Monday, May 16, 2011

A Morality or Shakespeare Play: US Today - Cornel West's Anger at Obama


AP (more info on photo end of post)

Strange how a lot of killing and inhumanity person to person and nation to nation begin as pure deception followed by more and more cover-ups...

Perhaps this kind of post is rather negative and so I've kept as a draft for a long, long time...yet finally I am succombing - I hope not to the worst in me yet to the part in me which does not want to be deceived nor want my children and my nation deceived by those who talk a strong talk sometimes yet either don't deliver or who don't allow us to know who they really are and claim to do in their positions.

I found this image which is credited below along with the following article from Truth Dig on May 16th. Although not exactly in keeping with "nomorecrusades" themes, perhaps this is an appropriate spot given the way our current presidency and policies are so in keeping with the current neo-con designs to control more and more of the world's resources.

Ironically, for Cornel West to hold so many pre-election campaign parties for Obama and now feel angry at the betrayal on many levels, West may be thinking to himself: "no more crusades" for such a man as this?

We held merely one outdoor "cookout" in our county on behalf of Obama for president & I feel betrayed all the time or at least very,very sad indeed. The options don't look cheery either.

The Obama Deception: Why Cornel West Went Ballistic - TRUTH DIG dot com

By Chris Hedges

The moral philosopher Cornel West, if Barack Obama’s ascent to power was a morality play, would be the voice of conscience. Rahm Emanuel, a cynical product of the Chicago political machine, would be Satan. Emanuel in the first scene of the play would dangle power, privilege, fame and money before Obama. West would warn Obama that the quality of a life is defined by its moral commitment, that his legacy will be determined by his willingness to defy the cruel assault by the corporate state and the financial elite against the poor and working men and women, and that justice must never be sacrificed on the altar of power.

Perhaps there was never much of a struggle in Obama’s heart. Perhaps West only provided a moral veneer. Perhaps the dark heart of Emanuel was always the dark heart of Obama. Only Obama knows. But we know how the play ends. West is banished like honest Kent in “King Lear.” Emanuel and immoral mediocrities from Lawrence Summers to Timothy Geithner to Robert Gates—think of Goneril and Regan in the Shakespearean tragedy—take power. We lose. And Obama becomes an obedient servant of the corporate elite in exchange for the hollow trappings of authority.

No one grasps this tragic descent better than West, who did 65 campaign events for Obama, believed in the potential for change and was encouraged by the populist rhetoric of the Obama campaign. He now nurses, like many others who placed their faith in Obama, the anguish of the deceived, manipulated and betrayed. He bitterly describes Obama as “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats. And now he has become head of the American killing machine and is proud of it.”

“When you look at a society you look at it through the lens of the least of these, the weak and the vulnerable; you are committed to loving them first, not exclusively, but first, and therefore giving them priority,” says West, the Class of 1943 University Professor of African American Studies and Religion at Princeton University. “And even at this moment, when the empire is in deep decline, the culture is in deep decay, the political system is broken, where nearly everyone is up for sale, you say all I have is the subversive memory of those who came before, personal integrity, trying to live a decent life, and a willingness to live and die for the love of folk who are catching hell. This means civil disobedience, going to jail, supporting progressive forums of social unrest if they in fact awaken the conscience, whatever conscience is left, of the nation. And that’s where I find myself now.

“I have to take some responsibility,” he admits of his support for Obama as we sit in his book-lined office. “I could have been reading into it more than was there.

“I was thinking maybe he has at least some progressive populist instincts that could become more manifest after the cautious policies of being a senator and working with [Sen. Joe] Lieberman as his mentor,” he says. “But it became very clear when I looked at the neoliberal economic team. The first announcement of Summers and Geithner I went ballistic. I said, ‘Oh, my God, I have really been misled at a very deep level.’ And the same is true for Dennis Ross and the other neo-imperial elites. I said, ‘I have been thoroughly misled, all this populist language is just a facade. I was under the impression that he might bring in the voices of brother Joseph Stiglitz and brother Paul Krugman. I figured, OK, given the structure of constraints of the capitalist democratic procedure that’s probably the best he could do. But at least he would have some voices concerned about working people, dealing with issues of jobs and downsizing and banks, some semblance of democratic accountability for Wall Street oligarchs and corporate plutocrats who are just running amuck. I was completely wrong.”

West says the betrayal occurred on two levels.

“There is the personal level,” he says. “I used to call my dear brother [Obama] every two weeks. I said a prayer on the phone for him, especially before a debate. And I never got a call back. And when I ran into him in the state Capitol in South Carolina when I was down there campaigning for him he was very kind. The first thing he told me was, ‘Brother West, I feel so bad. I haven’t called you back. You been calling me so much. You been giving me so much love, so much support and what have you.’ And I said, ‘I know you’re busy.’ But then a month and half later I would run into other people on the campaign and he’s calling them all the time. I said, wow, this is kind of strange. He doesn’t have time, even two seconds, to say thank you or I’m glad you’re pulling for me and praying for me, but he’s calling these other people. I said, this is very interesting. And then as it turns out with the inauguration I couldn’t get a ticket with my mother and my brother. I said this is very strange. We drive into the hotel and the guy who picks up my bags from the hotel has a ticket to the inauguration. My mom says, ‘That’s something that this dear brother can get a ticket and you can’t get one, honey, all the work you did for him from Iowa.’ Beginning in Iowa to Ohio. We had to watch the thing in the hotel.

“What it said to me on a personal level,” he goes on, “was that brother Barack Obama had no sense of gratitude, no sense of loyalty, no sense of even courtesy, [no] sense of decency, just to say thank you. Is this the kind of manipulative, Machiavellian orientation we ought to get used to? That was on a personal level.”

But there was also the betrayal on the political and ideological level.

“It became very clear to me as the announcements were being made,” he says, “that this was going to be a newcomer, in many ways like Bill Clinton, who wanted to reassure the Establishment by bringing in persons they felt comfortable with and that we were really going to get someone who was using intermittent progressive populist language in order to justify a centrist, neoliberalist policy that we see in the opportunism of Bill Clinton. It was very much going to be a kind of black face of the DLC [Democratic Leadership Council].”

Obama and West’s last personal contact took place a year ago at a gathering of the Urban League when, he says, Obama “cussed me out.” Obama, after his address, which promoted his administration’s championing of charter schools, approached West, who was seated in the front row.

“He makes a bee line to me right after the talk, in front of everybody,” West says. “He just lets me have it. He says, ‘You ought to be ashamed of yourself, saying I’m not a progressive. Is that the best you can do? Who do you think you are?’ I smiled. I shook his hand. And a sister hollered in the back, ‘You can’t talk to professor West. That’s Dr. Cornel West. Who do you think you are?’ You can go to jail talking to the president like that. You got to watch yourself. I wanted to slap him on the side of his head.

“It was so disrespectful,” he went on, “that’s what I didn’t like. I’d already been called, along with all [other] leftists, a “F’ing retard” by Rahm Emanuel because we had critiques of the president.”

Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to the president, has, West said, phoned him to complain about his critiques of Obama. Jarrett was especially perturbed, West says, when he said in an interview last year that he saw a lot of Malcolm X and Ella Baker in Michelle Obama. Jarrett told him his comments were not complimentary to the first lady.

“I said in the world that I live in, in that which authorizes my reality, Ella Baker is a towering figure,” he says, munching Fritos and sipping apple juice at his desk. “If I say there is a lot of Ella Baker in Michelle Obama, that’s a compliment. She can take it any way she wants. I can tell her I’m sorry it offended you, but I’m going to speak the truth. She is a Harvard Law graduate, a Princeton graduate, and she deals with child obesity and military families. Why doesn’t she visit a prison? Why not spend some time in the hood? That is where she is, but she can’t do it.

“I think my dear brother Barack Obama has a certain fear of free black men,” West says. “It’s understandable. As a young brother who grows up in a white context, brilliant African father, he’s always had to fear being a white man with black skin. All he has known culturally is white. He is just as human as I am, but that is his cultural formation. When he meets an independent black brother, it is frightening. And that’s true for a white brother. When you get a white brother who meets a free, independent black man, they got to be mature to really embrace fully what the brother is saying to them. It’s a tension, given the history. It can be overcome. Obama, coming out of Kansas influence, white, loving grandparents, coming out of Hawaii and Indonesia, when he meets these independent black folk who have a history of slavery, Jim Crow, Jane Crow and so on, he is very apprehensive. He has a certain rootlessness, a deracination. It is understandable.

“He feels most comfortable with upper middle-class white and Jewish men who consider themselves very smart, very savvy and very effective in getting what they want,” he says. “He’s got two homes. He has got his family and whatever challenges go on there, and this other home. Larry Summers blows his mind because he’s so smart. He’s got Establishment connections. He’s embracing me. It is this smartness, this truncated brilliance, that titillates and stimulates brother Barack and makes him feel at home. That is very sad for me.

“This was maybe America’s last chance to fight back against the greed of the Wall Street oligarchs and corporate plutocrats, to generate some serious discussion about public interest and common good that sustains any democratic experiment,” West laments. “We are squeezing out all of the democratic juices we have. The escalation of the class war against the poor and the working class is intense. More and more working people are beaten down. They are world-weary. They are into self-medication. They are turning on each other. They are scapegoating the most vulnerable rather than confronting the most powerful. It is a profoundly human response to panic and catastrophe. I thought Barack Obama could have provided some way out. But he lacks backbone.

“Can you imagine if Barack Obama had taken office and deliberately educated and taught the American people about the nature of the financial catastrophe and what greed was really taking place?” West asks. “If he had told us what kind of mechanisms of accountability needed to be in place, if he had focused on homeowners rather than investment banks for bailouts and engaged in massive job creation he could have nipped in the bud the right-wing populism of the tea party folk. The tea party folk are right when they say the government is corrupt. It is corrupt. Big business and banks have taken over government and corrupted it in deep ways.

“We have got to attempt to tell the truth, and that truth is painful,” he says. “It is a truth that is against the thick lies of the mainstream. In telling that truth we become so maladjusted to the prevailing injustice that the Democratic Party, more and more, is not just milquetoast and spineless, as it was before, but thoroughly complicitous with some of the worst things in the American empire. I don’t think in good conscience I could tell anybody to vote for Obama. If it turns out in the end that we have a crypto-fascist movement and the only thing standing between us and fascism is Barack Obama, then we have to put our foot on the brake. But we’ve got to think seriously of third-party candidates, third formations, third parties.

“Our last hope is to generate a democratic awakening among our fellow citizens. This means raising our voices, very loud and strong, bearing witness, individually and collectively. Tavis [Smiley] and I have talked about ways of civil disobedience, beginning with ways for both of us to get arrested, to galvanize attention to the plight of those in prisons, in the hoods, in poor white communities. We must never give up. We must never allow hope to be eliminated or suffocated.”

** Photo above by AP / Pablo Martinez Monsivais - President Obama shakes hands with Princeton University professor Cornel West after speaking at the National Urban League’s 100th Anniversary Convention in Washington in July 2010.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. Copyright © 2011 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

The Torture Debate - USA (The New Yorker/Reader Supported News

No Torture - No Exceptions Reader Supported News (An historical piece on Abe Lincoln's War Presidency Stand on Torture - and the Comments are as often quite interesting in agreement and not with added food for thought.)

GO here

==================

From May 5, 2011

Pragmatic Torture
Posted by David K. Shipler
Advocates of torture who enjoy tormenting the rest of us with the hypothetical ticking-bomb scenario might be tested with the counter-hypothetical proposed by Michael Sandel, a political philosopher at Harvard. In his 2009 book, “Justice,” Sandel writes,

Suppose the only way to induce the terrorist suspect to talk is to torture his young daughter (who has no knowledge of her father’s nefarious activities). Would it be morally permissible to do so?

It would be interesting to hear the answer from those who are hauling the country back into the repugnant debate over whether torture “works.” Because such utilitarianism is the only aspect of torture that they are willing to consider, the discussion—such as it is—has turned on what slender strands of evidence about Osama bin Laden’s courier were produced by “enhanced interrogation.”

This may never be known definitively without the declassification of documents, sworn testimony by participants, and an investigation by something equivalent to the committee Senator Frank Church of Idaho chaired in 1975 and 1976. The Church Committee compiled a thorough record of illegal domestic spying and dirty tricks against anti-war and civil-rights activists, among others, leading to the passage of an array of privacy laws, most of which were weakened, twenty-five years later, by the Patriot Act. (I’ve written a book about the give-and-take over safety and liberty, “The Rights of the People.”) But neither Congress nor President Obama is inclined to impanel such a commission. Instead, since bin Laden’s death, Americans have been left to listen as Dick Cheney and others have tried to rub the tarnish of torture off their own reputations. Cheney suggested that “it wouldn’t be surprising if in fact that program produced results that
ultimately contributed to the success of this venture.” Peter King, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said flatly that waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had dislodged information on the courier.

That this appears to be a caricature of the truth is beside the point. It is a renewed attempt to revive the Bush Administration’s reign of pragmatism over morality. The two need to be separated, as ends and means are divided in assessing personal behavior.

First, the pragmatic argument is far from settled—it’s not clear that torture works. Professional interrogators came forward under Bush to denounce torture as unproductive, even self-defeating, for it can induce phony confessions and misleading statements, sending investigators or counterterrorist teams on fruitless diversions. We have seen this in the criminal-justice system, where the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against coercive interrogation, if observed, helps guard against erroneous prosecutions. False confessions figured in about twenty per cent of the two hundred sixty-six convictions that have been reversed based on DNA evidence, according to the Innocence Project’s count. And that’s just in the cases where DNA evidence is available—a small minority.

Second, morality ought to be a comfortable pedestal for torture opponents. But there is something coarse and brutish about the public forum in America these days that undermines the moral footing and pulls those objecting to the abuse of prisoners down to low arguments about whether it works. They can hold their own in that fight, because there is a convenient alternative to torture: humane treatment. “One has to ‘go to school’ on each captive,” Colonel Stuart Herrington, a retired army intelligence officer who advised teams at Guantánamo, wrote in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette at the height of the debate, in 2007. He and his teams “collected mountains of excellent, verified information” in Vietnam, Panama, and the first Gulf War, he said, by learning the prisoner’s beliefs and fears, his hatreds and his loyalties, his family details and his “core vulnerability.”

But what if torture were the only way? Then the moral question would have to be engaged—and in a healthier debate. It would have to be about the terror suspect’s little daughter.

It would also be about us. Vladimir Bukovsky, the human-rights campaigner and veteran of Soviet prisons and psychiatric hospitals, warned Americans in 2005 about Russian torturers who descended into alcohol, drugs, criminal violence, or domestic abuse. He wrote in the Washington Post: “How can you force your officers and your young people in the C.I.A. to commit acts that will scar them forever? For scarred they will be, take my word for it.”

The notion that the United States can be hermetically sealed from its abuse of prisoners abroad is fanciful, as illustrated by investigations into torture committed by Chicago police from the early nineteen-seventies into the nineties. One method, hooking wires from a hand-cranked generator to various parts of suspects’ bodies, was nicknamed the “Vietnam special” or the “Vietnamese treatment.” In Vietnam, where an Army field phone had been used on prisoners, it had been called the “Bell Telephone hour.” The Chicago unit’s commander, Jon Burge, had served in Vietnam in a military-police company. He was convicted last year of perjury in connection with the torture in Chicago. We can only hope that the interrogators who have tortured terrorist suspects since 9/11 do not, or have not, become police officers.

Read David Remnick, Steve Coll, Lawrence Wright, Jon Lee Anderson, Dexter Filkins, Hendrik Hertzberg, George Packer, and more of our coverage of Osama bin Laden’s death.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

The Targeted Assassination of Osama Bin Laden

by Marjorie Cohn

Published on Tuesday, May 10, 2011 by CommonDreams.org

When he announced that Osama bin Laden had been killed by a Navy Seal team in Pakistan, President Barack Obama said, “Justice has been done.” Mr. Obama misused the word, "justice" when he made that statement. He should have said, "Retaliation has been accomplished." A former professor of constitutional law should know the difference between those two concepts. The word "justice" implies an act of applying or upholding the law.

Targeted assassinations violate well-established principles of international law. Also called political assassinations, they are extrajudicial executions. These are unlawful and deliberate killings carried out by order of, or with the acquiescence of, a government, outside any judicial framework.

Extrajudicial executions are unlawful, even in armed conflict. In a 1998 report, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions noted that “extrajudicial executions can never be justified under any circumstances, not even in time of war.” The U.N. General Assembly and Human Rights Commission, as well as Amnesty International, have all condemned extrajudicial executions.

In spite of its illegality, the Obama administration frequently uses targeted assassinations to accomplish its goals. Five days after executing Osama bin Laden, Mr. Obama tried to bring “justice” to U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who has not been charged with any crime in the United States. The unmanned drone attack in Yemen missed al-Awlaki and killed two people “believed to be al Qaeda militants,” according to a CBS/AP bulletin.

Two days before the Yemen attack, U.S. drones killed 15 people in Pakistan and wounded four. Since the March 17 drone attack that killed 44 people, also in Pakistan, there have been four drone strikes. In 2010, American drones carried out 111 strikes. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan says that 957 civilians were killed in 2010.

The United States disavowed the use of extrajudicial killings under President Gerald Ford. After the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence disclosed in 1975 that the CIA had been involved in several murders or attempted murders of foreign leaders, President Ford issued an executive order banning assassinations. Every succeeding president until George W. Bush renewed that order. However, the Clinton administration targeted Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, but narrowly missed him.

In July 2001, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel denounced Israel’s policy of targeted killings, or “preemptive operations.” He said “the United States government is very clearly on the record as against targeted assassinations. They are extrajudicial killings, and we do not support that.”

Yet after September 11, 2001, former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer invited the killing of Saddam Hussein: “The cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi people take it on themselves, is substantially less” than the cost of war. Shortly thereafter, Bush issued a secret directive, which authorized the CIA to target suspected terrorists for assassination when it would be impractical to capture them and when large-scale civilian casualties could be avoided.

In November 2002, Bush reportedly authorized the CIA to assassinate a suspected Al Qaeda leader in Yemen. He and five traveling companions were killed in the hit, which Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz described as a “very successful tactical operation.”

After the Holocaust, Winston Churchill wanted to execute the Nazi leaders without trials. But the U.S. government opposed the extrajudicial executions of Nazi officials who had committed genocide against millions of people. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, who served as chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, told President Harry Truman: “We could execute or otherwise punish [the Nazi leaders] without a hearing. But undiscriminating executions or punishments without definite findings of guilt, fairly arrived at, would … not set easily on the American conscience or be remembered by children with pride.”

Osama bin Laden and the “suspected militants” targeted in drone attacks should have been arrested and tried in U.S. courts or an international tribunal. Obama cannot serve as judge, jury and executioner. These assassinations are not only illegal; they create a dangerous precedent, which could be used to justify the targeted killings of U.S. leaders.

Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and past President of the National Lawyers Guild, is the deputy secretary general for external communications of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists.. She is the author of Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law and co-author of Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent (with Kathleen Gilberd). Her anthology, The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration and Abuse, is now available. Her articles are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com

Thursday, May 5, 2011

We MUST end Torture and hold accountable those who Do


By the way, like the near 600 comments on wired about Ashcroft as new Ethics Chief for Blackwater/Xe, Glen Greenwald has an Op Ed on The Illogic of the Torture Debate and also has a rousing 600 + letters to the editor:
GO here and GO here

Updated Friday, May 6 - New Item - on John Ashcroft/Xe-Blackwater GO here

According to this site (new to me) "More than merely a cliché, John Ashcroft really is holier than thou. His grandfather and father were both evangelical preachers, and Rev Ashcroft's" Find more little known facts here

Here's another timeline (qualified as I am not familiar with this site) going way back to setting up of the Patriot Act with this shocking kind of leadership:

GO here Visibility911.com October 12, 2001: Ashcroft Urges Agencies to Deny FOIA RequestsAttorney General Ashcroft encourages federal agencies to deny requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In a memo to all government departments and agencies, he states, “When you carefully consider FOIA requests and decide to withhold records, in whole or in part, you can be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions.” This is a dramatic shift from the Clinton Administration, which instructed federal officials to grant all information requests unless there was “foreseeable harm” in doing so. [Washington Post, 12/2/2002] The New York Times notes that while the new policy was announced after 9/11, “it had been planned well before the attacks.” [New York Times, 1/3/2003]

ACTIONS Suggested here

See more on Ashcroft's history at nomorecrusades.blogspot.com

John Ashcroft Time-Line on Abdullah al-Kidd & Related

SEE ACLU.org item as of May 5, 2011 here

Andy Worthington Osoma Bin Laden's Death and the Unjustifiable Defense of Torture and Gitmo here

Find plenty of related day-by-day items at the excellent for current items: Reader-supported News here

Be sure to take a scroll, at least, at the shocking background of Ashcroft just below and the questioning of presidential sanity in doing nothing to block the RE-hiring of the outlaw Blackwater/Xe company...

==============

Here's another on same case - with more reasons as to why it's counter-productive to torture here

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Blackwater's New Ethics or Old Nightmares ? Chief John Ashcroft


AP/Cliff Owen

Why, even for national and international security reasons ALONE, Ashcroft's background should exempt him from any role at all. What could be more of a red-flag branding hinting at a "Christian-Islam crusade" for the US so-called "war on terror"? Who but the extra-legal contractor Blackwater folk (including outlaw and shameful US representative, Raymond Davis, Xe )and other offshoots in Pakistan and around the world - LIBYA under auspices of CIA? What sort of dynamics could do greater damage to US reputation abroad and up the ante of more revenge attacks? So why NOW for Ashcroft to bring the spotlight on himself and at the same time on this shameful company?

Before I post the most current items which bring the spotlight once again on our USA's celebrated "Christian Crusader", the following mention of earlier notations concerning Ashcroft's history may be useful. See these carefully referenced items:

Findlaw's Legal Commentary, April 30, 2003. FindLaw's Writ - Cassel: A Recent Judicial Reprimand of Attorney ... Apr 30, 2003 ... A Recent Judicial Reprimand of Attorney General Ashcroft Exposes a Pattern of Gag Order and Ethics Violations By His Office. By ELAINE CASSEL ... John Walker Lindh and Lynne Stewart cases are part of the same pattern. GO here

In "The United States and Torture", 2011, New York University Press (the definitive and highly-acclaimed book edited by Marjorie Cohn, Law School Professor and longtime National Lawyer's Guild lawyer) Cohn's introduction 'An American Policy of Torture' includes Ashcroft's apparent leniency with detained US Citizen John Walker Lindh as setting the stage for the rest of the book and the story of US complicity with torture:

"...Ashcroft permitted (Lindh) to plead guilty to lesser offenses that garnared him 20 years. The condition: that Lindh declare he suffered "no deliberate mistreatment" while in custody. The cover-up was under way."

On page 14 of Cohn's same intro find: "On February 7, 2002, Bush signed a memo erroneously stating that the Geneval Conventions, which require humane treatment, did not apply to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. But the Supreme Court made clear that Geneva protects all prisoners. Bush admitted that he approved of high-level meetings of the Principals Committee in which harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, were authorized by Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, JOHN ASHCROFT, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, and George Tenet."

In this same book edited by Cohn, Professor Alfred W. McCoy, one of the most highly respected experts on torture says, "...up the chain of command, Condoleezza Rice, then National Security Adviser, later recalled that, after the 'CIA sought policy approval from the National Security Counsel (NSC) to begin an inerrogation program for high-level al-Qaida terrorists,' she 'convened a series of meetings of NSC princiipals in 2002 and 2003.' After watching CIA operatives mime 'certain physical and psychological interrogation techniques,' this group - including Vice President Cheney, ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT...(etc.) repeatedly authorized extreme psychological techniques stiffened by hitting, walling, and waterboarding." (Add here that Jordan J. Paust GO here see under Background Law Jordan J. Praust's piece which includes '...US Use of Drones in Pakistan' ) in Cohn's book, adds to the Ashcroft et al committee: other torture methods such as "inducment of hypothermia" and "use of dogs to crate intense fear", various forms of sexual and self-dignity types of humiliations and the "cold cell". Paust says, with respect to the ...contributions of this above mentioned team, including John Yoo, that President George W. Bush was quoted as stating,'Yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."

'During one of these meetings, Ashcroft asked aloud: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly." Yet according to CIA records, Ashcroft approved "expanded use" of enhanced techniques at meetings in July and September 2003, even when 'informed that the waterboard had been used 119 times on an individual'. Even after the broadcast of the Abu Ghraib photos, these principals still met to consider the continued use of CIA torture techniques." (end overall 2 paragraph quote by McCoy with short internal quotes in first paragraph from Rice)

In the following note, I raise further questions which we need to ask of Ashcroft for the sake of the legacy and "state of security or insecurity" we are leaving to our children all:

NOTE: "Ethics Chief? Ashcroft? What a joke! ...Some of the opinion items just coming out may be a bit tongue-in-cheek - if not asking whether we are living in a "real world" or something surreal beyond our worst nightmares - for which only sardonic humor will sometimes offer a bit of mitigating balm..

For doubters, beyond the Professor McCoy quotes above which clearly shows that Ashcroft was/is no dunce nor can be excused as naive - yet for the sake of us all worldwide - the new "ethics" chief of Blackwater is in dire need of constant "motives" surveillance himself in order to expose to younger generations just the sort of ambitions and cover-up needs out of which he may be operating...

On this post, and in an easy library search, there's plenty of factual/actual corroborated information -- going back to before the declaration of Cheney's foreshadowing that the US would be often working "from the dark side" to show Ashcroft's true colors...

============
Blackwater’s New Ethics Chief: John Ashcroft
By Spencer Ackerman May 4, 2011
"Wired" and elsewhere

The consortium in charge of restructuring the world’s most infamous private-security firm just added a new chief in charge of keeping the company on the straight and narrow. Yes, John Ashcroft, the former U.S. attorney general, is now an “independent director” of Xe Services, formerly known as Blackwater.

Ashcroft will head Xe’s new “subcommittee on governance,” its backers announced early Wednesday in a statement. The subcommittee is designed to “maximize governance, compliance and accountability” and “promote the highest degrees of ethics and professionalism within the private-security industry.”

In other words, no more shooting civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, no more signing for weapons its guards aren’t authorized to carry in war zones, no more impersonations of cartoon characters to acquire said weaponry, and no more ‘roids and coke on the job.

Ashcroft’s arrival at Xe is yet another clear signal it’s not giving up the quest for lucrative government security contracts now that it’s no longer owned by founder Erik Prince, even as it emphasizes the side of its business that trains law enforcement officers. In September, it won part of a $10 billion State Department contract to protect diplomats, starting with the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem.

Ashcroft, a U.S. senator before becoming attorney general in the Bush administration, is a very known quantity to the federal officials that Xe will pitch. Even if he’s not lobbying for Blackwater, Ashcroft’s addition on the board is meant to inspire confidence in government officials of its newfound rectitude.

To some, Ashcroft will be forever known as the face of Bush-era counterterrorism: the official who vigorously defended the Patriot Act’s sweeping surveillance powers; told civil libertarians that their dissents “only aid terrorists,” and covered up the Spirit of Justice’s boob. At the same time, when Ashcroft was critically ill in 2005, he resisted a White House mission to his hospital bed entreating him to reauthorize warrantless surveillance in defiance of the acting attorney general.

“This is a company with a strong history of service to its country, and a reputation of best-in-class offerings to its public and private customers,” Ashcroft said in a statement. “I look forward to helping USTC enhance its governance and oversight capabilities as the company moves forward,” referring to U.S. Training Center, another of Blackwater’s many names. Like scores of other senior security officials, Ashcroft has spent his post-government career running a Washington consulting firm.

Xe is still sorting out its leadership and searching for a permanent CEO. For now, the investor team that bought the company in December assembled and empowered a board of directors to run the shop along with the existing management. That board includes former National Security Agency director Bobby Ray Inman. Its chairman is Clear Channel co-founder Red McCombs.

Ashcroft and his new subcommittee will report to the board. “With the formation of this subcommittee, and with Ashcroft as its chair,” the firm says in the statement, “USTC aims to set the bar for industry standards against which all other companies will be measured.”

At wired.com find links to:

Despite Denials, Blackwater Still Working for U.S.
Getcher Special Edition Blackwater Shotguns!
Exclusive: Blackwater Wins Piece of $10 Billion Mercenary Deal

Spencer Ackerman is Danger Room's senior reporter, based out of Washington, D.C., covering weapons of doom and the strategies they're used to implement. Follow @attackerman and @dangerroom on Twitter.

For Ackerman's posting on wired.com GO here

==========
See also yesterday's Salon.com posting:
John Ashcroft takes image-rehab job with Blackwater
By Alex Pareene here

Former Attorney General John Aschcroft, one of the worst jokes of George W. Bush's first term, has a new job! (Not that you needed to worry about him starving on the street: He's been running a very lucrative lobbying firm since he left the Justice Department.) He is now the head of the newly created ethics committee for... Blackwater, the "private security firm" (mercenary army) that is best known for accepting billions of dollars in government money while murdering civilians, smuggling and stealing arms, and generally allowing their private army of reckless, drunken violence-junkies to operate wholly without oversight or consequences.

Because the name "Blackwater" has such a bad reputation, due to all the killing, they've embarked upon a series of cosmetic reforms: Changing their name to "Xe," bidding for contracts under the names of their dozens of fictitious front companies, and now starting up this ethics committee.

And nothing says credibility like bringing on the attorney general whose work establishing a permanent state of domestic emergency necessitated the massive "homeland security" industry that went on to make him a very wealthy man.

The hiring of Ashcroft -- a puritanical straight-and-narrow type -- is obviously meant to signal to government agencies that Blackwater has totally changed since founder and real piece of work Erik Prince departed the company to concentrate on pretending he's been persecuted for anything besides his impossibly irresponsible management. If they promise no more cocaine and porn, oh State Department, would you consider maybe giving them a couple more billion dollars?

============
For other notable milestones go to Wikileaks and Source Watch:

John David Ashcroft served as U.S. Attorney General from 2001 to 2004, and following that took a teaching position at Pat Robertson's Regent University as Distinguished Professor of Law and Government and formed a lobbying firm called the Ashcroft Group. He graduated from Yale in 1963 and received his J.D. from the University of Chicago in 1967, and is considered to be a neo-conservative, a devout Christian, and a grittily determined singer, even at staff meetings.

...In the 2000 election year, Ashcroft was defeated in his run for re-election to the U.S. Senate by Democrat Mel Carnahan, who remained on the Missouri ballot after he died in a plane crash. Less than three months later, Ashcroft won confirmation as President Bush's Attorney General by a 58-42 margin, the narrowest in recent times. Ashcroft announced his resignation as U.S. Attorney General on November 9, 2004. His handwritten letter was dated November 2nd, citing gratitude, success, and a belief in fresh leadership to take his place.

Ashcroft...was criticized by civil rights groups for opposing the nomination of a black Missouri Supreme Court justice to the federal bench. "He also has come under fire for comments he made to the Southern Partisan, a magazine defending the historical reputation of the Civil War-era Confederacy," CNN noted.

People for the American Way unsuccessfully campaigned against Ashcroft's nomination and released reports compiling his public statements on key issue...

Corruption in U.S. Government (words to remind Ashcroft he once made?)
Ashcroft has made bold public statements against corruption by public officials. In particular he highlighted the need for law enforcment and the Department Of Justice to keep their "own houses clean". Ashcroft believed that the majority of corruption in government is unreported, undetected, and escapes investigation and prosecution: "We know that we can only detect, investigate and prosecute a small percentage of those officials who are corrupt." (Why aren't you one of those few officials yesterday, Mr. Ashcroft?)

Compassionate conservative?

Associated Press religion writer Richard N. Ostling, wrote, in his February 10, 2001, article "Like Bush, Ashcroft wanted to give religious groups a bigger role in federal welfare reform. The obvious problem was how to maintain separation of church and state under the U.S. Constitution..."On the White House office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives, Ostling wrote: "Creation of the office is in concert with Bush's pledge to spend $8 billion in expanding 'charitable choice', in which churches and religious groups receiving federal funding to provide social services MAY NOW PROSELYTIZE'

Further references include:

"Profile: John Ashcroft," Right Web Profile (Somerville, NM: International Relations Center, December 21, 2007).
People for the American Way, "The Right-Wing Affiliations of Bush Administration Officials."
We're Not Destroying Rights, We're Protecting, Parade Magazine, May 19, 2002.

Elisabeth Bumiller and Eric Lichtblau, Attorney General Is Closely Linked to Inquiry Figures, New York Times, October 2, 2003: "Deep political ties between top White House aides and Attorney General John Ashcroft have put him into a delicate position as the Justice Department begins a full investigation into whether administration officials illegally disclosed the name of an undercover C.I.A. officer." Names of inquiry figures associated with Ashcroft are: Karl Rove and Jack Oliver.

Prosecutor in terror case controversy sues Ashcroft, USA Today, February 17, 2004: "A federal prosecutor in a major terrorism case in Detroit has taken the rare step of suing Attorney General John Ashcroft, alleging the Justice Department interfered with the case, compromised a confidential informant and exaggerated results in the war on terrorism. Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Convertino of Detroit accused the Justice Department of "gross mismanagement" of the war on terrorism in a whistleblower lawsuit filed late Friday in federal court in Washington. ... Justice officials said Tuesday they had not seen the suit and had no comment."
Bruce S. Ticker, "'The untouchables: Scalia and Ashcroft'," Smirking Chimp, April 27, 2004.

Through 2009 and related SOURCEWATCH here

Do keep in mind as I mentioned that, more than most stories for May 2011, early items on Ashcroft might be even more important than the ones just now surfacing (we have a general epidemic of Amnesisa which includes burned-out progressives and civil rights folk.)

One more earlier story:
Amy Goodman and Jeremy Scahill: the Ashcroft-Rove Connection Oct 2, 2003 "Does a Felon Rove the White House?"
GO here

Happy Hunting...only WE, the people, will decide whether or not Ashcroft's emerging profile is another nail on the coffin of our American reputation or whether we have a chance for ACTUAL CHANGE...

Additional NOTE: There are some shocking folk emerging from our recent hellish Bush era past - seeking and taking the helm again. What's going on? Plz forgive rather long posts from time to time here on this site - No More Crusades. For self and other researchers I want to note some documentation as new stories come up. I aim to be less complicated and to include more inspirational posts on my other site One Heart For Peace here

Sunday, May 1, 2011

Condemnation of Imperialist Bombing of Libya

While I'm not thoroughly conversant with the group emailing the following and don't necessarily agree with the IAC on every point, this one needs a serious read right now - it's the first of it's kind I've seen and I'm too tired to write my own or would. How absolutely disgraceful and without justification - the murder going on in Libya by NATO. How can any good come from this?

BREAKING NEWS: IAC condemns the NATO assassination on April 30 of Moammar Gadhafi's youngest son and three of his grandchildren in an attempted assassination of the leader of Libya. International Action Center Statement on Libya: U.S., Britain and France: Hands off Libya! Get out of Africa!

U.S., British and French imperialism have escalated their military intervention in Libya beyond the criminal bombardment of Libya, begun on March 19.

The one dominant imperialist power and the two former colonial rulers of the world jointly stated their intentions in a open letter published on April 15 in the Washington Post and other media. U.S. President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy wrote that their goal was to remove Moammar Gadhafi, the leader of Libya, for good. That’s what they call “regime change.” This is even in violation of the resolution rammed through the UN Security Council. It is international lawlessness on a grand scale.

Britain, France, and the U.S. possess the most destructive military machines on earth. Despite their internecine rivalries for plunder, despite the rejection of their plans by most African countries, despite the misgivings of their key NATO ally, Germany, they are at war. In arrogant defiance of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, who met recently and condemned the intervention, they have decided to move forward with the conquest of Libya. Italy, once the colonial master of Libya, has joined the criminal bombing.

Whatever reluctance U.S. imperialism may have had about the Libyan adventure, it is now on board with its junior partners in conquest. The next step, announced on April 19, is that Britain and France will be sending military officers into the Libyan city of Misrata to “advise” the collection of armed people that the corporate media calls “rebels.”

If the three imperialist powers have taken the first step toward the occupation of an African country, if Washington is ready to send “boots on the ground” for a third occupation, it is because they know that the so-called rebels are completely incapable of holding together — let alone winning a battle and forming a government — without step-by-step support from the imperialists. This means that however this “rebel” grouping may or may not have begun, it has lost any resemblance to a real national liberation movement or even a movement for bourgeois democracy — it is now a complete tool of the imperialists.

The leadership of this grouping has asked for the U.S. to use its AC-130 and A-10 Warthog planes to give close ground cover to its troops. These are planes only the Pentagon can provide. They fire a withering blast of thousands of shells a minute and have often employed depleted-uranium-reinforced shells, with long-term damaging effects on civilians.

The so-called “rebels” have also cheered the introduction of pilotless drones by the the imperialists. These futuristic weapons which are operated by remote control from halfway around the world are already being used by the U.S. in Afghanistan, Yemen, and other places, where the imperialists fear exposing their troops. Most of the drone attacks have been political assassinations which have killed many civilians.

As if the use of these weapons of slaughter weren’t enough to refute the “humanitarian” pretext given for this imperialist intervention, Sarkozy made it clear in another way when he stopped a train carrying refugees from Tunisia at the Italian-French border and sent the suffering people back. This is the Sarkozy the world knows, without his “humanitarian” mask. He advocated using steam water cannons on residents of North African heritage living in the French working-class suburbs in 2005.

These countries, through NATO, carried out the re-Balkanization of Yugoslavia. The U.S. is occupying Afghanistan. The U.S. and Britain have brought the Iraqi nation to ruin and sorrow. Now these three powers, through NATO, are attempting to reconquer Libya. They conspiring to weaken or overthrow the Syrian government and replace it with a compliant regime. It is beyond time to cut through the lies told in Washington, London, Paris and all the imperialist capitals and expose the role of these 19th-century colonial rulers grasping for a comeback.

These wars and occupations have nothing to do with alleged misdeeds of the national leaders, be they Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, the Taliban or Gadhafi. They are nothing but the imperialists’ attempt to reconquer and recolonize strategic regions. They are doing it with the resources stolen from workers and poor at home. It’s time we put a stop to them.

U.S., Britain, France — out of Africa!!

International Action Center

c/o Solidarity Center
55 W 17th St Suite 5C
New York, NY 10011
212-633-6646
iacenter@iacenter.org
www.iacenter.org