New docs show Rummy PERSONALLY involved in Gitmo torture

Recommended at Daily Kos and Booman Tribune. Also front paged at My Left Wing

As if the news regarding Rummy couldn't get worse for him, we have a new article by Salon.com indicating that he personally approved the use of forced nudity, stress positions and the removal of religious items against prisoners in Guantanamo.

Additionally, the document, obtained by Salon through the FOIA, discusses his weekly calls to Gitmo in order to discuss the interrogation of a "high value Al-Qaeda detainee", Mohammed al-Kahtani, who according to Army investigators have called "degrading and abusive" treatment by soldiers who were following the interrogation plan Rumsfeld had approved.

In response to the investigation of torture and other mistreatment of prisoners in Guantanamo, Rummy had the typical response:

Rumsfeld expressed puzzlement at the notion that his policies had caused the abuse. "He was going, 'My God, you know, did I authorize putting a bra and underwear on this guy's head?'" recalled Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt, an investigator who interviewed Rumsfeld twice in early 2005.

Well, what do you think would happen if you approve and mandate the strongest of "interrogation methods"?

Now, Kahtani isn't the cleanest of individuals when it comes to his past, but that certainly doesn't necessitate what was done to him. But, according to the recent report by Amnesty International regarding rendition, which I diaried about a couple of weeks ago,

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, echoing President Bush, has described Guantánamo detainee Mohammed al-Kahtani as "a very bad person". A harsh interrogation plan was approved for this Saudi national. According to recent revelations, Mohammed al-Kahtani was put on a plane, blindfolded in conditions of sensory deprivation, and made to believe that he was being flown to the Middle East. After several hours in the air, the plane returned to Guantánamo and Mohammed al-Kahtani was allegedly put in an isolation cell and subjected to harsh interrogations conducted by people he was encouraged to believe were Egyptian security agents. This is an interrogation technique known in the USA as "false flag" and was one of several methods authorized by Secretary Rumsfeld in April 2003. Another technique promoted by the Pentagon's April 2003 Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism is "threatening to transfer to a 3rd country where subject is likely to fear he would be tortured or killed".

In February 2002, following President Bush's decision to reject the application of the Geneva Conventions to those held in Guantánamo, the White House gave assurances that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) would be able to visit all detainees in private. The ICRC was denied access to Mohammed al-Kahtani during the period of interrogations described above. The ICRC protested such denial of access to a number of detainees in meetings with the Guantánamo authorities in late 2003. Four months later, in a meeting on 2 February 2004, the ICRC was informed that it could still not see one of the detainees "because of military necessity"

Now, I can't find much about what information was obtained from Kahtani, but he was said to be "the 20th hijacker" (funny, I thought that the 20th hijacker was already on trial....guess it is like the #3 Al-Qaeda person that had been captured at least 100 times). From the DoD, there is this release that says all of the "he is a bad man and in a post-9/11 world you can't be too sure about someone that may have lots of important information and blah blah blah...".

The Salon article goes on to note the following things about Rumsfeld's direct involvement:

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was personally involved in the late 2002 interrogation of a high-value al-Qaida detainee known in intelligence circles as "the 20th hijacker." He also communicated weekly with the man in charge of the interrogation, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the controversial commander of the Guantánamo Bay detention center.

During the same period, detainee Mohammed al-Kahtani suffered from what Army investigators have called "degrading and abusive" treatment by soldiers who were following the interrogation plan Rumsfeld had approved. Kahtani was forced to stand naked in front of a female interrogator, was accused of being a homosexual, and was forced to wear women's underwear and to perform "dog tricks" on a leash. He received 18-to-20-hour interrogations during 48 of 54 days.

Now, I only know my interrogation information from Jack Bauer and what I am reading over the past few years, but how does the above make it any more likely to obtain information from someone? Is degrading them going to shame them into giving up information or just get them angrier? Or is this just like "shock and awe" or the new idea of bombing Iran until the leadership is so ashamed that the people will rise up and revolt?

Interestingly, the report isn't as harsh on Maj. Gen. Miller, who was in charge of Gitmo.

The 391-page document -- which has long passages blacked out by the government -- concludes that Miller should not be punished for his oversight role in detainee operations, a fact that was reported last month by Time magazine. But the never-before-released full report also includes the transcripts of interviews with high-ranking military officials that shed new light on the role that Rumsfeld and Miller played in the harsh treatment of Kahtani, who had met with Osama bin Laden on several occasions and received terrorist training in al-Qaida camps.

In a sworn statement to the inspector general, Schmidt described Rumsfeld as "personally involved" in the interrogation and said that the defense secretary was "talking weekly" with Miller. Schmidt said he concluded that Rumsfeld did not specifically prescribe the more "creative" interrogation methods used on Kahtani. But he added that the open-ended policies Rumsfeld approved, and that the apparent lack of supervision of day-to-day interrogations permitted the abusive conduct to take place.

And lest we get another "I didn't know this was going on" moment from Rummy, I'll leave you with this damning testimony:

On Dec. 2, 2002, Rumsfeld approved 16 harsher interrogation strategies for use against Kahtani, including the use of forced nudity, stress positions and the removal of religious items. In public statements, however, Rumsfeld has maintained that none of the policies at Guantánamo led to "inhumane" treatment of detainees. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, told Salon Thursday that Kahtani was an al-Qaida terrorist who provided a "treasure trove" of still-classified information during his interrogation. "Al-Kahtani's interrogation was guided by a very detailed plan, conducted by trained professionals in a controlled environment, and with active supervision and oversight," Gordon said in an e-mail statement. "Nothing was done randomly."

---snip---

The harsh interrogation of Kahtani came to an abrupt end in mid-January 2003. Gen. James T. Hill, Craddock's predecessor as the head of Southern Command, recalled in his interview with the inspector general that he received a call from Rumsfeld on a January weekend asking about the progress of Kahtani's interrogation. "Someone had come to him and suggested that it needed to be looked at," Hill said of Rumsfeld. "He said, 'What do you think?' And I said, 'Why don't [you] let me call General Miller.'"

According to Hill's account of that call, Miller advised that the harsh interrogation of Kahtani should continue, using the techniques Rumsfeld had previously approved. "We think we're right on the verge of making a breakthrough," Hill remembered Miller saying. Hill said he called Rumsfeld back with the news. "The secretary said, 'Fine,'" Hill remembered.

Nonetheless, several days later Rumsfeld revoked the harsher interrogation methods, apparently responding to military lawyers who had raised concerns that they may constitute cruel and unusual punishment or torture.

A heckuva job you are doing, Rummy. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.....

Newsweek headline: "Leaker in Chief?"

I gotta say, daaaaaaaaaaamn.....

I just got my new issue of Newsweek and while I had to cringe when I saw Katie Couric on the cover, it didn't take more than a flip of a few pages for me to see a headline that made me very, VERY happy.

Titled "Leaker in chief?", the story is not a good one for Dear Leader and his merry band of criminals.  Even more interesting is that the story is co-authored by Michael Isikoff, who is no friend of the progressive community.

As a bonus at the link, there is a vote to ask, "Do you think President Bush authorized Scooter Libby to leak classified information", which is currently running at 90% yes.

The article starts out with some good setup:

George W. Bush likes to be seen as a man who dwells above the pettiness of political warfare. He has said he doesn't read the newspapers and shrugs off media criticism as carping of the chattering classes. Especially since 9/11, he has said that he looks to a higher power for guidance. He once threatened to stop sharing information with Capitol Hill if lawmakers didn't put a stop to leaking. "There are too many leaks of classified information," he told reporters in September 2003, "and if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is."

Last week a video clip of Bush making that statement became cable-TV wallpaper.

Bush, it appeared, was not above the old leaking game after all. The president who, as a younger man, once played the role of loyalty enforcer in his father's White House had not forgotten how to play hardball. According to a filing from the prosecutor in the Valerie Plame leak investigation, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, who has been indicted for lying in the case, told a grand jury that President Bush specifically authorized him to leak from an intelligence document on WMD in Iraq.

So, for people that have been living under a rock for the past three years, or at least the past week, they get a taste of how honest and up-front Dear Leader is.  The article goes on to cite a senior GOP aide that was afraid of the "Leaker in Chief" name sticking around and jeapordizing Republicans' chances in November, as well as point out that the White House has not even denied the central theme to Libby's claim.

Which brings me to a bit of a diversion - the same thing happened with the documents surrounding Bush's going AWOL, as well as many many other things that has gone on in the past few years.  The real charges and claims go unrefuted and a (usually small) side detail becomes the focus, and is picked up on by everyone.  

THIS MUST BE CHANGED.  The focus, as so eloquently put by BenGoshi should remain squarely on the leak and the lies surrounding the leak.  I'll add that there should be focus on how the leak damaged our ability to track Iran and nukes as well.

Anyway, back to the Newsweek article.  It perfectly points out an absolutely asinine response by the White House regarding Chimpy's involvement:

But by late last weekend, the White House was scrambling to distance Bush from the leak, putting out the word that the president had not been involved in tactical decisions--like who should leak, or picking which reporter to leak to.

If that is the best they can come up with, then I am thoroughly unimpressed.  He authorized the leak of classified information, but since he didn't say who it should be leaked by or leaked to, then it is ok.  Seems to me that fat Karl Rove is slipping in his ability to deflect blame.

It also brings Rice's lies and other inconsistencies into the mix.  

But the administration was unquestionably playing games with reporters, whether or not the president was directly involved.

For instance, on July 11, seven days before key portions of the NIE were released, reporters badgered the then national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice to allow them to see some of the NIE, which had been used by the administration to make the case for war with Congress. "We don't want to try to get into kind of selective declassification," said Rice, though she added, "We're looking at what can be made available."

What Rice did not say was that just a few days before, Libby, who was Cheney's chief of staff and national-security adviser, had been doing some highly selective leaking to Miller over breakfast at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington.

SMACK!!!!

Rice says that they don't want to be selectively declassifying information although they are doing just that.  No wonder she needs those real expensive boots because of all of the shit she is wading in.

There is a good piece that deals with Libby's conversation with Judith Miller, and how that doesn't really seem to correspond to the story that is being peddled by BushCo, linking Cheney, Bush, Libby and to the lies about Libby telling Miller that a highly classified National Intelligence Estimate had "firmly concluded that Iraq was seeking uranium.".

No one is accusing Bush of leaking Plame's name, but he started the ball rolling that ended up with her exposure.

Judging from Miller's account of her breakfast with Libby, the vice president's man went well beyond the "key judgments" of the NIE. The reference that Saddam was prospecting in Africa for uranium was inserted in the NIE's back pages, along with a dissent from intelligence analysts at the State Department who were "highly dubious" about the report. A former U.S. intelligence official who declined to speak for the record due to the sensitivity of the matter told news-week that the NIE staff, writing under strict time pressures, adopted a "kitchen sink" approach, throwing in all sorts of reports that had not been fully vetted.

The dissenting opinions were included in the declassified NIE released to the press on July 18, 2003. But Libby said nothing about them to Miller when he was leaking to her on July 8.  The filing by Fitzgerald ties Cheney more directly to Libby's leak than any evidence so far.

The article ends by asking whether Libby will want to call Cheney and Bush as witnesses at his trial.  Then they would have to finally answer some questions under oath and on record.  Something that they no doubt want to avoid at all costs.  And something that no doubt would also uncover or confirm parts of what really happened during 2002 and 2003.  Or, with the mountains of testimony and evidence that Fitzgerald already has, prove that Cheney and Bush were knee deep in the middle of this.

And quite probably lying about their roles.

It's good to see that Newsweek is finally joining the party.  Just a few years late, but at this point I'll welcome anyone that decides to actually report the truth.

In case you missed Olbermann hit one out last night...

Cross-posted and Recommended at Daily Kos

Hopefully you read Six Degrees of Aaron's diary yesterday and/or were able to watch Olbermann, Joseph Wilson and David Shuster absolutely shred Dear Leader, Libby, Cheney and the administration in general on their lies about the CIA leak investigation, the selective declassification of NIE information, their lies and head in the sand approach about what is going on in Iraq, the ever dropping poll numbers, among other items.

The full transcript of the show is here and it was definitely good to watch them calmly and methodically call them the absolute fucking liars and criminals that they are.

The segment started with a clip of Bush talking about his decision to declassify certain information in the NIE because he "wanted people to see the truth", which Olbermann immediately called bullshit on. And it got better from there.

Hopefully, a clip of the segment will be available at some time, but the transcript is a must read. Some of the choice parts are below:

The set-up by Olbermann:

But first, the president`s extraordinary explanation. He told students at Johns Hopkins University that he wanted people to see the truth, again insisted that he couldn`t really talk about the leak investigation, and then promptly really talked about the leak investigation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: There`s an ongoing legal proceeding, which precludes me from talking a lot about the case. There`s also an ongoing investigation. It`s a serious investigation.

I will say this, that after we liberated Iraq, there was questions in people`s minds about, you know, about the basis on which I made the statements, in other words, going into Iraq. And so I decided to declassify the NIE for a reason. I wanted to see people--people to see what some of those statements were based on. So I wanted to see. I wanted people to see the truth. And thought it made sense for people to see the truth. And that`s why I declassified the document.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Ok, so besides the fact that he is just flat out lying, it just kills me that this guy can't string words together to make a coherent sentence or thought. He wanted people to see the truth, so he declassified information that was, at best, misleading and more likely outright fabrications. Back to Olbermann, who basically confirmed the lies:

OLBERMANN: But the parts of the document, the NIE, that were declassified and then revealed by Scooter Libby, namely the claim that Saddam Hussein was trying to purchase uranium ore from Niger, had already been deemed at best dubious by Mr. Bush`s own spy services. A memo from the National Intelligence Council sent to the White House in January 2003 baldly stated that the story was baseless and should be ignored.

--snip--

In fact, the claim was not a judgment at all, and the NIE contained nothing about Iraq vigorously pursuing uranium.

Then, Olbermann's interview with Joe Wilson was direct, and once again shone a spotlight on the depths and lengths that Cheney, Bush, Libby, Rove and others went to lie about Iraq, smear Wilson's name and pointed out the damage caused to Wilson and Plame as a result of this concerted effort. I have reproduced highlights below, but you should still read the entire interview as it isn't a long one. All emphasis is mine.

OLBERMANN: The president says today he declassified the NIE to show the American people the truth, yet the information that was in it had already been thoroughly debunked as, at best, wildly unreliable....

WILSON: Well, of course, over the weekend, there was a lot of reporting that fleshed out the assessment of the total document, the National Intelligence Estimate. I had known for a long time, since the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report came out, that the Senate was informed in October of 2002, and the White House shortly thereafter, that, in the judgment of the CIA and the intelligence community, the British had stretched and/or exaggerated the case of uranium sales from Africa to Iraq.

The national intelligence officer wrote a piece in the middle of January, again, before the State of the Union address, in which he said, as you pointed out, the charge was baseless.

.....Mr. Libby leaked certain portions of it, which were not sustainable by all the facts. And my wife and I have had to endure a three-year smear campaign, orchestrated, as the filing says, by multiple sources in the White House and elements within the RNC and the right-wing echo chamber.

WILSON:....I think we would benefit from their releasing the White House transcripts of their conversations with Mr. Fitzgerald, so we can all know precisely what they knew then and what they testified to.

OLBERMANN: Do you believe that what the president said today amounted to an admission to starting this ball rolling, or this snowball going downhill?

WILSON: Well, I think the president was well within his rights to declassify the entire document. I would have loved that, as I said. It was really just the selective leaking of portions of it that are--should be some--troublesome.

I`d also point out, of course, that the declassification of the document was not matched by a publication of the document. It was selectively leaked to one reporter, and it was a perpetuation, essentially, of the disinformation campaign that had been in place when they made the State of the Union address in the first place.

OLBERMANN: Mr. Fitzgerald still has not filed any charges that directly relate to the leaking of your wife`s name or any other secret information. He made it clear from the beginning of this that he was probably not going down that route.

If this is all we get prosecutorially, are you satisfied? Do you feel vindicated?

WILSON: Well, let me just say, first of all, that Mr. Fitzgerald has said repeatedly, both in the indictment and in subsequent filings, that Valerie was a classified officer, and as a consequence, she was covered by law.

And anybody who leaked her name is in violation of the national security of the country, even if it`s not prosecutable. It`s the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. It is what is called in the business a security violation.

I find it appalling that the president continues to retain on his staff these multiple White House officials who were involved in leaking her name, beginning with Karl Rove. I believe he`s betrayed the national security of the country. I believe he and the others have betrayed the public trust of the country. I can`t imagine the president wanting them still on his staff.

The way that Wilson has handled himself in the interviews over the past few years has been outstanding. He is extremely articulate, as he was again last night. His ability to get right to the point in a clear, concise and cohesive manner is something that, in my opinion, adds not only to his credibility but also to his message.

To drive the point home, Olbermann had David Shuster on to discuss the new poll numbers of Bush, as well as some discussion on how even Republicans are saying that Bush didn't follow his own procedures regarding declassification, how there is no credibility left and how there are still gaps in the timeline. A few snippets:

OLBERMANN: These poll numbers, they`re pretty self-explanatory on the surface, but this little semantical dance today about the declassifying the National Intelligence Estimate, that he, at best, should have known was full of false information, is that expected to impact those poll numbers, those specific areas of the president`s reputation?

SHUSTER: Well, it could impact them. And it could bring them down, Keith, to the extent that the American people see this as a further bolstering of the narrative they already have of this administration, and that is, the idea that this is administration that cherry-picks intelligence and plays by its own rules.

--snip--

OLBERMANN: Even Republicans have been asking for full disclosure by the administration on this topic, Senator Specter saying yesterday that the president and the vice president owe a specific explanation about what they did to the American people. Is the president`s admission about the declassification of the NIE going to be enough to cover the Republican response to this?

SHUSTER: No, because even the Republicans are pointing out that the Bush administration in this case did not follow its own procedures. The idea that the only people who knew about this declassification, the president, the vice president, Scooter Libby, that doesn`t follow procedures. A number of Republicans want to know, how come former CIA director George Tenet was kept in the dark?

Furthermore, there are lot of questions that even Republicans suggest go right to the heart of the president`s credibility crisis, and that is, they`re asking for the president to explain, why did he make those statements three years ago saying that he did not know of anybody in his administration who had leaked classified or sensitive information? That`s the problem many Republicans are having.

--snip--

SHUSTER: But the other thing to focus on, Keith, and that is the next shoe to drop that many people here in this town believe is the whole idea of most of the conversation that Judy Miller remembers of her meeting with Scooter Libby on July 8 that was prompted by the vice president saying, Yes, you`ve got the authority to talk to Judy Miller from the president, most of the conversation she remembers was not about the National Intelligence Estimate but was about Valerie Plame, about her identity, and where she worked at the CIA.

--snip--

And secondly, did the vice president at any point in his conversations with the president make some sort of mention of this other information, not the NIE, but Valerie Plame`s status at the CIA? Did the president and vice president talk about that?

Not that Olbermann isn't pretty much always right on point and great - he has been on "taboo" areas including the election in 2004, the CIA leak (from the early days), and other crimes of this administration for a while now.

But yesterday's show, complete with a great interview with Wilson, was a home run and hopefully is an indication of more to come.

If you want to send him a note of thanks, the email address is countdown@msnbc.com.

LA Times: US military secrets for sale at Afghan bazaar

Unfuckingbelieveable.  Let me guess, we are "letting them steal our military secrets over there so they don't have to do it over here".

Today's LA Times is reporting that flash memory cards stolen from US military personnel computers are being sold at local bazaars.

And the information being sold includes military secrets, social security numbers of US military personnel, assessments of enemy targets, as well as details about American defense strategies.

Tell me again how much safer we are?

This is just mind-blowing in its sloppiness, lack of safeguarding and dangerous incompetence.  According to the article:

No more than 200 yards from the main gate of the sprawling U.S. base here, stolen computer drives containing classified military assessments of enemy targets, names of corrupt Afghan officials and descriptions of American defenses are on sale in the local bazaar.

Shop owners at the bazaar say Afghan cleaners, garbage collectors and other workers from the base arrive each day offering purloined goods, including knives, watches, refrigerators, packets of Viagra and flash memory drives taken from military laptops. The drives, smaller than a pack of chewing gum, are sold as used equipment.

The information contained on the stolen cards is more than enough for anyone with the motivation to find out detailed personal information about the serviceman and servicewomen, as well as other information that could easily lead to identity theft.  But wait, it gets worse - reporters who were able to obtain some of these memory cards were able to access documents that were labeled "Secret" and others that contained sensitive information relating to Pakistan, names of militants that were targeted for "kill" or "capture" as well as names of Afghan government officials who the US military considers to be "problem makers".

The article describes the types of information that is being stolen, and it certainly seems to be a HUGE security breach on both a personal and a national level:

[t]he drives also included deployment rosters and other documents that identified nearly 700 U.S. service members and their Social Security numbers, information that identity thieves could use to open credit card accounts in soldiers' names.

After choosing the name of an army captain at random, a reporter using the Internet was able to obtain detailed information on the woman, including her home address in Maryland and the license plate numbers of her 2003 Jeep Liberty sport utility vehicle and 1998 Harley Davidson XL883 Hugger motorcycle.

A flash drive also contained a classified briefing about the capabilities and limitations of a "man portable counter-mortar radar" used to find the source of guerrilla mortar rounds. A map pinpoints the U.S. camps and bases in Iraq where the sophisticated radar was deployed in March 2004.

Think that is bad?  Well the worst part is that, according to the shop owners, a lot of the stolen drives are being sold by US military personnel themselves:

Workers are supposed to be frisked as they leave the base, but they have various ways of deceiving guards, such as hiding computer drives behind photo IDs that they wear in holders around their necks, shop owners said. Others claim that U.S. soldiers illegally sell military property and help move it off the base, saying they need the money to pay bills back home.

Now, who knows if the Afghan shop owners are even telling the truth.  But the fact is that the military base close to the bazaar has suffered security lapses in the past, and we do know that this administration isn't the kindest to those who it is shipping off into harm's way.  But the potential is there for servicemen who are in dire need of money are selling computer drives and other military equipment that they may think is wiped clean of data when it isn't.  There may be a more sinister motive, but I am not going to speculate on that.

Either way, the fact that US military personnel are in a position where they can't afford to pay their bills at home while they are serving their country overseas is enough to make you want to scream.  And I am not in any position to consider their thoughts, motives or stress levels, so I won't do so.

However, all that being said, you can't overlook the fact that there is some HIGHLY sensitive and detailed (and damning) information contained on these computers and is now available for sale:

One of the computer drives stolen from Bagram contained a series of slides prepared for a January 2005 briefing of American military officials that identified several Afghan governors and police chiefs as "problem makers" involved in kidnappings, the opium trade and attacks on allied troops with improvised bombs.

The chart showed the U.S. military's preferred methods of dealing with the men: "remove from office; if unable marginalize."

A chart dated Jan. 2, 2005, listed five Afghans as "Tier One Warlords." It identified Afghanistan's former defense minister Mohammed Qassim Fahim, current military chief of staff Abdul Rashid Dostum and counter-narcotics chief Gen. Mohammed Daoud as being involved in the narcotics trade. All three have denied committing crimes.

Another slide presentation identified 12 governors, police chiefs and lower-ranking officials that the U.S. military wanted removed from office. The men were involved in activities including drug trafficking, recruiting of Taliban fighters and active support for Taliban commanders, according to the presentation, which also named the military's preferred replacements.

The briefing said that efforts against Afghan officials were coordinated with U.S. special operations teams and must be approved by top commanders as well as military lawyers who apply unspecified criteria set by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

So we want democracy as long as it is the people that are hand picked.  Doesn't sound too much like a democracy to me, or that "freedom is on the march" in Afghanistan.  Additionally, our newest best friend in the "WarOnTerror^TM", Pakistan, comes off in a bad light based on the stolen information.  Among the documents that were stolen, there were the following:

Other documents on the computer drives listed senior Taliban commanders and "facilitators" living in Pakistan. The Pakistani government strenuously denies allegations by the Afghan government that it is harboring Taliban and other guerrilla fighters.

An August 2004 computer slide presentation marked "Secret" outlined "obstacles to success" along the border and accused Pakistan of making "false and inaccurate reports of border incidents." It also complained of political and military inertia in Pakistan.

Half a year later, other documents indicated that little progress had been made. A classified document from early 2005 listing "Target Objectives" said U.S. forces must "interdict the supply of IEDs (improvised explosive devices) from Pakistan" and "interdict infiltration routes from Pakistan."

A special operations task force map highlighting militants' infiltration routes from Pakistan in early 2005 included this comment from a U.S. military commander: "Pakistani border forces [should] cease assisting cross border insurgent activities."

Not good, people.  Why would anyone in the world want to have anything to do with a bully that can't even control its own secret information, let alone leaks classified information to the press for personal gain, lies its' country into a war of choice, ruins any allies it has, undermines its own efforts to track nuclear weapons information to and from Iran and around the world as well as colossally waste any amount of good will that the world had towards us after 9/11?

Another black eye for the US and its military.  Another blow to international relations in tracking terrorist activity.  Another colossal fuck up for this dangerously incompetent administration.

What if BushCo threw a war and no one came?

Cross posted at Daily Kos and front paged at Booman Tribune

In reading the Seymour Hersh article in the New Yorker, one consistent theme is how batshit insane of an idea many, many, MANY people (and some very important people for that matter), think it is to bomb Iran.

And with all of the great diaries posted over the past couple of days and theories about why so much of this information is coming out now by different credible sources, you wonder just who, outside of the hardcore neocon group and Ahmadinejad himself, is really in support of this.

The amount of different authorities, countries, leaders, Pentagon officials, intelligence officials and others cited by Hersh as against military action, especially nuclear weapons used against Iran is staggering. At least BushCo lied, blackmailed and threatened its way into a "coalition of the willing" in Iraq. How can they do this with no support, not even from senior Pentagon officials?

We know that with this major push for conflict, bombing, war, whatever you want to call it, the ability to mitigate Iran's nuclear program was severly damaged by the leak of Plame's identity. We also hear from authorities including Hans Blix that Iran is years away from producing a weapon, and that Robert Gallucci, a former government expert on nonproliferation who is now the dean of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown, recently said:

"Based on what I know, Iran could be eight to ten years away" from developing a deliverable nuclear weapon. Gallucci added, "If they had a covert nuclear program and we could prove it, and we could not stop it by negotiation, diplomacy, or the threat of sanctions, I'd be in favor of taking it out. But if you do it"--bomb Iran--"without being able to show there's a secret program, you're in trouble."

All this despite the fact that it seems as if it is 2002 and early 2003 all over again.

But there was nearly 70% support for invading Iraq as of June 2003. And there was an 87% approval level for the invasion of Afghanistan long after the bombing started. But early on, there was only a 42% support level for bombing Iran recently, and that number doesn't seem to be getting any higher. So there is little support at home, no support internationally (Europe, the UN, the IAEA, even the UK), and much dissent even within the highest levels of the Pentagon.

The amount of opposition to BushCo's latest proposed adventure, the apparent semi-reawakening and willingness of some in the press to actually do their jobs and report this opposition and the passion behind these objections made me really think that we are getting close to a tipping point where Dear Leader and his inner circle are running so scared and, being pinned in a corner, are going to do something real drastic to either save themselves or go out in an, um, blaze of shame "glory".

And it seems as though there is some momentum behind the disassociation and distancing from Bush and his inner crew. Hell, just this past weekend, my dad not only reiterated how corrupt and criminal this administration is, he laughed at Katherine Harris and will probably vote for Nelson in November, so the defections are starting to reach the true republican voters.

Back to the Hersh article though. For those of you who haven't read it, please take a few minutes and read it - you won't be disappointed. And even if you did, take note of the HUGE opposition to the "next central front in the WarOnTerrah^TM, even to the point of mocking:

From a former defense official:

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government." He added, "I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, `What are they smoking?' "

Former senior intelligence official:

"Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout--we're talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don't have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out"--remove the nuclear option--"they're shouted down."

From a senior Pentagon Advisor:

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it "a juggernaut that has to be stopped." He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. "There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," the adviser told me. "This goes to high levels." The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. "The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks," the adviser said. "And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen."

Wow. The Joint Chiefs of Staff will formally advise the administration to NOT use the "nook-you-lur opshun". Direct comments that, in this 1984 world we are living in could be construed as being insubordinate to the Commander-in-Chief by top military officials. Would they (could they?) refuse orders to bomb suspected facilities and sites in Iran? Would that (could that?) be construed as some sort of coup?

Again from the senior Pentagon advisor:

"The Iranians have distributed their nuclear activity very well, and we have no clue where some of the key stuff is. It could even be out of the country," he said. He warned, as did many others, that bombing Iran could provoke "a chain reaction" of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world: "What will 1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?"

Not a good outcome there...

Other experts as well: Joseph Cirincione, the director for nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:

"The unfolding administration strategy appears to be an effort to repeat its successful campaign for the Iraq war." He noted several parallels:

The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. Secretary of State tells Congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The Secretary of Defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism.

Cirincione called some of the Administration's claims about Iran "questionable" or lacking in evidence. When I spoke to him, he asked, "What do we know? What is the threat? The question is: How urgent is all this?" The answer, he said, "is in the intelligence community and the I.A.E.A." (In August, the Washington Post reported that the most recent comprehensive National Intelligence Estimate predicted that Iran was a decade away from being a nuclear power.)

Or the IAEA....

The agency's officials believe that Iran wants to be able to make a nuclear weapon, but "nobody has presented an inch of evidence of a parallel nuclear-weapons program in Iran," the high-ranking diplomat told me. The I.A.E.A.'s best estimate is that the Iranians are five years away from building a nuclear bomb. "But, if the United States does anything militarily, they will make the development of a bomb a matter of Iranian national pride," the diplomat said.

What about our biggest partners in the "coalition of the willing"?

"The Brits think this is a very bad idea," Flynt Leverett, a former National Security Council staff member who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center, told me, "but they're really worried we're going to do it." The European diplomatic adviser acknowledged that the British Foreign Office was aware of war planning in Washington but that, "short of a smoking gun, it's going to be very difficult to line up the Europeans on Iran." He said that the British "are jumpy about the Americans going full bore on the Iranians, with no compromise."

--snip--

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said last year that military action against Iran was "inconceivable."

Or Europe in general?

The Europeans are rattled, however, by their growing perception that President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney believe a bombing campaign will be needed, and that their real goal is regime change. "Everyone is on the same page about the Iranian bomb, but the United States wants regime change," a European diplomatic adviser told me.

--snip--

Other European officials expressed similar skepticism about the value of an American bombing campaign. "The Iranian economy is in bad shape, and Ahmadinejad is in bad shape politically," the European intelligence official told me. "He will benefit politically from American bombing. You can do it, but the results will be worse." An American attack, he said, would alienate ordinary Iranians, including those who might be sympathetic to the U.S. "Iran is no longer living in the Stone Age, and the young people there have access to U.S. movies and books, and they love it," he said. "If there was a charm offensive with Iran, the mullahs would be in trouble in the long run."

Another European official told me that he was aware that many in Washington wanted action. "It's always the same guys," he said, with a resigned shrug. "There is a belief that diplomacy is doomed to fail. The timetable is short."

The drumbeats for bombing Iran seem to be falling on deaf ears. BushCo's credibility is at an all time low. More scandals and crimes are being linked back to the highest levels of the administration. There are high level resignations. Calls for censure are already resonating with the public. Desperate times call for desperate measures, especially from this dangerously incompetent crew. But what if no one buys into the same tired rhetoric? What if the opposition is so loud and so clear and at such high levels that there is no support? What can happen to BushCo if they still try to order bombings? What if more top level Pentagon, intelligence and military officials leave?

What if they threw a war and no one came?

Let's not forget that Plame was tracking IRAN and nukes

Cross Posted and recommended at Daily Kos and My Left Wing

I'm calling bullshit right now on this whole march towards war with Iran. And someone in the fucking press better do so as well.

In all of the excitement in today's revelations about Libby's grand jury testimony that Bush (through Cheney) authorized the leaking of classified information to the press some very important things can't be forgotten.

With all this talk about how dangerous Iran is and how they are THISCLOSE to getting nook-you-lur weapons and must be stopped, let's not forget that Valerie Plame and her colleagues were tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran.

Let's also remember the similarities between the Iraq war calls and the same damn script being used towards Iran, just with a small change to the last letter of the country that Dear Leader and his merry band of criminals want to invade, now that they have fucked up both Iraq and Afghanistan.

But don't you think that if Iran was labeled as part of the "Axis of Evil", is supporting terrorism and looking to develop a nuclear weapons program then, by authorizing the leak of classified information that led directly to the collapsing of a network of CIA operatives who were looking to make sure that it didn't obtain these weapons would be, oh, maybe "aiding and providing comfort to the enemy"?

Let's remember what was previously reported on the "counter intelligence assessment to agency operations":

According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran.

Speaking under strict confidentiality, intelligence officials revealed heretofore unreported elements of Plame's work. Their accounts suggest that Plame's outing was more serious than has previously been reported and carries grave implications for U.S. national security and its ability to monitor Iran's burgeoning nuclear program.

While many have speculated that Plame was involved in monitoring the nuclear proliferation black market, specifically the proliferation activities of Pakistan's nuclear "father," A.Q. Khan, intelligence sources say that her team provided only minimal support in that area, focusing almost entirely on Iran.

Well, isn't that just lovely. A year after Bush hung a bull's eye on Iran's back in his State of the Union Address and is currently public enemy #1 (Iraq who? Afghanistan what?), he (and other very high ranking officials in his administration) authorize the leak of information that leads directly to the destruction of a program that was tracking and trying to stop its development of a nuclear weapons program.

And now they want us to believe that this country is a "grave threat to the world", depending on who you choose to believe, and must be stopped?

What the fuck?

It certainly seems like this is a situation that they created by outing Plame and Brewster Jennings.

Intelligence sources would not identify the specifics of Plame's work. They did, however, tell RAW STORY that her outing resulted in "severe" damage to her team and significantly hampered the CIA's ability to monitor nuclear proliferation.

Plame's team, they added, would have come in contact with A.Q. Khan's network in the course of her work on Iran.

--snip--

Intelligence sources familiar with the damage assessment say that what is called a "counter intelligence assessment to agency operations" was conducted on the orders of the CIA's then-Deputy Director of the Directorate of Operations, James Pavitt.

Former CIA counterintelligence officer Larry Johnson believes that such an assessment would have had to be done for the CIA to have referred the case to the Justice Department.

"An exposure like that required an immediate operational and counter intelligence damage assessment," Johnson said. "That was done. The results were written up but not in a form for submission to anyone outside of CIA."

One former counterintelligence official described the CIA's reasons for not seeking Congressional assistance on the matter as follows: "[The CIA Leadership] made a conscious decision not to do a formal inquiry because they knew it might become public," the source said. "They referred it [to the Justice Department] instead because they believed a criminal investigation was needed."

The source described the findings of the assessment as showing "significant damage to operational equities."

Three intelligence officers confirmed that other CIA non-official cover officers were compromised, but did not indicate the number of people operating under non-official cover that were affected or the way in which these individuals were impaired. None of the sources would say whether there were American or foreign casualties as a result of the leak.

Several intelligence officials described the damage in terms of how long it would take for the agency to recover. According to their own assessment, the CIA would be impaired for up to "ten years" in its capacity to adequately monitor nuclear proliferation on the level of efficiency and accuracy it had prior to the White House leak of Plame Wilson's identity.

So with all of this news about Libby's testimony (which by the way he and Cheney aren't really known for being truthful and this could have been planned to hang dumb Georgie), let's also remember another fucked up angle to this story. As the call for war with Iran grows louder, and the talk about how close Iran is to gaining nuclear weapons, just remember that it was Bush, Libby, Cheney, Rove and who knows who else that, by opening their mouths created a situation where Iran's ability to obtain nuclear weapons was certainly greatly "aided and abetted".

And Valerie Plame was trying to stop Iran from doing so before her cover was blown.

That can not and must not be overlooked in all of these developments.

New tests show high levels of arsenic and toxins in NOLA soil

Cross-posted at Booman Tribune and Daily Kos

It seems like déjà vu all over again. After 9/11, the air in lower Manhattan was contaminated with asbestos and other carcinogens, leading to cancer cases among those who spent time down there cleaning up and sorting through the rubble and debris. And the EPA, under orders from Dear Leader, declared the air as safe to breathe, despite warnings that it most certainly wasn't.

And now, a full seven months after Katrina hit, new studies find that soil levels in St. Bernard Parish contain diesel and arsenic levels beyond the state approved levels. But the real kicker here is that the company who is responsible for the spilling of 25,000 barrels of oil, Murphy Oil Company, is refusing to help in the clean up of people's homes where the oil and toxins have reached and settled.

On top of that, the EPA and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality are indicating that this is not their problem to deal with either, punting this to the Center for Disease Control ("CDC") or Health and Human Services, all while acknowledging that the "sludge" contains harmful bacteria.

But a spokesman for HHS said the agency has no statutory responsibility for what's inside a private dwelling. A spokesperson for the CDC said it's not a regulatory agency and must be asked as part of a public health response to enter private homes. And, the EPA has tested inside people's homes before, so this is not unprecedented.

For a bit of background, the CDC's website has this to say about the Murphy Oil spill:

Hurricane Katrina lifted and dislodged a 250,000 barrel aboveground storage tank (tank # 250-2) at the New Orleans Murphy Oil Refinery. At the time, the tank contained 65,000 barrels of mixed crude oil and released approximately 25,110 barrels (1.05 million gallons). The released oil has affected approximately 1,700 homes in an adjacent residential neighborhood, an area of about 1 square mile. Several canals have also been affected: the 20 Arpent, the 40 Arpent, the Meraux, the Corinnes, the Delarond, and various unnamed interceptor canals.

On September 4, 2005, Murphy notified the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 Response and Prevention Branch (EPA-RPB) about an oil spill at the Murphy Meraux facility in Meraux, St.Bernard Parish, Louisiana and requested assistance. EPA and the U.S.Coast Guard (USCG) agreed to divide responsibility for the spill. EPA is overseeing Murphy's cleanup of oil in residential properties and properties accessible to the public (parks, school yards, roads, highway median strips, sidewalks, etc.). EPA is also assisting with the treatment and remediation of oil-impacted canals for clean-up levels that will be determined by key stakeholders and regulatory authorities.

The CDC website also includes a chart that indicates some of the soil samples that have toxin levels that exceed the minimum acceptable levels. Of the 53 samples taken, over 1/3 of them have levels exceeding the minimum standard. These toxins include diesel fuel, arsenic, as well as a number of semi-volatile and volatile organic chemicals.

According to the Louisiana Environmental Action Network:

[t]he sedimentary sludge that has settled in and around everyone's homes is composed of "toxic heavy metals and the polynuclearomatic hydrocarbons both of which are cancer causing agents."

What does the EPA have to say about this?

When EPA administrator Stephen Johnson was asked about the threat of these toxins, he acknowledged that the sludge contains harmful bacteria:

We know that that sediment contains bacteria. We know that in certain parts it contains high levels of petroleum products. People shouldn't come into contact with that. So whether its 24 hours or 48 hours or two weeks still the message is: avoid contact with those kinds of materials.... And so EPA does not have any statutory responsibility for indoor air, for example. And issues such as mold are the responsibility of and advice and counsel from the Centers for Disease Control, Health and Human Services.

Well, I guess the big consolation prize for the good folks of New Orleans is that at least the EPA isn't flat out lying to them about the quality of the soil, unlike what they did after 9/11 to the people in Manhattan.

Late last year, Jim Lehrer did a segment on Katrina-related environmental hazards, which contained some of the following quotes:

John Cardarelli, health physicist with the EPA, "We're concerned about particulates -- things go in and deposit just about the bulk of your neck and we're also looking at specific particulate matter that can do deeper into your lungs."

The EPA has not done any tests inside private homes or on yards. Instead, they've concentrated their efforts in public areas. The agency has posted results of all its tests on its website, and they show few dangerous levels of toxins for short-term exposure, meaning 24 hours or less.

EPA's partner, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality says its tests have produced "unremarkable" results. An official told the NewsHour that "people have nothing to worry about." But at the same time both agencies have warned residents not to come in contact with flood sediment.

Um, ok, so it is safe but not safe....

Erik Olson, senior attorney for the Natural Resource Defense Council, thinks the EPA is confusing people with a mixed message.

ERIK OLSON: How can it be safe and then in the next sentence you say that you've got to wear protective equipment? It's not safe for people to be running around and traipsing around in these toxic chemicals and in these clouds of dust and in houses that are soaking with toxins. There are a lot of toxic chemicals, a lot of bacteria that are still in the environment there. There's dust that is toxic that is sprinkled across the city and it's kicked up every time there's demolition or cars driving by.

As for the CDC recommendations, let's just say that they ain't too pretty:

• Reinhabiting homes with visible oil contamination is not recommended because of the potential for skin exposure to oil substances. If people choose to reenter the affected area before remediation, they should take precautions to avoid contact with oil substances. Sensitive individuals, including children and people with recently healed or open wounds, should avoid all exposure to oil substances.



• Because children are more likely to be exposed to contaminated soil, local officials should consider restricting children from entering areas containing oil-related waste.



• Residents may be exposed to soil contaminants from contact with their pets; therefore, local officials should consider restricting pets from entering oil-contaminated areas.



• ATSDR endorses Louisiana 's guidance to protect people from exposure to oil substances who choose to reenter properties before clean-up and remediation activities are completed. This protective guidance recommends the following:



o Protect your skin from contacting oil.



o Use oil resistant gloves.(Oil may dissolve latex gloves. Use another type of glove.)



o Keep arms and legs covered.



o Wear coveralls or clothing that can be left at the oil-contaminated residence.



o If you get oil on skin, (immediately) wash with soap and water.



o Wear boot covers or leave work boots at the oil-contaminated residence.



o Open doors and windows to ventilate the oil-contaminated residence.



o Do not transport oil contaminated items from the oil-contaminated residence to noncontaminated locations.



• ATSDR recommends workers cleaning up oil-contaminated property should wear appropriate protective clothing. Petroleum products can degrade some synthetic materials and fabrics, so oil-resistant protective footwear, gloves, and clothing should be used.

To take a quote from the "Church Lady", well isn't that special. The CDC recommends not to go back or to restrict touching anything or basically breathing. And to tie this back to my diary from the other day about FEMA kicking out volunteers, you get the distinct feeling that Kanye West may have really been onto something, although it is more of a not caring about black people, poor people, or anyone outside of his criminal and crony circle.

The Roundup

Opening day was yesterday - woo-hoo!! Now I only have 4 rotisserie leagues to track. Should be interesting......

So the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio, the state where there was much voter suppression and funny business, owned stock in Diebold. Diebold is, of course, the company that made the shitty voting machines that had so many, um, issues in 2004.

In a great news day, the BugMan is retiring from the House. Probably because he knows that he will be indicted again or is definitely guilty. However, that doesn't stop the Repukes from defending his sorry ass.

Even though I didn't pick Florida to win it all, just having UCLA lose in the finals was enough for me to come in 3rd and win some cash.....keeping my record of winning money well above .500.

So not only does India take our jobs, but now they are taking our "wardrobe malfunctions" too?

This is just asking for trouble....comparing housewives to donkeys. Only an ass would do that...

And speaking of asses, this gives new meaning to the Terrance and Philip movie "Asses of Fire".

In a sports-meets-US politics moment, soccer refs in Nigeria are told that it is ok to take bribes as long as it doesn't influence their decisions or calls. Um, sure....

Rendition Redux: Amnesty Int'l issues damning report

Cross Posted and Recommended at Booman Tribune


Remember the whole "exporting torture" thing that dropped off the radar screen when the latest 50 or so scandals erupted?  Well, the rendition story is back, and it should be an ugly one for Dear Leader.

Amnesty International has just released a report today that shows how the CIA used private airlines and other front companies to hide the rendition and "detention facilities" (read: torture camps) outside of the US.

The report is here, and lists specifics on dozens of rendition flights, including the origination and destination of such flights and the names of the private airlines that landed at US military bases around the globe.

As originally reported by Raw Story, the report is titled Below the Radar: Secret flights to Torture and 'Disappearance', and

Amnesty will reveal how the CIA exploited aviation practices to hide behind the identity of private plane operators and circumvent authorities. Countries that allow CIA planes to cross their airspace and use their airports often cite the Convention on International Civil Aviation, also known as the Chicago Convention. These states claim that they do not have the authority to question the reasons for the flight because there is a clause in the Convention that allows private, non-commercial flights to fly over a country, or make technical stops there, without prior authorization or notification.

So, these countries can't even question what the flights are for, what they are doing or why they are stopping in the country since it is a private flight.

Additionally, the report claims that:

Amnesty claims that the United States may have transferred hundreds of individuals for the purposes of interrogation by nations with "dubious human rights records." They are further set to claim that "rendition is part of an elaborate clandestine detention regime that includes the use of 'black sites' and 'disappearances,' as well as torture and inhuman treatment."

It should be interesting to see how the wingnuts attack Amnesty International, but this is not something that is really new, as you can see by this, this, this and this, just to name a few.

But this report is more specific and will be another black eye to America and the legacy of this administration.

Amnesty just made the report available, and while it is a big one, here are some real juicy (and damning) tidbits:

On the low end estimate of the numbers:

The number of cases currently appears to be in the hundreds: Egypt's Prime Minister noted in 2005 that the USA had transferred some 60-70 detainees to Egypt alone, and a former CIA agent with experience in the region believes that hundreds of detainees have been sent by the USA to prisons in the Middle East. The USA has acknowledged the capture of about 30 "high value" detainees whose whereabouts remain unknown, and the CIA is reportedly investigating some three dozen additional cases of "erroneous rendition", in which people were detained based on flawed evidence or confusion over names

Testimonial of former CIA Official:

Robert Baer, a former CIA official in the Middle East, told the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC): "As I understand it, there's a lot of franchising stuff out. Syria is a country, like Iraq, where they torture people. They use electrodes, water torture. They take torture to the point of death, like the Egyptians. The way you get around involving Americans in torture is to get someone else to do it."

Our "friend" Pakistan:

Hassan bin Attash was only 17 years old when he was detained in a house raid in Pakistan in September 2002. He was sent first to the "Dark Prison" in Afghanistan for about a week, then rendered again, this time to Jordan, where he said he was severely tortured while being interrogated about the activities of his brother, Walid bin Attash, who has "disappeared" and is presumed to be held in a secret US detention centre. Announcing Walid bin Attash's capture in 2003, President George W. Bush called him a "killer", adding "he is one less person that people who love freedom have to worry about". After 16 months in Jordan, Hassan bin Attash, a Yemeni national, was rendered back to US custody in Afghanistan, then resurfaced at Guantánamo Bay in May 2004.

Although cases of rendition from Western countries have received substantial attention in the media and from human rights organizations, it remains the case that most of the known victims of rendition or secret detention were initially detained in Pakistan, where the government maintains a close working relationship with the USA on intelligence matters. Some of them are known to be in Guantánamo Bay; others in "black sites"; some were rendered by the USA to Middle Eastern countries where they are believed to have been tortured. Transfers to US and other custody have been carried out in contravention of Pakistani national extradition law as well as the international prohibition of refoulement.

The Pakistani government has publicly stated that some 700 terrorist suspects have been arrested, many of whom have been handed over to US custody. Many of these detainees have "disappeared", including men, women and children; journalists reporting on the "war on terror"; and doctors alleged to have treated "terrorists". Given the degree of secrecy surrounding security operations, and the overlap between US and Pakistani intelligence interests, it is difficult to find out which detainees have been turned over to the USA and which have been kept in Pakistani custody.

There are also a number of specific examples of rendition that are listed, and the specific statements indicating the violations of international law here.

A summary of examples of secret detentions and transfers here.

A summary of the worldwide support network for rendition flights is here. However, here are some excerpts:

Of particular importance for rendition cases is the clause that allows private, non-commercial flights to fly over a country, or make technical stops there, without prior authorization or notification. The CIA planes identified to date have been chartered from private companies, real or fictional. "State aircraft" - defined by the Convention as those "used in military, customs and police services" - do require specific agreement or authorization to fly over the territory of another state or to use its airports. Experts on rendition believe that this is one of the main reasons why privately contracted aircraft are used in rendition operations, rather than military or other official aircraft.

The intelligence and military community of the USA has long used private air carriers for secret operations. Some of the covert carriers identified by past US congressional inquiries and other investigations are still in business. In November 2003, for example, carriers such as Southern Air, Kalitta Air, Evergreen International Airways, and Tepper Aviation - all known for their connections to covert intelligence and military operations - received a "US Transportation Command Certificate of Appreciation" for their support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, in the "Global War on Terrorism".

A summary of CIA front companies used is here, but here is a summary:

The CIA rendition programme has relied on private planes contracted from companies listed as private air charter services. In some cases, these are CIA front companies that exist only on paper. Premier Executive Transport, for instance, first appeared as a Delaware company in 1994, and was then re-registered in Massachusetts in 1996 as a "Foreign Corporation".

Premier was the listed owner of only two planes: the Gulfstream jet most frequently identified with rendition operations, originally registered as N379P; and a Boeing 737, initially N313P, which appeared regularly in locations such as Afghanistan, Libya, Jordan, Baghdad, Germany and the UK, and which Amnesty International believes was used to render Khaled el-Masri from Macedonia to Afghanistan in January 2004. Flight records show that the plane flew from Skopje to Kabul, touching down in Baghdad, on 24 January 2004, the day Khaled el-Masri was transferred from Macedonia to Afghanistan.

Other transport contractors have actual premises and staff, but appear to be largely controlled by the CIA. Aero Contractors, for instance, was described by the New York Times newspaper as "a major domestic hub of the Central Intelligence Agency's secret air service". The New York Times went on to say that the CIA owns at least 26 planes, and "concealed its ownership behind a web of seven shell corporations that appear to have no employees and no function apart from owning the aircraft. The planes, regularly supplemented by private charters, are operated by real companies controlled by or tied to the agency, including Aero Contractors and two Florida companies, Pegasus Technologies and Tepper Aviation."

A summary of other US agencies (including the DoD) that are involved is here, but here are some excerpts:

Although renditions have largely been carried out under the auspices of the CIA, other US agencies have apparently been involved in both flight leasing and operations. Contracts for identified rendition planes have been issued through an obscure US Navy office, rather than the CIA, according to US Department of Defense (DoD) documents obtained by Associated Press (AP). In September 2005, AP reported that the Navy Engineering Logistics Office (NELO) had issued classified contracts with 10 different companies and 33 planes for the "occasional airlift of USN (Navy) cargo worldwide." This was the first indication that the DoD had participated in the rendition programme; the companies previously identified as operators of rendition planes were widely believed to be under CIA contracts.

There have been other indications that responsibility for the rendition programme should not be laid solely at the door of the CIA. It has been reported that the teams that actually carry out the rendition operations include members of military Special Forces units, as well as CIA personnel. Amnesty International has copies of police investigation reports into CIA flights in Spain that suggest that the pilots of the rendition planes were US military officers; when their names were checked against FAA databases, it was found that not all were currently registered as private pilots. If any pilots involved in rendition flights were found to be US military officers, the legal implications would be important: members of the armed forces are not only subject to international legal standards and to US criminal law, but also to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which explicitly forbids both "unlawful detention" and "cruelty and maltreatment". The armed forces do not appear to be covered by the memorandum authorizing the CIA to carry out renditions.

A summary and detail of nearly 1,000 flights used for rendition from 2001 through 2005 is here.

Lastly, a listing and summary of companies who are or were likely to have been involved is here.

FEMA to give the boot (and the finger) to Katrina volunteers

I want to start by giving a hat tip to new kossack Brian77 for alerting me to this story that has gone unreported virtually everywhere.

A very unheralded but certainly not undeserving group of people who have been volunteering to help gut houses, clean rubble, clear debris, recover residents' possessions are in danger of having the rug pulled out from under them by FEMA.

In a time and place where these services are desperately needed, and there are no accommodations for them to sleep, shower, etc. FEMA has recently announced that within the next couple of weeks, they will be closing many of the "camps" that they set up for these volunteers because

"It is not FEMA's responsibility to provide support to volunteer agencies."

Just to give a frame of reference as to what these volunteers can do, and can save residents in the form of time, and money (to the tune of thousands of dollars), we have this from TPM Café:

People wonder: why are we gutting houses, especially if they may be bulldozed? And more importantly, why isn't there more rebuilding and restoration going on? What's the holdup?

These are fair questions, and fortunately (or rather unfortunately) there are some solid answers. First, let's pretend you're not one of the people who is fortunate enough to have an eager team of energetic students to help you for several days of very intense physical work...Now it costs anywhere from $1.75 to $2.45 per square foot (and anything in between, more or less) to have debris removed and a house gutted -- that is to have the sheet rock, walls and floors removed.

This is not covered by insurance. In fact, many insurance companies and general contractors require the house be gutted before they're willing to make a determination on whether the structure is viable for rebuilding. Almost every home that was flooded has to be electrically re-wired and in some cases even re-plumbed. Heating and air conditioning has to be reinstalled with appropriate duct work. Of course, if your roof was damaged, it would have to be replaced before any of the above can be done. Many people are under insured, and some are uninsured. Removing debris from these homes requires incredible physical work (ask any team that has come in for this experience).

Teams that provide this service for home owners basically put anywhere from eight to twenty thousand dollars into the home owner's pocket by saving them the expense of paying someone to do the work

So, for starters, we are talking about something that is REQUIRED to be done before the insurance company (if one is lucky enough to have insurance) can even come in for "step 1".  By logical extension, that pretty much means that if the houses can't be gutted and in condition for a contractor or insurance company to EVEN GIVE THE TIME OF DAY, then there will pretty much be no reconstruction of that house, that block, that parish.  You would think that if FEMA, or the federal government for that matter, was at all serious about rebuilding New Orleans outside of a few select choice areas, then this would be pretty much a top priority.  

Thus the cycle, and the recovery and rebuilding can't even get started.  Houses need to be gutted, but people can't pay for that.  So volunteers come to help.  But then the volunteers won't have a place to stay, so then very few can afford to have the houses gutted.  Then the insurance companies and contractors won't come to make assessments, estimates or begin work on rebuilding.  And then unfortunately, the rebuilding and recovery gets stalled before it even can begin.

And from someone that lives in NYC and was here on 9/11, the debris, rubble, garbage and just about everything else was cleared in record time.  I know that it was a smaller area, but certainly every resource was thrown at the cleanup and recovery (and dare I say the potential hiding and destruction of crime scene evidence).

But I digress.

Now, FEMA has been good with having the foresight (I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one for now) to set up camps for the volunteers.  According to reports, 500 people can be housed in one camp.  Which is a lot in a city where there really are no accommodations for volunteers to stay, eat, shower and coordinate their efforts.

The cost of having these camps runs about $100 per person per day.  And with around 3,000 volunteers per day, it does run around $300,000 per day to keep all of these camps running.  Multiplying it out, it comes to around $9,000,000 per month, and around $108,000,000 for an entire year.  Not small numbers, but small when you consider this wasteful use of money by FEMA (that was noted in GAO reports earlier this year):

• $438 per day for hotel rooms in NYC;



• $375 per night for beachfront condos in Panama City, FL;



• Many $2,000 debit card vouchers provided to people with invalid or duplicate SSNs, without verification;



• $878 MILLION on 25,000 manufactured homes that can't be used in the area because of FEMA's own rules and regulations;



• $416,000 for short term housing for a small number of people in Alabama; and



• $40 million on homes that have been ruined while stored in Arkansas and are now unusable.

And while the waste of money on debit cards without any form of verification was called a "calculated risk" by FEMA officials, they just give the finger to those who are doing the most critical, labor intensive and first step in the recovery process. And these people are volunteers who are doing this out of the kindness of their hearts - not being paid by FEMA or anyone else.

The stories of volunteers, and victims who were helped, as expected, are heart wrenching:

Carolyn Pitre is grateful to find her Bible among her belongings, piled up in the street in front of her home in St. Bernard Parish.

Carolyn says, "I'm drawn to try and find something of value because we have nothing left... (cries)... Because we have nothing left... Everything was gone. Everything."

All along Carolyn's street, and in the entire area, it is the same: Destruction everywhere you look. Piles and piles of trash and debris. Gutted homes.

Lt. Colonel David Dysart, who is in charge of the recovery process for St. Bernard Parish points out how serious the situation is.

"I have no residents living here right now, and I have had absolutely no businesses which have been able to return."

The Lt. Colonel says it is going to take another six months to finish gutting thousands of homes to remove health and safety hazards. And that's where volunteers come in.

Dysart says it takes 10 to 12 volunteers a day to a day-and-a-half to gut just one house.

Asked if he needed volunteers right now, Dysart replied, "Absolutely. It's critical that we keep this up. We have approximately 800 homes to date that we've managed to move these items, out of the approximately 5,000 that applied."

Others in charge of disaster relief have similar stories, and pleadings:

Operation Blessing Disaster Relief Manager Jody Herrington says that not being able to provide a home means turning away a volunteer.

"Each volunteer that we turn away is another home that's not gutted, another resident that's not helped," Jody declared. "It's another neighborhood that's not coming back. It's another city that's not restored. The reality is the volunteer help is crucial and critical to the success of recovery out in these parishes."

And it isn't like these volunteers are able to pay for a hotel room either.

Pastor Randy Millet helps run a disaster relief center in St. Bernard Parish. He says the volunteers are vital in making sure that residents get the food and clothing they need to survive.

"Please don't close the base camps," Randy urged. "Allow us to house our volunteers. They're not looking for a Holiday Inn. They're looking for a cot with a pillow and a meal."

In addition, Randy says that without warning, FEMA stopped providing ice and filling up their generators with fuel.

"What we've got to do in order to get diesel fuel right now -- we have to go across the street to fill up our buckets," Randy explained, "and bring them back to fill up our generators... three or four... and that takes four or five trips.

With the summer coming up, there are many youth groups that would otherwise volunteer to help with the recovery process.  But they too wouldn't be able to have a place to stay.  

"Right now the biggest issue for us, especially coming up this summer when every youth group in the country wants to come down here, is where are we going to house them, where are we going to put them, where are we going to feed them?" questioned Aaron Arledge with the Louisiana Baptist Convention.

With stories like this, on one hand it really reinforces the fact that there are truly some great people out there.  And it also reminds you of what is great about this country - how people are so willing to pick up and lend a hand to try and rebuild a devastated area of the country.

But on the other hand, it really smacks you in the face to see what the priorities are.  Just last week, we found out that the levees being rebuilt aren't even up to FEMA standards, as well as the fact that there is a question of whether the federal government will pay for the repairs that should have been paid for years ago.  Now we see that the very first stage of recovery is in danger of being removed due to shortsightedness and just a lack of caring.

Just horrible.

Schieffer: Gov't "doesn't really know what it is doing"

I just gotta chuckle.

At the end of today's Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer skewered the government on the "mission to Mars", the response to Katrina, the ports deal and pre-Iraq war lies (ok so he called it "wrong intelligence" but still....)

The topper was his wondering if the federal bureaucracy has gotten so out of hand that no one seems to know what it's doing.

Schieffer's weekly opinion piece started with his being reminded of Bush's promise to put humans on Mars and it quickly evolved into his wondering if this Administration's priorities are out of whack and then essentially called them incompetent:

That leads me to the harder question: If we really had to go to the moon, could we still find a way to get there?

As Nelson Muntz would say, "HA...ha".  

Although (and on a more serious note), it is ultimately sad that (1) we get excited when the dangerous incompetence is finally called what it is by those in the SCLM and (2) this dangerous incompetence has cost us thousands and thousands of lives, billions, no make that trillions of dollars as well as environmental and health hazards for generations to come.

But Scheiffer, who is about as good as we can expect from someone who has been around for as long as he has, lays it all out in a few short sentences:

We can't figure out how to get those thousands of trailers standing empty in Arkansas down to New Orleans down to house the people who lost their homes during Katrina, but we're designing housing for the moon?

We can't seem to make those levies that broke the last time strong enough to withstand the next really bad hurricane, but, according to that story in The Washington Post, our scientists are now deep into studies on the effect of moon dust on the humans who will draw that lunar duty?

It's more than a matter of priorities, it seems to me. When you think back on how the government bungled the original response to Katrina, or the wrong intelligence that took us to Iraq, and even that crazy deal, safe or not, that had all of us unaware an Arab company was about to take control of our key ports, you have to ask, has the federal bureaucracy grown so big and so cumbersome that no one really knows what it's doing at any particular point in time?

Thumbs up to Schieffer for calling it like it is.  It's nice to see someone that has seen it all finally being bold enough to issue a general indictment of this administration's competence, as opposed to the typical qualified and specific watered down comment (if at all) we have come to expect.

Total BS: Rebuilt NOLA levees not up to FEMA standards

Two pieces of abhorrent news came out this week regarding New Orleans, once again showing how these fuckers in charge could give a rat's ass about the safety of We the People.

The first bit of news tells us that the rebuilt levees are not in accordance with new FEMA standards.  A few weeks back, I did a diary showing how the levees were being rebuilt with substandard materials, so while this isn't unexpected, it is still disgusting.

The other piece of news estimates that it will now take 25 years to fully rebuild New Orleans.

According to the new report on the substandard levees, the estimated cost to bring them up to standard is a paltry $6 billion (yes, with a "b"):

FEMA has long based its flood planning on whether an area is protected against a flood that might have a 1 percent chance of occurring in any year, also known as a 100-year flood. Without that certification, the agency's flood maps have to treat the entire levee system as if it were not there at all, which means that people hoping to build in the affected areas might have to rebuild their homes at elevations of 15 or even 30 feet above sea level in order to meet new federal building standards.

But since Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, the agency has toughened its 100-year standard, based on new information about land subsidence and the increasing severity and frequency of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. There is also new data about weak soils in the area and the failure of some of the city's floodwalls.

As a result, the levees that the Army Corps of Engineers is now building will not meet the new FEMA standard. Donald Powell, the federal coordinator for Gulf Coast rebuilding, said Thursday that the Corps now believes it cannot meet that standard without spending additional billions to upgrade the flood protection system still further.

Great fucking planning, jackasses.  First you cut the funding so that the levees aren't strengthened enough to withstand a hurricane like Katrina, even though FEMA said as recently as 2001 that this was one of the three most likely disasters to hit the US.  Then you underfund the recovery and use substandard materials.  And after all that, you act surprised when the FEMA standards aren't met.

Lousiana Governor Blanco was outraged to just find this out now:

"This means that, just two months before hurricane season, the Corps of Engineers informs us they cannot ensure even the minimum safety of Southeastern Louisiana," Ms. Blanco said in a statement. "This is totally unacceptable."

Blanco also demanded that the Federal Government to supply the additional funding.

Without the additional cash, Blanco said, the Lower Ninth Ward and St. Bernard and Plaquemines parishes likely wouldn't receive the levee repairs needed to give them the protection they had before Katrina.

"Obviously all sections will not be secure," she said.

And the response from Donald Powell, the federal coordinator for Gulf Coast rebuilding (a man who doesn't have to rebuild his house in New Orleans)?  Cut more corners....

Mr. Powell said that to start the process of getting the new flood maps, the federal government only needs to state that it does intend to meet the certification standard -- a process that it can undertake for the entire system at the full $6 billion, or pick and choose projects to cut costs.

But Mr. Powell said in a news briefing yesterday that the $2 billion that the Army Corps of Engineers is currently spending and the $1.4 billion in additional funds it has requested will make the system stronger and better than it has ever been. Asked if he would feel comfortable living in the area despite the government's inability to certify the levees, he responded, "after the Corps completes its work, yes."

Mr. Powell called the difference "a regulatory issue, not necessarily a safety issue." When the current work on the levees is complete, he said, there might be flooding from a storm like Hurricane Katrina, but the levee system would not fail catastrophically again.

And as far as it taking 25 years to rebuild, we have more of that "compassionate conservatism" that we have grown so accustomed to:

The White House so far has asked for $108 billion in Gulf Coast relief and recovery aid, all but $19 billion of which has been approved by Congress. The remainder is under consideration by lawmakers.

The new levee costs are not included in that spending pot, Powell said, adding that he does not know how many more federal dollars the government will commit to the region.

What the storm-ravaged region will look like in upcoming years is largely up to state and local officials, Powell said, though the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development will have authority to "tweak" some of the housing plans.

The four parishes that make up New Orleans and its immediate suburbs have been waiting for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to issue the flood maps for months.

Powell said he expects FEMA to release the maps soon, but that the data largely is tied to the new levee cost estimates.

Well, that is real comforting.  And how many billions are we spending in Iraq EACH WEEK?