U.S. UNDER BUSH/CHENEY ORDERED CRUEL, HARSH METHODS BEYOND WATERBOARDING

Last night on PBS, Bill Moyers Journal featured excerpts from Torturing Democracy, a film from producer Sherry Jones, that takes a close look at various forms of torture and cruel punishment meted out by the U.S. military and by the CIA.

We saw depictions of prisoners being shackled to the ceiling or to the floor, being blasted by non-stop high decibel music, being deprived of sleep for days, being held in complete darkness for months at a time, being stuffed into small containers and/or cages. And all of this inhumane treatment was over and above being subject to the trial by water, where water is poured into one's mouth and nose, causing the fear and sensation of drowning.

When I was watching the program, it was hard to reconcile that these methods of torture were American methods of interrogating prisoners, many of whom were ordinary sheepherders and farmers, picked up in Afghanistan and sold to the Americans. Yet it was Bush himself who signed off on these cruel and harsh methods, and it was Dick Cheney who followed up and made sure that the military and the CIA were enforcing them.

END BLOODY WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

Today's The New York Times carries a report by Adam B. Ellick of a U.S. raid against a home in a small village on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan that killed three civilians and left a four-year old bitten by an attack dog.

Writes Ellick :

"A deadly United States military raid on a house near Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan became a new source of tension on Thursday, with the Americans calling it a successful counterterrorism strike and the Afghans saying it left three innocent civilians dead and two wounded, including a 4-year-old boy bitten by an attack dog.

"The raid took place on Wednesday in the village of Kundi, in Khost Province. American military leaders and Afghan officials said they were investigating the conflicting accounts of what happened. But President Hamid Karzai, who has grown increasingly impatient with the American-led war effort against the Taliban insurgency, condemned the raid in front of government leaders and foreign diplomats, saying that “entering by force to our people’s houses is against the government of Afghanistan.”"

This latest American raid is a good example of the principle that nations never "win" wars with guns and tanks. Why the U.S. thinks that military force will "win" anything in Afghanistan is beyond rational minds. Here we see a commando raid that the U.S. military terms as "successful," yet it has left a whole village angry and hostile towards Americans and the American military effort.

Ellick reports:

"In Khost, American-led forces blasted the gate of the house early on Wednesday, then fatally shot the family’s father and mother and a male relative, according to Tahir Khan Sabry, deputy governor of the province. Their relationship with the wounded boy was unclear, and another woman was also bitten. Mr. Sabry described all the victims as noncombatant civilians.

"The American military said that the raid led to the detention of an operative of Al Qaeda and that those killed were armed and showing “hostile intent.” Grenades, AK-47s, pistols and a shotgun were confiscated, American officials said."

The raid in Khost kills a family's father and mother as well as another relative, and what for? So that the U.S. army can say that it detained an "Al Qaeda operative"? For all the world knows, this "operative" probably was a civilian like the others who happened to express anger and outrage at the American occupation.

And even if the captured man was really connected to Al Qaeda, was it worth it for the Americans to kill a family to capture this guy? My answer is NO. The killing of the father and mother has forever destroyed what little sympathy there might have been in that Khost village and will probably result in 20 other males joining Al Qaeda to take revenge against the United States.

U.S.SHOOTS CRUISE MISSILES INTO SOMALIA, MANY SOMALIANS COME TO HATE U.S.

Can't the United States engage in foreign policy initiatives without relying on its overwhelming military? Specifically, why can't George Bush and the White House let Somalians decide what type of government they want without meddling, interfering, sending in the Ethiopian Army, and just recently firing four or more cruise missiles into some little Somalian village killing a Somalian insurgent and probably his whole family?

The BBC reported on May 1st:

"The US military has confirmed that it carried out a pre-dawn missile strike which killed a senior leader of an Islamist militant group in Somalia.
"A spokesman said the target of the attack in the town of Dusamareb was an al-Qaeda leader, but would not name him or say whether it had been successful.
"The strike hit the home of Aden Hashi Ayro, the military head of al-Shabab, which controls much of Somalia.
"At least 10 other people, including another al-Shabab leader, also died.

"But local elders have said up to 30 bodies have been recovered from the scene, according to unconfirmed reports. "

First of all, there should not be U.S. Naval warships sitting off the coast of Somalia, looking to assassinate Somali leaders. Second, the U.S. needs to come to its senses and realize that it will gain nothing by brute military strength, like firing cruise missiles into some Somalian agrarian village and killing Somalis.

Imagine if you were Somalian. What would you think about a foreign power like the U.S. shooting missiles into one of your towns and killing a fellow countryman and his whole family? Would you like it? Would it make you more inclined to be friendly towards the United States? Of course not. It would turn you into a rabid anti-American, ready to go out and kill any and all Americans.

So why do the Republicans under Bush support such heavy-handed expression of military force?

Let the Somalians take care of their own politics, let them choose their own government, stop trying to influence other countries' politics with military missiles and tanks.

IRANIAN NOBEL PRIZE WINNER WARNS AGAINST U.S. INVASION

Fran and I attended the lecture today at the University of Utah by 2003 Nobel Prize winner and Iranian lawyer, Dr. Shirin Ebadi.

One thing Dr. Ebadi made clear. Iran and Iranians need themselves to work for an expansion of civil rights in Iranian society. They don't need or want outside intervention, especially by the United States. Advancement of civil rights will not be helped by outside military armies. Of course, Ebadi's reference was clear to all. Iranians do not want the United States and George Bush meddling in their society and with their ancient civilization.

In fact, Ebadi made clear that a U.S. invasion would only set back the cause of civil rights and especially women's rights in Iran. A questioner apologized to Ebadi for the U.S. plot that overthrew democratically elected Iranian prime minister Mossadegh in 1953. Iranians do not forget such machiavellian machinations of American foreign policy.

Ebadi also wished for a reduction in expenditures made for armies and armaments and an increase in the care and education of children. Instead of tanks and missiles, she urged governments to think more about the social welfare of their poorest citizens and children.

BUSH HARMS U.S. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS BY RECKLESS ATTEMPT TO SHOOT DOWN SATELLITE

I recall that last year when China shot down one of its decaying satellites that the U.S. government was highly critical of the exercise, claiming that China wanted to engage in an arms race towards developing intercontinental missile warfare systems. Now the United States is itself engaged in the very same development. The reasons given by the U.S. military for this provocative exercise are too transparent for anyone to accept. As if the whole exercise were to save Earth from harmful space debris.

The real reason is that the U.S.military wants to prevent highly sophisticated spy technology from falling into the hands of other countries. Secondly, the U.S. government wants to develop an intercontinental missile system that could deliver warheads anywhere in the world, and also, develop a system which could shoot down missiles or satellites of any other country.

Consequently, this exercise of shooting down a errant U.S. satellite is fraught with military and political danger to the rest of the world. It shows how far the government of the United States under Bush and Cheney is prepared to go to establish military hegemony. Russia and China will especially feel threatened. Any talk of multilateralism, or cooperation and negotiation with other countries, will be blown up at the same time the U.S. shoots down the satellite, and, even if the U.S. fails in this effort, severe damage will have been done to international relations.

WOMEN AND CHILDREN DIE AS U.S. MILITARY ATTACKS "CRIMINALS" IN BAGHDAD

Today we have another reason to try and convict George W. Bush as a war criminal. The BBC reports that the U.S. military killed women and children in its raids against "criminals" within Sadr City today. Of course, the U.S. military said it was unaware of civilian casualties, although it made much of the body count of the dead "criminals."

Writes the BBC:

"Forty-nine Iraqi "criminals" have been killed in three separate raids in Sadr City in the capital, Baghdad, the US military says.

""The operation's objective was an individual reported to be a long-time Special Groups member specialising in kidnapping operations," it said.

"Iraqi sources said women and children were among those killed, but the US said it was not aware of this."

We could all predict what would happen if Bush invaded and occupied Iraq. Tens of thousands, no, hundreds of thousands, of innocent Iraqi civilians would be killed and wounded. But Bush insisted he knew best. Therefore, he should be responsible for these deaths and he should face the International Court of Justice for these crimes.

QAEDA IN IRAQ BUT A SMALL PART OF SUNNI INSURGENCY

Andrew Tilghman has an article in Washington Monthly about the Bush/Cheney spin claiming that the biggest threat in Iraq today is "Al Qaeda in Iraq." I have blogged several times (here's one example) on how the U.S. military and Bush like to say that all Sunni insurgencies are connected with Al Qaeda. I guess they do this because they want to scare Americans into mindlessly conflating Qaeda with the internecine civil war raging today in Iraq between Sunnis and Shias.

Tilghman writes a thorough description of the spin and snow job that comes out of Bush/Cheney and sad to say the higher ups in the U.S. army.

WAR IN IRAQ BRUTALIZES U.S. SOLDIERS IN TREATMENT OF IRAQI CIVILIANS

The Nation has published (July 30, 2007 issue) a distressing but important story by Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian last week, called "The Other War - Iraq Vets Bear Witness." The article describes events that show how brutalized war makes soldiers, yes soldiers of the United States in Iraq. We like to think that the Americans are exceptional, that we are all bound by the rule of law, that we are motiviated by good will and idealism towards fellow human beings. Here is another side of America that demonstrates that Americans can be cruel, mean and sadistic.

"Over the past several months The Nation has interviewed fifty combat veterans of the Iraq War from around the United States in an effort to investigate the effects of the four-year-old occupation on average Iraqi civilians. These combat veterans, some of whom bear deep emotional and physical scars, and many of whom have come to oppose the occupation, gave vivid, on-the-record accounts. They described a brutal side of the war rarely seen on television screens or chronicled in newspaper accounts."

Here's only one description out of many from the article. The account describes the policy of army convoys speeding down Iraqi roads and highways.

"Convoys did not slow down or attempt to brake when civilians inadvertently got in front of their vehicles, according to the veterans who described them. Sgt. Kelly Dougherty, 29, from Cañon City, Colorado, was based at the Talil Air Base in Nasiriya with the Colorado National Guard's 220th Military Police Company for a year beginning in February 2003. She recounted one incident she investigated in January 2004 on a six-lane highway south of Nasiriya that resembled numerous incidents described by other veterans.

""It's like very barren desert, so most of the people that live there, they're nomadic or they live in just little villages and have, like, camels and goats and stuff," she recalled. "There was then a little boy--I would say he was about 10 because we didn't see the accident; we responded to it with the investigative team--a little Iraqi boy and he was crossing the highway with his, with three donkeys. A military convoy, transportation convoy driving north, hit him and the donkeys and killed all of them. When we got there, there were the dead donkeys and there was a little boy on the side of the road.

""We saw him there and, you know, we were upset because the convoy didn't even stop," she said. "They really, judging by the skid marks, they hardly even slowed down. But, I mean, that's basically--basically, your order is that you never stop." "