SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Raymond Duray who wrote (12306)2/24/2003 6:15:40 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 25898
 
The Tenet-Rumsfeld Bushwhackers

A U.S. License to Kill
By Nat Hentoff
Village Voice
Friday 21 February 2003

While I was chronicling, last week, the CIA's hit squads--and Donald Rumsfeld's plans for similar hunting expeditions for the Special Forces units under his jurisdiction--I came across a December 30 Associated Press report from Jerusalem that Israeli attorney general Elyakim Rubinstein had instructed Prime Minister Ariel Sharon "to use the practice of killing suspected terror suspects [i.e., targeted assassinations] only as a last resort."

In the past, the Bush administration has criticized Sharon's having Palestinian terrorists targeted for summary execution--with occasional collateral deaths of innocent Palestinians caught in the line of fire.

But in this country, George W. Bush (as the December 15 New York Times reported) has authorized the CIA to kill terrorist leaders on an administration list--with, hopefully, minimum civilian casualties. Apparently, Sharon will no longer be admonished on this matter from Washington.

On the Shamash Web site (the Jewish Network) on December 20, there were excerpts from newspaper commentaries in 25 countries regarding, among other Bush directives, his "granting CIA authority to use lethal forces against suspected terrorists."

From the conservative Spanish publication La Razón, December 16: "It is alarming to see that the fear existing after 9-11 in the most powerful nation has blinded its leaders to such an extent that they would see as a good a crime of the state and to consider legal the execution, without previous trial, of people accused, by a discredited security service, of terrorism . . . "

In Pakistan, the center-right Nation editorialized on December 17 that the Bush administration's handing over "to the CIA a list of individuals, considered to be terrorists, with authorization to eliminate them physically . . . will relieve the CIA of the bother to seek approval to kill in each individual case. . . . Terrorism cannot be eliminated through terrorist methods."

The original New York Times report on the CIA's list of targets noted that "the presidential finding authorizing the President to kill terrorists was not limited to those on the list. The president has given broad authority to the CIA to kill or capture operatives of Al Qaeda around the world, officials said." Quoted in the report was Harold Hongju Koh, a professor of international law at Yale, and an official in the State Department during Bill Clinton's administration:

"The inevitable complication of a politically declared but legally undeclared war [against terrorism] is the blurring of the distinction between enemy combatants and other nonstate actors. . . . The question is, what factual showing will demonstrate that they had warlike intentions against us, and who sees the evidence before any action is taken?"

On January 11, Doyle McManus, Washington bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times, wrote a long analysis of this new expansion of the CIA's lethal authority ("A U.S. License to Kill"). He asked a crucial question:

"If the CIA kills more suspected terrorists in more countries, will it have the unintended effect of 'legitimizing' terrorist attacks against U.S. military officers in foreign countries or even at home?" (Emphasis added.)

Furthermore, McManus continued, "where possible, the U.S. is seeking permission of local governments before carrying out targeted killings on foreign soil--although officials suggest that Bush is willing to waive that rule if necessary. Launching a targeted killing in another country without its assent is normally a violation of international law, legal scholars say.

" 'There may be some cases where we can't make it conform to international law,' one official said [to McManus]. 'In that case, let's just make it conform to our law.' "

Also quoted is Porter Goss (Republican, Florida), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who is concerned that the killing guidelines, the decision-making process, isn't yet clear enough. "That mechanism," he says, "still needs to be set up."

But the fundamental question, as McManus says, is whether Americans are ready "to accept targeted-killing missions . . . that kill clearly innocent civilians?"

I would add a further question: How will we know how many of these killing missions will take place, including how many of the dead are innocent civilians?

The congressional intelligence committees will presumably be informed of these missions, but in how much detail? And to what extent, if any, will American courts be involved in these targeted executions? At least one American citizen, in a CIA operation in Yemen, has been terminated in one of these CIA missions, as I detailed last week. He was considered "an enemy combatant," but was never charged with any crime, nor was he brought into any court before his instant decease from a Hell-fire anti-tank missile fired from a pilotless Predator aircraft operated by the CIA.

Hardly reassuring is the news (New York Times, January 29) that the president is creating a Terrorist Threat Integration Center that will "merge units at the CIA, FBI and other agencies into a single government unit intended to strengthen the collection and analysis of foreign and domestic terror threats." In charge of this spook fiefdom will be CIA director George Tenet. For the first time, the CIA, which has often been its own private government in the past, will have "full control over the collection and evaluation of all information relating to terrorist threats in the United States and overseas"--as well as control over responding to them.

Said an FBI official: "We just don't know what this [CIA hegemony] is going to mean." Neither do I. Who's going to tell the citizenry? Not Tenet or Bush. And will Tenet be able to rein in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who (as the January 8 New York Sun reports) is planning to provide more funds, troops, and equipment to the Pentagon's shadowy Special Operations Forces, letting these commandos "run their own operations," including (as the January 6 Washington Times notes) the authority to "kill or capture terrorists around the world"?

Both the military and the CIA will greatly increase their already unprecedented powers in this borderless war, including at home. The Constitution calls for civilian control of the military, right?

truthout.org



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (12306)2/24/2003 7:59:00 AM
From: Crimson Ghost  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 25898
 
A Regime That Hates Democracy Can't Wage War for
Democracy
by Harvey Wasserman

George W. Bush says he wants to attack Iraq to install democracy. But as he explained on December 18,
2002: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

Under Bush the Constitutional guarantees that have made America a beacon to the world for two centuries
have been shredded in two short years.

In terms of basic legal rights and sanctuary from government spying, Americans may be less free under
George W. Bush than as British subjects under George III in 1776.

Though the trappings of free speech remain on the surface of American society, the Homeland Security
Act, Patriot I, Patriot II and other massively repressive legislation, plus Republican control of the Executive,
Legislative and Judicial branches, plus GOP dominance of the mass media, have laid the legal and
political framework for a totalitarian infrastructure which, when combined with the capabilities of modern
computer technology, may be unsurpassed.

The Administration has used the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, as pretext for this centralization of
power. But most of it was in the works long before September 11 as part of the war on drugs and Bush's
modus operandi as the most secretive and authoritarian president in US history.

So with today's US as a model, what would be in store for Iraqis should Bush kill hundreds of thousands of
them to replace Saddam Hussein?

President Bush has asserted the right to execute "suspected terrorists" without trial or public
notice;
The Administration claims the right to torture "suspected terrorists," and by many accounts has
already done so;
Attorney-General John Ashcroft has asserted the right to brand "a terrorist" anyone he wishes
without evidence or public hearing or legal recourse;
The Administration has arrested and held without trial hundreds of "suspected terrorists" while
denying them access to legal counsel or even public notification that they have been arrested;
The Administration has asserted the right to inspect the records of bookstores and public libraries
to determine what American citizens are reading;
The Administration has asserted the right to break into private homes and tap the phones of US
citizens without warrants;
The Administration has attempted to install a neighbors-spying-on-neighbors network that would
have been the envy of Joe Stalin;
The Administration has effectively negated the Freedom of Information Act and runs by all
accounts the most secretive regime in US history;
When the General Accounting Office, one of the few reliably independent federal agencies,
planned to sue Vice President Dick Cheney to reveal who he met to formulate the Bush Energy
Bill, Bush threatened to slash GAO funding, and the lawsuit was dropped;
After losing the 2000 election by more than 500,000 popular votes (but winning a 5-4 majority of
the US Supreme Court), the Administration plans to control all voting through computers operated
by just three companies, with code that can be easily manipulated, as may have been done in
Georgia in 2002, winning seats for a Republican governor and US senator, and in Nebraska to
elect and re-elect US Senator Chuck Hagel, an owner of the voting machine company there;
FCC Chair Michael Powell (son of Colin) is enforcing the Administration's demand that regulation
be ended so nearly all mass media can be monopolized by a tiny handful of huge corporations;
Attorney-General Ashcroft has assaulted states rights, a traditional Republican mainstay, using
federal troops to trash public referenda legalizing medical marijuana in nine states;
Ashcroft has overridden his own federal prosecutors and assaulted local de facto prohibitions
against the death penalty, which has been renounced by every other industrial nation and is now
used only by a handful of dictatorships, including Iraq.

Overseas, the US record is infamous. Among those it has put in power are Saddam Hussein, the Taliban
and Manuel Noriega, not to mention Somoza, Pinochet, Marcos, Mobutu, the Shah, the Greek Junta and
too many other murderous dictators to mention in a single article.

Afghanistan, leveled in the name of democracy and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, now stands ruined and
abandoned. In sequel, Bush is gathering Iraq attackers with the promise of cash bribes, oil spoils and
conquered land.

Turkey, Bulgaria and Bush's manufactured Iraqi opposition are already squabbling over the booty. Bush
says rebuilding will be funded by Iraqi oil revenues, probably administered through the same core regime
now in place, but with a different figurehead.

In other words: the media hype about bringing democracy to Iraq is just that. There is absolutely no reason
to believe a US military conquest would bring to Iraq the beloved freedoms George W. Bush is so
aggressively destroying here in America.

A regime that so clearly hates democracy at home is not about to wage war for one abroad.



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (12306)2/25/2003 7:17:31 PM
From: Chris McConnel  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 25898
 
Raymond, have you seen any other articles confirming this (like in the mainstream press):

White House advisors looking for a "way out" of war with Iraq

capitolhillblue.com