The Osterley Times

Monday, January 26, 2009

Clamour for BBC to show Gaza appeal intensifies.

I spoke yesterday about how the BBC have got themselves into a pickle over their decision not to broadcast an appeal for the people of Gaza for fear that this would make them appear to be taking sides in this dispute.

They are doing so because they have, in the past, been accused of being anti-Israeli and it is only natural that such an accusation makes one reticent to invite such a scurrilous charge again.

However, the BBC's decision not to air the appeal has actually resulted in a wave of complaints possibly worse than what they might have had to endure from Israel's defenders:

The BBC came under renewed pressure yesterday to broadcast an emergency appeal for Gaza on behalf of the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) after it received more than 10,000 complaints about its refusal to show the film.

More than 50 MPs will back an early day motion in the Commons today urging the BBC to reverse its decision. Douglas Alexander, the international development secretary, Ben Bradshaw, the health minister, and Hazel Blears, the communities secretary, all criticised the BBC. Shahid Malik, the justice minister, said he had not met anyone who supported the BBC's stance.

Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said the BBC should broadcast the appeal by DEC, an umbrella group of humanitarian charities including Oxfam, Save the Children and the Red Cross.

The appeal will be shown tonight on ITV, Channel 4 and Five. But the BBC is arguing that by screening the humanitarian appeal the corporation "could be interpreted as taking a political stance".

All of her rivals are now showing the advert but I feel that Mark Thompson has dug himself a hole here that he now sees no way of getting out of.

In discussions after the DEC's Gaza appeal proposal was lodged, Gormley is understood to have told BBC executives the appeal would not just be for Palestinian victims of the conflict. "The DEC appeal is for those suffering as a result of the Gaza conflict. The greatest unmet need is in Gaza itself," a DEC spokesman said yesterday. "But DEC members are working in Gaza and Israel, and the Red Cross movement have helped to evacuate people living in southern Israel. We believe that the availability of aid to both Gaza and Israel was understood by the BBC."

I feel for Thompson and for the ridiculous position he know finds himself in. Pressure from Israel and her supporters has led him to make this cowardly decision which he will now defend to the bitter end as if it was a point of high principle.

It is not. And the 10,000 complaints he has received should remind him that, in any situation where both sides are inflamed, sitting on the fence is no guarantee that one will avoid the heat.

Click title for full article.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Republicans now openly argue in favour of war crimes.

I honestly find this simply astonishing.

"There is a reason why we have not been attacked on US soil during president Bush's administration. There are things which did work and which did keep American safe and we should not take that for granted."

"You are a legal expert, do you believe that torture is constitutional?"

"I believe that it is necessary and that it is within the constitution."

The Republicans, especially people like Hannity and O'Reilly, are actually arguing publicly that torture should be official US policy.

How did the Republican party and the American right ever descend into such immorality? Whenever I hear arguments that Bush, Cheney and others should not be prosecuted for war crimes I think of these people and these arguments.

These people are openly and unapologetically calling for war crimes to be committed. That is why Bush, Cheney and others should be prosecuted. To remind these nutcases that what they are advocating are war crimes.

Here we see David Hunt argue that the US did torture and justify that by saying that "bad things happen in war."

I've said it before, but these crimes are not called peace crimes, they are called war crimes, because it is precisely during a war that people might be tempted to commit them. The argument that "bad things happen in a war" is the very reason why these things were deemed to be crimes. To prevent such things ever being excused simply because a state of war existed.

And yet, the American right are now attempting to reverse international law and excuse war crimes simply because they are the people now committing them. It's beyond despicable.

UPDATE:

Matthews: Well why did we prosecute people at Abu Ghraib for abusing prisoners if we're not going to prosecute people who may have authorized that kind of treatment?

Fineman: It is an issue.

I'll say it's an issue. Either the US is a country of laws or it is not. Either it is committed to the international agreements it has signed up to or it is not. Not only have clear crimes been committed here, but many on the right are openly calling for them to be continued. The US should either prosecute the people who committed these crimes or, failing that, withdraw from the Geneva Conventions. You either agree with the conventions or you don't. If the US want to identify themselves as a rogue state which refuses to adhere to something as widely accepted as Geneva, then let them do so. But you simply can't have it both ways.

The UN Convention Against Torture, which the US has signed but not yet ratified, clearly states:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

As I say, you either agree with that or you don't. And many on the American right are making it very clear that they don't.

Obama tells US of his radical new agenda.

It is what Obama calls "both the paradox and the promise of this moment":

"There are millions of Americans trying to find work even as, all around the country, there's so much work to be done," he said.

To address this paradox he has suggested that the US should act "as citizens, not partisans" and back what he admits are radical plans to rescue the world's economy.

Speaking to the nation - in a YouTube version of Roosevelt's fireside chats on radio - Obama told Americans that the nation faced disaster on an almost unprecedented scale. He said the economy could end up $1 trillion short of its capacity, translating into a disastrous $12,000 loss for an average family. "We could lose a generation of potential, as more young Americans are forced to forgo college dreams or the chance to train for the jobs of the future," Obama said in the five-minute address. "In short, if we do not act boldly and swiftly, a bad situation could become dramatically worse."

There is no doubt the task facing Obama is huge. The already battered stockmarket has been sliding further. Manufacturing is now at a 28-year low and the headline unemployment rate is ticking up towards a predicted peak of 10%. A staggering one in 10 homeowners is facing the risk of repossession and 2008 saw 2.6m jobs lost, the highest number since the second world war. Perhaps it was not surprising that Obama used his address to also warn Americans that recovery would be neither easy nor quick. "No one policy or programme will solve the challenges we face right now, nor will this crisis recede in a short period of time," he said.

His plans are radical:

There will be funding for state-level infrastructure projects and healthcare coverage will be given to some 8.5 million Americans. Four million students will also get college grants. Obama's vow to "green" the economy will be made good - the president said he would double the amount of electricity generated from alternative sources such as solar power and wind within three years. More than 2.5m homes will also be converted to cut heating bills. Obama said his scheme would spend some $600bn within 18 months and create up to 4m jobs.

Just as Roosevelt laid out the New Deal, Obama is laying out his radical plans to stave off the worst financial recession since the Great Depression. I have no idea whether or not his plans will succeed. All I know is that the position we now find ourselves in is terrifying.

But his plan is the only alternative on the table, other than the Cameron approach of doing nothing and allowing the recession to do it's worst.

Faced with doing nothing and doing something I will always favour the latter. I hope that I am right. And I hope that Obama is.

But at this moment in time, if I am utterly honest, I am relying on nothing other than hope.

Click title for full article.

BBC crisis over refusal to broadcast Gaza appeal.

The BBC have often been accused of being anti-Israel so I have some sympathy for the situation they now find themselves in, where people are lining up to accuse them of "taking sides" in the Israel/Palestine dispute because they refused to broadcast a charity appeal to help the stricken people of Gaza rebuild their homes.

The corporation's director general, Mark Thompson, was left isolated as rival broadcasters ITV and Channel 4 agreed to put out the plea for aid made jointly by 13 British charities. The BBC has decided the broadcast of the appeal might be seen as evidence of bias on a highly sensitive political issue.

The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, has accused the broadcaster of "taking sides". He said yesterday: "This is not a row about impartiality but rather about humanity.

"This situation is akin to that of British military hospitals who treat prisoners of war as a result of their duty under the Geneva convention. They do so because they identify need rather than cause. This is not an appeal by Hamas asking for arms but by the Disasters Emergency Committee asking for relief. By declining their request, the BBC has already taken sides and forsaken impartiality," the archbishop added.

Communities secretary Hazel Blears said: "The BBC's decision should not discourage the public from donating to this important appeal. I sincerely hope the BBC will urgently review its decision."

The BBC's unrepentant stance has stirred up rebellion in the ranks of it own reporters and editors. One senior BBC news presenter told the Observer: "I've been talking to colleagues and everyone here is absolutely seething about this. The notion that the decision to ban the appeal will seem impartial to the public at large is quite absurd.

"Most of us feel that the BBC's defence of its position is pathetic, and there's a feeling of real anger - made worse by the fact that contractually we are unable to speak out."

Jon Snow, the journalist who presents Channel 4 news, said the BBC should have been prepared to accept the judgment of the aid experts of the DEC. "It is a ludicrous decision. That is what public service broadcasting is for. I think it was a decision founded on complete ignorance and I am absolutely amazed they have stuck to it."

Snow said he suspected a BBC bureaucrat had "panicked" and he called upon Mark Thompson to put the situation right. Martin Bell, the former BBC foreign correspondent, said the BBC should admit it had made a mistake. He claimed "a culture of timidity had crept" into the corporation. "I am completely appalled," he said. "It is a grave humanitarian crisis and the people who are suffering are children. They have been caught out on this question of balance."

I agree that the decision was utterly wrong and that "a culture of timidity ha[s] crept" into the organisation, but there really is a dreadful hypocrisy being displayed here.

Every time the BBC report what is taking place in the occupied territories, they are accused of displaying an anti-Israeli bias, simply due to the fact that there is no way to report on what is taking place there that shows the Israelis in anything other than an awful light.

So can we be surprised that the BBC, anxious to appear even handed, has actually found itself bending too far in the other direction and appearing to be indifferent to the Palestinians and their plight?

I have written before of how the BBC leans towards the Israelis in this dispute in an attempt to stave off criticism, but the criticism of the BBC's coverage of this dispute never seems to stop.

The London Times even greeted the news that the BBC was bending it's views towards the Israelis with the headline, "The BBC pro-Israeli? Is the Pope Jewish?"

So, wrong as this decision is, can we be surprised that the BBC has reacted to the constant claims that is anti-Israel by leaning too far in the opposite direction?

I really hope that the BBC reverse this dumb decision and decide to do whatever they can to help the stricken people of Gaza, but I have sympathy with the fact that the constant attacks upon them have led them to this present quagmire.

The charge of antisemitism is a very powerful one, which is why Israel's supporters use it, and it is not remotely surprising that - in order to appear above such a charge - the BBC should find itself leaning too far in the opposite direction.

The actual blame here should be directed towards the people who immediately equate any criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

UPDATE:

Good on Tony Benn for simply refusing to go along with this nonsense.

Click title for full article.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Chris Matthews explores war crimes and the Bush administration.

The question of whether or not the Bush regime should be investigated for war crimes really has broken into the national consciousness when Chris Matthews starts discussing it.

Frank Gaffney argues that, were the Obama administration to do so, the US would be reduced to the status of, "a banana republic". I would argue the opposite. To allow admitted war crimes to remain not even investigated, never mind prosecuted, is to emulate the behaviour of banana republics.

I also note that none of these Republicans ever make the argument, "Investigate all you will, we have nothing to fear." Quite the opposite. Their fear is palpable. Which is why they are threatening political Armageddon if this goes ahead.

UPDATE:

There's a great article in Truth Out by Phillip Neal Butler which reminds us of the fact that all US government officials take a vow to defend the constitution of the United States and that the members of Congress will be failing in that vow if they allow the actions of the Bush administration to go unpunished.

During these years, we have seen gross attempts to institutionalize torture. Our Constitution, Article VI, (2), commonly known as the "Supremacy" clause, clearly states that treaties made shall become "the supreme law of the land," thus elevating them to the level of constitutional law.

The Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, ratified in 1949, states in Article 17, "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." This and numerous other ratified treaties clearly stipulate that "prisoners" is an inclusive term that is not limited to any nation's uniformed combatants.

Other gross Bush administration crimes, in addition to authorizing torture, of general and constitutional law include: 1) the use of "signing statements" to illegally refrain from complying with laws, 2) authorization of the illegal suspension of Habeas Corpus, 3) authorization of wire tapping and other intrusive methods to illegally spy on American citizens, 4) unilateral declaration and pre-emptive conduct of war in violation of US Constitution Article I, Section 8 (11).

And he is very clear about who he thinks should be prosecuted.

I, therefore, call on my elected representatives in the Senate and House of Representatives to bring criminal charges against President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, legal counsel William J. Haynes, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former legal counsel David Addington, and potentially other high officials and uniformed officers. There is no other option if you are to carry out your responsibilities.

There really is no longer any question as to whether or not these crimes took place, as both Bush and Cheney have publicly admitted them. The only remaining question is whether members of the US Congress take seriously the vow they made to defend and uphold the constitution.

UPDATE:

I have been asked to post this open letter to Chris Matthews which has been written by Lynndie England's biographer:

OPEN LETTER TO CHRIS MATTHEWS

Dear Chris,

I was encouraged to hear you bring up the torture question on your show (Friday, January 23, 2009) You raised the question of accountability and asked whether it would be fair to allow the Bush Administration a free pass, while the convictions of those implicated in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal (you mentioned Lynndie England specifically) are allowed to stand. Surprisingly, one of your guests repeated the old line that the abuses perpetrated at Abu Ghraib were just the work of “a few bad apples” and that “all subsequent reports” show this to be true. Which begs the question: Does the American media read what has been reported in the media? Does it acknowledge the broader international view, or are we so provincial that we only believe what simply sounds like the truth?

It is shocking when one takes into account all that has come to light since the incident at Abu Ghraib first broke in April of 2004, not the least of which is the recent Senate Armed Services Report, which condemns the Bush Administration for its blatant abrogation of the Geneva Conventions. For years we Americans have become familiar with our government’s justification of torture. We’ve been told over and over that guys like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri were really bad and that their rough treatment was warranted. However, the sad fact is that more than “a few bad apples” were water-boarded, tortured and even killed in the interrogation process prescribed by our government.

The lurid photographs taken at the Abu Ghraib prison may be the only photographic evidence we have that such abuse took place in Iraq and Afghanistan; but the photos are merely representative of a far more pervasive program of abuse and humiliation that was carried out by the military as it (we) sought to avenge the events of 9/11. Indeed, as court documents, trial testimony and other evidence show, the Bush Administration’s torture policy and other improvised adaptations of the same was being implemented, not just at Guantanamo, but at Bagram air base in Afghanistan, as well as at other detention facilities throughout Iraq. Yes, water-boarding was used on more than just the few individuals admitted to by former Vice President Dick Cheney. And yes, like the photos taken at Abu Ghraib, these few examples are only representative of a pattern of abuse that was approved by the Bush White House and implemented by intelligence gatherers working in the field.

And yet to this day no one connected with our government and/or its torture policies has been accused of water-boarding, nor has anyone been charged with the deaths of those individuals who were murdered as a result the interrogation process. (Manadel al Jimadi, et al) Instead, a few young reservists (“bad apples”) connected with the 372nd Military Police Company were sacrificially offered up to satisfy our curiosity. Investigations were conducted, military trials convened and sentences handed down; but not one of the individuals implicated in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal were charged with the water-boarding or the death of a prisoner. For her crime (posing in photographs in a place where photography was prohibited) Lynndie England received three years in a military prison.

To address the larger question of torture; the problem is not just a thorny political topic to be tackled by our new president. Indeed, the whole world is watching and wants to know if president Obama is going to make good on his campaign promise to forge better relationships through honesty and transparency. The inconvenient truth is, of course, that we can’t expect the rest of the world to sit back and say, “let’s move on.” Water-boarding is a criminal act outlawed by the Geneva Conventions, a body of international law that we as a nation have upheld and defended since its inception. Throughout our most recent history we have vigorously advocated bringing to justice those individuals accused of crimes against humanity (the Nazis, Slobodan Milosevic, etc.) Indeed, time and time again, we have upheld the honor of all civilized nations, and not just when it was convenient for us to do so.

The closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility is an important first step in the process of disclosure; but if we think that the rest of the world will be appeased by this gesture, were are mistaken. Indeed, if the stories that are only beginning to emerge from those detainees recently released from Guantanamo and elsewhere are any indication, the war crimes committed by the Bush Administration will have to be dealt with judiciously and to the satisfaction of others before the Obama administration can hope to have better relations with the rest of the world. In the meantime, Lynndie England and the others convicted in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal would like their voices to be heard as well. They too would like to see justice served. No, you can’t let the architects of torture elude prosecution and allow the underlings to hang for the crime. That is not justice we can believe in.

Gary Winkler
Lynndie England’s Biographer

Mark Regev On The Ropes.

Mark Regev has made an utter fool of himself during the most recent Israeli attack on Gaza.

He has made many claims which have turned out to be utterly false. He claimed that rocket fire was emanating from a UN school before Israel shelled it, a claim which Israel has since admitted was simply not true.

He also made the ridiculous claim that the Palestinians were actually being killed by Hamas, a claim which he said he was "100% serious" in making.

Here, he is asked about the claims by Amnesty International and others, that Israel used banned white phosphorous shells in civilian areas in Gaza. Israel, having denied this for three weeks, eventually conceded that they "may have" used this weapon in Gaza, after the evidence of it's use became so widespread as to be undeniable.

Not that you would know this when listening to Regev. His response is that reporters should never believe what the wounded say in Gaza as the people of Gaza live under a totalitarian regime and will only say what Hamas want for fear of retribution.

He's now calling the wounded liars.

And he has fallen on to Israel's last defence, which appears to be something along the lines of, "We are a democracy, they are not. Why would anyone believe what their wounded say?"

At one point he goes as far as to stammer, "If you let me make my point I will make in it very sanely."

Perhaps this was Freudian, because the points he is making border on insanity.

Ban on US abortion funding lifted as Bush ideology is rolled back.

It's a political football which has been batted back and forth between the two parties since Ronald Reagan introduced it at a conference in Mexico City in 1984.

So now it is Obama's time to bat it back towards the other side.

President Barack Obama lifted the ban on US funding for international organisations that offer advice or perform abortions yesterday, as he expanded his project of rolling back George Bush's ideological agenda.

Obama quietly signed an executive order late yesterday afternoon repealing the ban, called the "global gag rule" by family planning organisations because it prohibited groups from even discussing abortion.

There was no media coverage of the signing, in contrast to the high-profile ceremonies this week when Obama issued his orders on ethics reform and Guantánamo Bay.

Instead, he adopted a non-confrontational approach to his repeal of the ban, waiting until after Thursday's anniversary of the Roe v Wade supreme court decision on abortion to avoid antagonising pro-life groups.

Both Clinton and Bush chose to bat this particular political football on the anniversary of the Roe versus Wade decision, but Obama has decided not to do so, opting for a much less confrontational approach. But the reaction has been as divided as usual:

Family planning organisations praised the decision to lift the ban. Diana Hovig, the chief executive of Marie Stopes International, said that the Bush era policies had been a disaster; under them, her organisation, as a provider of sexual healthcare services, had been denied funding. "This marks the beginning of a new era of realism over dogma in serving the public health needs of women. President Obama is off to a flying start."

Christian and anti-abortion organisations were scathing.

"Yesterday, President Obama issued executive orders banning the torture of terrorists, but today signed an order that exports the torture of unborn children around the world," said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.

Obama is also expected to lift the restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research, a move which he hinted at in his inaugural address when he stated, "We will restore science to its rightful place", which was an obvious put down of Bush's insistence that the US must remain behind the rest of the world in researching this vital area.

He's doing the right things, whilst trying not to rub people's nose's in it. He's off to a great start.

Click title for full article.

Obama To Republicans "I won".

In Washington, bipartisanship often seems to mean that the Democrats bend themselves to the Republican political agenda.

And the Republicans never seem to accept that they have lost the argument, which is why so many of them - despite losing the election - continued to argue that the US is a centre right nation. In their world, their policies must continue no matter what results any election yields.

So, it's a very welcome change to hear that Obama has reminded them - and his fellow Democrats - that "I won".

The American people listened to what both Obama and McCain had to say and they firmly came out supporting the position of Obama. The Republicans would like to proceed as if that hadn't happened. But it did.

And Obama is right to remind them of it. Perhaps Obama's version of bipartisanship isn't rolling over and playing dead after all.

His fellow Democrats would do well to emulate the steel which he is showing.

Pardon? Question that put rift in special partnership.

The Guardian are reporting that Bush and Cheney had a falling out before they left office over Bush's refusal to grant a pardon to "Scooter" Libby.

In an interview, Cheney admitted the two had a row before they left the White House for the last time, Bush to Texas and Cheney to his home state of Wyoming.

Bush, who reportedly seldom stood up to his powerful vice-president, ignored a plea by Cheney to grant a last-minute pardon to a former senior White House staffer. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who had been Cheney's chief of staff, was found guilty of abusing his power in a row over a CIA leak.

Cheney told the Weekly Standard, published this week: "Scooter Libby is one of the most capable and honourable men I've ever known. He's been an outstanding public servant throughout his career. He was the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice, and I strongly believe that he deserved a presidential pardon."

In words he would never have uttered in public while in office, he added: "Obviously, I disagree with President Bush."

It was a rare falling out. Cheney said that in eight years of partnership he had clashed with Bush only five times. As well as the pardon, the two disagreed about the sacking of the defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who had been a protege of Cheney. They also split over North Korea, the lifting of a ban on handguns in Washington and gay rights - Cheney's daughter is a lesbian.

"Scooter" Libby was never a victim. And there was certainly never any serious miscarriage of justice in his case.

He was found guilty of perjury, by a jury of his peers, the exact same crime that the Republicans attempted to impeach Bil Clinton for committing.

Because of "Scooter" Libby's lies, Patrick Fitzgerald found it impossible to reach a conclusion in the case of who outed Valerie Plame from her covert status as a CIA agent.

So Libby was no victim, he was a foot soldier in Cheney's war to stop the truth from ever being revealed regarding how far he was willing to go to silence dissent about the Iraq war and the lies which had been told to enable it. Indeed, that is the very language which some Libby supporters are employing:

Mr Bush's decision not to pardon Libby has angered many of his staunchest supporters defenders, who have used word like "disgusting" and dishonourable" about the Texan. One suggested it was like leaving a soldier on the battlefield.

So, for all Obama's talk during the election about the need to be bipartisan, he would do well to remember that a large part of the Republican party regard this as a war.

Cheney is furious, despite the fact that Libby never served a second in jail for his crime. Because Cheney believes that no crime was ever committed. After all, all is fair in love and war, and Cheney - and his ilk - see this as a war.

It would appear that even the puppet couldn't go along with his master's reading on this one, but that mindset is a real indication of the forces which Obama is up against.

These are not reasonable people, they are vicious ideologues who see themselves as engaged in a cultural war.

Click title for full article.

Friday, January 23, 2009

It's all change on the Fox News Patriot Bus.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Fox News Fear Imbalance

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Over at Fox News it used to border on treason not to offer the president your full support at a time of war. Now it's all change and it's okay to actually want the president to fail.

A theme is developing here.

It also used to be unfair to attach any blame to Bush for 9-11, despite the fact that he ignored a PDB which warned “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” Indeed, not only did he fail to immediately call for any meeting amongst his counter terrorism staff, but he actually dismissed his briefer with the words, "All right. You've covered your ass, now."

It's hard to imagine any way in which he could have taken the threat less seriously.

But yet, Billo and others at Fox are now warning that, because Obama is too pussy to torture people, any terrorist attack on the US will spell the end of Obama's presidency.

But they actually admit - or at least Limbaugh does - that they want him to fail. And they are defining failure as a terrorist attack. It's almost as if....

No, even they can't be that sick.

Gaza villages Wiped off the map.

I am so pleased that someone has finally posted this on YouTube. I saw this the other night on the Channel 4 News and was simply appalled by the scale of destruction the Israelis have caused.

Bear in mind that this was supposed to be a war against Hamas and yet, when the Israelis arrived at the border town of Al Naajar, they completely destroyed eighty five homes. Are we supposed to believe that they suspected Hamas fighters were hiding in all of these houses?

This is simply wanton destruction and has nothing to do with the stated aim of stopping rockets or dismantling Hamas, it's a war against the Palestinian people.

The destruction they waged on the town of Juhar ad Dik literally has to be seen to be believed. As Jonathan Miller states, it is "breathtaking, a village wiped off the map".

Miller:

"Our camera cannot hope to convey the enormity of the destruction here in Juhar ad Dik. I've covered earthquakes, hurricanes and the tsunami. And what has happened here is as bad or worse than anything I've seen in any of those. And this was done by Israeli bulldozers.

If you can take it, there is worse to come...

And there is worse to come.

If these aren't war crimes, then war crimes simply don't exist.

Undoing Bush: Obama orders easier access to public records.

To say that the Obama administration has hit the ground running is almost an understatement. Here he, on day one, fulfills yet another of his campaign pledges; this time ensuring that the government is open and transparent.

President Barack Obama, in his first full day in office, revoked a controversial executive order signed by President Bush in 2001 that limited release of former presidents' records.

The new order could expand public access to records of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in the years to come as well as other past leaders, said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists.

"It's extraordinary that a new president would address this issue on his first full day in office," Aftergood said. "It signifies the great importance he attaches to open, accountable government. The new order suggests President Obama will take a narrow view of executive privilege and assert it in a much more limited way than what we've seen in the recent past."

Under Bush's order, former presidents had broad ability to claim executive privilege and could designate others including family members who survive them to exercise executive privilege on their behalf.

Obama's new order gives ex-presidents less leeway to withhold records, Aftergood said, and takes away the ability of presidents' survivors to designate that privilege.

The Bush regime seemed to forget that the entire principle is supposed to be that the president works for, and is ultimately answerable to, the people.

To this end it is vital that their records can be examined and that the public can find out what they did behind closed doors.

Bush, outrageously, attempted to keep those doors locked from the public gaze at the president's, or even his family's, discretion.

Obama has thrown that door wide open again.

"For a long time now, there's been too much secrecy in this city. This administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information but with those who seek it to be known," Obama said before a gathering that included his senior staff. "The mere fact that you have the legal power to keep something secret does not mean you should always use it. Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

Excellent. Simply excellent. He really is starting to undo the damage which Bush wrought.

Click title for full article.

Torturers find Obama "Ungracious".

The Bush team are letting it be known through the New York Times that they were severely pissed off with the tone of Obama's remarks at the inauguration.

“There were a few sharp elbows that really rankled and I felt were not as magnanimous as the occasion called for,” Karen Hughes, a longtime Bush confidante, said in an interview. “He really missed an opportunity to be as big as the occasion was and, frankly, as gracious as President Bush was as he left office.”
Dan Bartlett, another top adviser, used similar language. “It was a missed opportunity to bring some of the president’s loyal supporters into the fold,” he said. Marc A. Thiessen, the chief White House speechwriter until this week, added: “It was an ungracious inaugural. It was pretty clear he was taking shots.”

This is typical of the mindset which has been in evidence for the past eight years. This gang of torturers, people who have been part of an administration which has confessed to taking part in war crimes, complain that Obama has been "ungracious" towards them.

They appear to have no idea that their behaviour has been so damaging to the US's reputation worldwide that it was imperative that Obama made it as clear as he possibly could that the days of the Bush administration were over and that the tactics which they employed would cease forthwith.

“On both style and substance,” said Rahm Emanuel, the new White House chief of staff, the new president is “turning the page.”
Mr. Emanuel mocked Bush advisers for bristling at the message of the Inaugural Address. “If they didn’t know that was the judgment of people, then their subscription to the newspapers were canceled over the last three years,” he said.

And that's the problem, an administration which claimed to pay no attention to polls - indeed, an administration who responded, "So?" when told that the public disagreed with them - appear to neither care nor even know how loathed they have become. Bush left office with record breaking disapproval ratings as did Cheney.

Both men appeared in public and admitted, actually they almost boasted, that they had authorised war crimes, and now they are feeling the pain because Obama has been "ungracious" towards them?

Mr. Obama never directly mentioned Mr. Bush’s name after the ritual thank you at the beginning of his speech, but the context of some of his remarks was lost on no one. He criticized “our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place.” He rejected “as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” He assured the rest of the world “that we are ready to lead once more.”
Some analysts said it was the first time since Franklin D. Roosevelt took over from Herbert Hoover in 1933 that an incoming president used his Inaugural Address to so evidently repudiate his predecessor as he headed for the door.

I said at the time that I was delighted that he took first a scalpel and then a sledgehammer to the mindset which has ruled Washington for the past eight years. Even now the Bush regime seem utterly unaware of how resoundingly their way of thinking has been rejected by the American electorate.

The world needed to hear that America is back, an America which is ruled by laws and where even the president is subject to those laws, and that is what Obama was making crystal clear.

And if he upset the feelings of torturers as he did so, well that's just too bad.

Click title for full article.

NSA Whistleblower Russell Tice on Bush's Domestic Spying.

As Bush leaves office we will no doubt hear much more about the astonishing illegality of his administration, but this is striking. Here we discover that journalists were also under surveillance 24/7.

And, as we suspected, there was a dragnet quality to all of this where, rather than apply for individual warrants, they simply swept up everything. That's why Bush couldn't go along with FISA, because FISA insists that you provide a reason for the wiretap.

UPDATE:

Here's the Young Turks take on this. I'm not surprised at the scale of the lying which Bush engaged in, but the pass he has been given by the press is simply scandalous. And the illegality of what they engaged in is also breathtaking.

The Ultimate Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Kit Bond attempts to make the argument that Obama is being irresponsible in saying that he will close Gitmo because several hundred prisoners could, "flood the system".

He also appears to believe that US prisons currently hold, "a murderer here, a murderer there".

And when asked if people who issued orders for torture to be carried out should be prosecuted, he warns that this would set off "a political battle at the highest level."

He states that, "We don't go back and look at previous administrations and try to try them for crimes. That is the ultimate Bush derangement syndrome."

So, international law - as it pertains to war crimes - is now, "the ultimate Bush derangement syndrome".

The day I met President Obama.

Leonard Doyle of the Independent joined the queue of people waiting to meet the new first couple when the White House threw open it's doors after the inauguration. It was a miracle that he even got inside:

Some were invited but just as many, like me, were trying their luck.

Realising what was going on, Mrs Obama instructed the Secret Service agents to open the doors to everyone in line, whether they were on the carefully screened list or not. Soon we were walking through hallowed halls from which the public has been largely excluded since the attacks of 2001.

But it's Doyle's exchange with Obama when they finally met which made me smile:

Then it was my turn and the President proffered his hand. He looked exhausted after the inauguration, followed by a night of celebratory balls that ended in the small hours. But his handshake was warm and firm, not the bone-cruncher many politicians specialise in. He looked me directly in the eye and asked where I was from. "Dublin," I said, adding that we had met once before in Iowa, at a time when his candidacy was all but written off by the US media.

That November night he had just given a barnstorming speech which would prove to be the turning point in his campaign and lead to his first upset victory on 3 January last year. We had talked about his speech, the war in Iraq and how The Independent had also been against President Bush's adventure in Iraq. "I like The Independent," he had said then, "but I've got the Des Moines Register to consider. So before we talk further, tell me just how many of your folks vote here?"

Politicians, charming to a fault, as long as you have a vote that they can get. Otherwise, you are of no use to them.

Click title for full article.

Quest begins for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

It would appear as if the appointment of Clinton as Secretary of State was, as I suspected, done to help craft a Middle East peace deal.

President Barack Obama yesterday promised the US will "actively and aggressively" work for an elusive Middle East peace deal and will dispatch a high-powered envoy to the region as a matter of urgency.

Speaking to diplomats at the state department on his second day in office, he set out his widely-awaited views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ending the near silence he had maintained over the last few weeks.

Putting the conflict at the heart of US foreign policy for the first time in eight years, he said he would invest time, political capital and cash in the peace effort.

Intent on reshaping foreign policy as quickly as possible, he named the veteran mediator George Mitchell as his Middle East envoy. He also named another veteran diplomat, Richard Holbrooke, as his special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

He pledged to continue US support for Israel but his tone was more balanced than that of George Bush, who uncritically sided with Israel.

Obama, speaking alongside his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, called for a durable ceasefire in Gaza. He urged Hamas to stop firing rockets into Israel, as Bush had done, but he also called on Israel to "complete the withdrawal of its forces from Gaza".

It's long overdue that the US turns it's attention to this dispute in a way that is fair and even handed, unlike the ridiculously one sided handling of the dispute by Bush, where every and any Israeli action went unquestioned.

My only fear here is that Netanyahu might get elected come February 10, which will make Obama's task ten times harder.

But it's unthinkable that Bush would ever have expressed the sentiments being voiced by Obama:

The president expressed concern at the loss of life among Israelis and Palestinians, and at the suffering in Gaza. He said his heart went out to "civilians who are going without food, water or medical care".

He said he would help Egypt to try to curb smuggling of weapons through underground tunnels to Gaza and would also provide and seek donations from other countries for the development of Gaza.

He has actually expressed concern - going as far as to say that "his heart went out" - for the conditions the Palestinians now find themselves in. After eight years of Bush's callous indifference this is music to my ears.

However, he will find great difficulty when he attempts to "seek donations" from other country's for the development of Gaza. The Europeans have already heavily invested in this only to watch Israeli F16's destroy the civilian infrastructure which they paid for. And, as the BBC noted when they recently gained access to Gaza, a lot of this destruction was "wanton". People will need to know that the Israelis are not going to be allowed to carry out such attacks again before they start investing much needed funds into Gaza.

However, leaving that aside, at long last an American president appears to be ready to look at this situation fairly and to genuinely engage in the search for peace. The appointment of Mitchell is important. His work at in the Northern Ireland peace deal means that he is uniquely qualified to find a way through the morass of the Israel/Palestine dispute.

Even Tony Blair is welcoming Mitchell's appointment:

A spokesman for Blair said it would renew their close and productive relationship in Northern Ireland. "It shows the true commitment President Obama and Secretary Clinton have to making real progress in the Middle East," the spokesman said.
Mitchell, appointed by Bill Clinton to help as a mediator in the Northern Ireland peace process, played a pivotal role in Belfast.

He won the respect of both the IRA and the Loyalist paramilitaries for his efforts at bringing about decommissioning. He also reported to Bill Clinton on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, calling for the Palestinian authority to crack down on militant groups but for Israel too to freeze the expansion of Jewish settlements on the West Bank.

Mitchell told diplomats at the state department: "I believe deeply that with committed persevering and patient diplomacy peace and stability can be achieved in the Middle East."

So far, so good. Obama has made a blistering start, banning torture, closing secret prisons, and now signaling his intent to put a peace deal in the Middle East at the very top of his agenda.

After the last eight years of Bush's shameful indulgence of the Israelis, where he at times looked like an overindulgent parent feeding an obese child chocolate, Obama has at least started by making the right noises.

And Clinton, who has a pro-Israeli record which is second to none, will give Obama the cover he needs to lean on Israel to make compromises.

It's a great start.

Click title for full article.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Obama Signs Order Closing Guantanamo.

Obama has signed an order to close Guantanamo Bay down within a year. He is also ordering that all future interrogations are done in accordance with American values:

Obama: Any interrogations taking place are going to have to abide by the Army Field Manual. We feel that the Army Field Manual reflects the best judgment of our military -- that we can abide by a rule that says we don't torture. But that we can still effectively obtain the intelligence that we need.

This is me following through on not just a commitment I made during the campaign, I think, but an understanding that dates to our founding fathers. That we are willing to observe core standards of conduct, not just when it's easy but when it's hard.

I read something online today which utterly shocked me. A statement by Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld is linked to in this excellent article by Glenn Greenwald. Vandeveld was the chief prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay charged with ensuring the conviction of a young man called Mohammed Jawad.

At the start of his Sworn Declaration in Support of Jawad's Habeas Petition, he is convinced of the young man's guilt and thinks he is dealing with an open and shut case. By the end he was so disgusted by what he was dealing with that he resigned.

He begins by outlining his views at the time regarding prisoners claims that they had been abused: He believed that the Taliban had trained their foot soldiers to manufacture abuse claims. However, when he gained access to the Detainee Incident Management System report he discovered that the abuse of this young man had all been scrupulously recorded.

Greenwald takes up the story:

In Afghanistan, Jawad was severely beaten, drugged, and threatened with death for both himself and his family if he refused to confess to the grenade incident. That occurred just weeks after the incident where two Afghan detainees, including a completely innocent 22-year-old Afghan cab driver, were beaten to death -- murdered -- while detained and interrogated by U.S. troops in Bagram. The confession Jawad "signed" (with his fingerprint, since he can't write his name) became the centerpiece of the Bush administration's case against him, and yet, it was written in a language Jawad did not speak or read, and was given to him after several days of beatings, druggings and threats -- all while he was likely 15 or 16 years old.
In December, 2003, when he was (at most) 18 years old, Jawad -- according to Guantanamo prison logs -- attempted to kill himself. In 2004, he was subjected to the so-called "frequent flier" program, where, in a two-week period alone, he was moved to a new cell 112 times -- an average of every 3 hours, in order to ensure he was sleep deprived and disoriented. Over the six years at Guantanamo, Jawad was repeatedly subjected to extreme cold, bright lights, and various stress positions. He was often kept in solitary confinement or in "linguistic confinement," isolated from anyone who spoke his only language (Pashto). As recently as May of 2008, while Jawad was at Guantanamo, he was beaten so badly by guards that, weeks later, he still had extreme bruises on his arms, knees, shoulders, forehead and ribs.
Despite all of that, the Bush administration -- monstrous war criminals to the end -- just last week demanded in Jawad's habeas corpus proceeding that his military commission be allowed to proceed as scheduled and that his habeas petition be dismissed. The U.S. was about to proceed with a military commission of a tormented and destroyed human being -- a teenager when his ordeal began and now nothing resembling a healthy, functioning adult -- before a completely rigged tribunal and try him, ironically enough, for "war crimes." It was that repulsive travesty which Obama's order yesterday stopped, at least temporarily.

I strongly recommend reading Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld's statement. It is all the more powerful because he starts out as an utter believer that what he is doing is right.

In the end his confidence of ever gaining any conviction in this case, which is in any way fair and just, is shattered. And he has to resign.

The only evidence - and I really mean the only evidence - is a statement which the young man was tortured into making; which the court, because it was obtained by torture, refused to allow to be admitted.

And yet, six years - six years - after they picked this adolescent up, they are refusing to release him and attempting to have him charged with "war crimes".

The real war criminals are the people who engaged in such systematic and brutal torture.

Of this young man, Mohammed Jawad, his former prosecutor now writes:

Had I returned to Afghanistan or Iraq, and had I encountered Mohammed Jawad in either of those hostile lands, where two of my friends have been killed in action and one of my very best friends in the world had been terribly wounded, I have no doubt at all -- none -- that Mr. Jawad would pose no threat whatsoever to me, his former prosecutor and now-repentant persecuter. Six years is long enough for a boy of sixteen to serve in virtual solitary confinement, in a distant land, for reasons he may never fully understand.

It's utterly shocking, and it's very seldom that I have read a report which literally had my mouth gaping.

Today, at least and at last, Obama said "Enough!"

Hat tip to Crooks and Liars.

Rush Limbaugh: "I hope Obama fails".

As the US - and the world economy - teeters on the brink of collapse, it is quite astonishing to hear Limbaugh clearly state that he wishes Obama to fail.

"I hope he fails."

He states that Liberals wanted Bush to fail, which is a lie. Liberals objected to the fact that Bush was elected by the Supreme Court rather than the electorate. But they never wanted him to fail.

It is simply appalling that Limbaugh can say such a thing. He is wishing disaster on to all of us.

As Bush departs, the crowd bray.

Not all presidents leave office in such a low as Bush and Cheney. Indeed, Cheney leaves with an approval rate of 13%. Bush hovers, if I remember correctly, around 22%. His father and Bill Clinton left office with approval ratings of over 60%.

Here, the crowd can be clearly heard shouting, "Na Na Hey Hey Goodbye".

It really is an indication of how loathed these people became that, even as they left office for the last time, the crowd found it impossible to extend even the faintest amount of gratitude to them.

Bush will certainly go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever, the only argument now is whether or not he was the very worst.

He always said that he did not court popularity, which is just as well, as he leaves office with none.