could permit military prosecutors to avoid airing the details of brutal interrogation techniques.
If you’re thinking that’s as self-serving as it is transparent, never fear — the administration also has the interests of detainees at heart:
It could also allow the five detainees who have been charged with the Sept. 11 attacks to achieve their stated goal of pleading guilty to gain what they have called martyrdom.
Expediting martyrdom — never let it be said the United States isn’t a full-service detainer.
Ah, good thing the US quest for violent global domination was brought to a screeching halt with the November presidential election. Without Obama’s election, we’d still have an occupation of Iraq, mercenaries on the US payroll, torture of prisoners, an unending and worsening war that kills civilians in Afghanistan, regular airstrikes in Pakistan, killing civilians and an embassy the size of Vatican city in Baghdad, which was built in part on slave labor. Not to mention those crazy “Bush/Cheney” neocons running around trying to become the “CEOs” of foreign nations. Wow, glad that’s all over. Whew! And, it’s a really good thing Bush is no longer in power or else the US would come up with some crazy idea like building a colonial fortress in Pakistan to defend “US interests” in the region.
Since May 1 is “Mission Accomplished” day, I thought I’d bring you “Tell Us the Mission (Accomplished),” a video we created two years ago featuring a fantastic spoken word performance from Steven Connell. It’s been six years since that infamous day when George Bush spoke on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln under the “Mission Accomplished” banner, foolishly suggesting the war in Iraq was over just weeks after it began. Even Bush admitted regret over “Mission Accomplished,” which has come to symbolize all of the short-sightedness and piss poor leadership the Bush administration showed during the war.
It’s important, though, as we recall “Mission Accomplished,” to consider how President Obama is handling the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There’s no question Obama has done a lot to fix the mistakes of his predecessor in Iraq, and in a very short period of time. Obama announced a plan to end the war in Iraq, calling for a withdraw of US forces by 2011. What’s more, he rallied both Americans and Iraqis behind his strategy–no easy feat considering how deeply unpopular this war and Bush were, both in our country and abroad. My concern though is that Obama risks jeopardizing all the good he is attempting in Iraq by sinking us deeper in Afghanistan. What do you think? Is it possible to successfully end the war in Iraq and restore our country’s standing throughout the world when we’re escalating military operations in Afghanistan?
How did Jay Bybee breeze through a confirmation hearing for his appointment to the Federal Appeals Court in February 2003? Not a single Democrat questioned Bybee at the session, and the proceedings came to a quick conclusion. The following month he was confirmed by the full Senate.
Just six months prior to the hearing, Jay Bybee had signed legal memos providing cover for CIA agents torturing detainees — yet Congress voted him to a lifetime on the federal bench. How did this happen? And what will become of Judge Bybee now?
While the leadership of the Democratic Party remains silent on Obama’s refusal to hold torturers accountable, activists are demanding a special prosecutor and calling on Congress to impeach Jay Bybee.
In the Sunday New York Times, the paper’s editors call for the impeachment of Judge Jay Bybee, author of one of the now infamous torture memos released last week. Bybee is now a federal judge. In its editorial, “The Torturers’ Manifesto,” the Timesargued:
[The] investigation should start with the lawyers who wrote these sickening memos, including John Yoo, who now teaches law in California; Steven Bradbury, who was job-hunting when we last heard; and Mr. Bybee, who holds the lifetime seat on the federal appeals court that Mr. Bush rewarded him with.
These memos make it clear that Mr. Bybee is unfit for a job that requires legal judgment and a respect for the Constitution. Congress should impeach him. And if the administration will not conduct a thorough investigation of these issues, then Congress has a constitutional duty to hold the executive branch accountable. If that means putting Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales on the stand, even Dick Cheney, we are sure Americans can handle it.
Of course, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Cheney, Bush and a slew of others belong on trial with Bybee, not just as witnesses in his case and the Times should be calling for that as well. But let’s remember, this is the paper that the Bush administration used as a conveyor belt for its deadly lies so expectations of it should be low.
Looks like Rush Limbaugh got a dose of his own OxyContin yesterday, when he got a call on his radio show from a Republican veteran who lashed out at Limbaugh for his stance on torture. The caller said Limbaugh was a “brainwashed Nazi” for claiming torture was an effective interrogation technique and giving the U.S. a pass for using it at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. The caller also said Limbaugh was in part to blame for the Republicans losing last November.
Limbaugh was befuddled at first, trying to write the caller off as an Obama voter. Then, when the caller set Limbaugh straight on his political leanings, Limbaugh went on the offensive, cutting off the caller and calling him “stupid” and “ignorant.” But the caller wouldn’t let up, cornering Limbaugh to the point that he made the ludicrous assertion, “I don’t know of anybody who died from torture.”
Clearly, Limbaugh has absolutely no respect for our country’s veterans. As Richard Smith points out at VetVoice, Limbaugh has a long history of attacking vets, even though he never served. What’s more, it’s evident Limbaugh will do and say whatever it takes to silence veterans’ views of national security, particularly when they run opposite to his own erroneous ideological beliefs.
, and Kristele Younes, an Advocate at 
