Monday, April 12, 2010

Iraq War Vet: “We Were Told to Just Shoot People, and the Officers Would Take Care of Us”

by: Dahr Jamail, t r u t h o u t | Report, April 7, 2010

photo
(Image: Lance Page / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: The U.S. Army, K. OS, whiteblot)

On Monday, April 5, Wikileaks.org posted video footage from Iraq, taken from a US military Apache helicopter in July 2007 as soldiers aboard it killed 12 people and wounded two children. The dead included two employees of the Reuters news agency: photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and driver Saeed Chmagh.

The US military confirmed the authenticity of the video.

The footage clearly shows an unprovoked slaughter, and is shocking to watch whilst listening to the casual conversation of the soldiers in the background.

Continues >>

Tags: , , , ,

How Christianity Lost Jesus

By the Rev. Howard Bess

Consortiumnews.com, April 10, 2010

Editor’s Note: It is one of the conundrums of religious history: How did Christianity, a religion based on the teachings of a pacifist who said love your enemy and who defended the poor and vulnerable, become so twisted into nearly its opposite?

Why did dominant Christian institutions, like the Vatican, amass obscene wealth and immense power? How could individuals – the likes of George W. Bush – who claim to be devout followers of Jesus unleash the fearsome might of modern military technologies to slaughter peoples in faraway lands?

In this guest essay, Rev. Howard Bess traces this Christian mystery to the chronology of when the books of the New Testament were committed to writing and to whether the apostle Paul was even aware of Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount:

We call Chapters 5, 6 and 7 of the Matthew Gospel the Sermon on the Mount. It is without question our finest summary of the teachings of Jesus.

Continues >>



Tags: , , , , ,

Saturday, April 10, 2010

George W. Bush ‘knew Guantánamo prisoners were innocent’

The Times/UK, April 9, 2010

Tim Reid, Washigton

Two detainees are escorted to interrogation by U.S. military   guards at Camp X-Ray in the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base , Cuba

Andres Leighton/AP)

Two detainees are escorted to interrogation by US military guards at Guantánamo Bay

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld covered up that hundreds of innocent men were sent to the Guantánamo Bay prison camp because they feared that releasing them would harm the push for war in Iraq and the broader War on Terror, according to a new document obtained by The Times.

The accusations were made by Lawrence Wilkerson, a top aide to Colin Powell, the former Republican Secretary of State, in a signed declaration to support a lawsuit filed by a Guantánamo detainee. It is the first time that such allegations have been made by a senior member of the Bush Administration.

Colonel Wilkerson, who was General Powell’s chief of staff when he ran the State Department, was most critical of Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld. He claimed that the former Vice-President and Defence Secretary knew that the majority of the initial 742 detainees sent to Guantánamo in 2002 were innocent but believed that it was “politically impossible to release them”.

General Powell, who left the Bush Administration in 2005, angry about the misinformation that he unwittingly gave the world when he made the case for the invasion of Iraq at the UN, is understood to have backed Colonel Wilkerson’s declaration.

Colonel Wilkerson, a long-time critic of the Bush Administration’s approach to counter-terrorism and the war in Iraq, claimed that the majority of detainees — children as young as 12 and men as old as 93, he said — never saw a US soldier when they were captured. He said that many were turned over by Afghans and Pakistanis for up to $5,000. Little or no evidence was produced as to why they had been taken.

He also claimed that one reason Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld did not want the innocent detainees released was because “the detention efforts would be revealed as the incredibly confused operation that they were”. This was “not acceptable to the Administration and would have been severely detrimental to the leadership at DoD [Mr Rumsfeld at the Defence Department]”.

Referring to Mr Cheney, Colonel Wilkerson, who served 31 years in the US Army, asserted: “He had absolutely no concern that the vast majority of Guantánamo detainees were innocent … If hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it.”

He alleged that for Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld “innocent people languishing in Guantánamo for years was justified by the broader War on Terror and the small number of terrorists who were responsible for the September 11 attacks”.

He added: “I discussed the issue of the Guantánamo detainees with Secretary Powell. I learnt that it was his view that it was not just Vice-President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld, but also President Bush who was involved in all of the Guantánamo decision making.”

Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld, Colonel Wilkerson said, deemed the incarceration of innocent men acceptable if some genuine militants were captured, leading to a better intelligence picture of Iraq at a time when the Bush Administration was desperate to find a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, “thus justifying the Administration’s plans for war with that country”.

He signed the declaration in support of Adel Hassan Hamad, a Sudanese man who was held at Guantánamo Bay from March 2003 until December 2007. Mr Hamad claims that he was tortured by US agents while in custody and yesterday filed a damages action against a list of American officials.

Defenders of Guantánamo said that detainees began to be released as early as September 2002, nine months after the first prisoners were sent to the jail at the US naval base in Cuba. By the time Mr Bush left office more than 530 detainees had been freed.

A spokesman for Mr Bush said of Colonel Wilkerson’s allegations: “We are not going to have any comment on that.” A former associate to Mr Rumsfeld said that Mr Wilkerson’s assertions were completely untrue.

The associate said the former Defence Secretary had worked harder than anyone to get detainees released and worked assiduously to keep the prison population as small as possible. Mr Cheney’s office did not respond.

There are currently about 180 detainees left in the facility.

Tags: , , , , , ,

The Perplexed Puppet Jerks on His Strings: Karzai Calls US Troops Invaders

by Tom Turnipseed, CommonDreams.org, April 9, 2010

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a former consultant for UNOCAL oil company was installed by the US as the President of Afghanistan after our invasion and occupation of that country. Now he complains that US and NATO troops are invaders of Afghanistan and this is drawing a furious reaction from the Obama administration and the mainstream media. His outburst deserves a closer look at what led up to this furor in Afghanistan as Karzai turns on his US puppeteer.

Continues

Tags: , , , ,

Netanyahu pulls out of Obama’s nuclear conference

Withdrawal prompted by likely pressure from Egypt and Turkey over Israel’s presumed atomic arsenal

Peter Walker and agencies, The Guardian/UK, April 9, 2010

Benjamin NetanyahuIsraeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu will not attend Barack Obama’s international nuclear weapons conference in Washington next week. Photograph: Menahem Kahana/AFP/Getty Images

The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has pulled out of Barack Obama’s international nuclear weapons conference in Washington next week at the last minute after learning his country was likely to face pressure over its own presumed atomic arsenal.

Officials in Netanyahu’s office said this morning that the decision was made after it emerged that Egypt and Turkey planned to raise the matter at the 47-nation event, Reuters reported.

Continues >>

Tags: , , , , ,

India: Troubled Times for Advani & Modi

Will the state desert them to justice?

By Badri Raina, ZNet, March 31, 2010

Badri Raina’s ZSpace Page

Satyam Eva Jayate

(The Truth is ever victorious).

I

It suits India’s elite opinion-makers always to characterize the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) as India’s “principal opposition party.”

Principal opposition, presumably, to “the natural party of governance,” namely, the Indian National Congress.

The years have shown that such characterization on fact is patently erroneous, especially over the last two decades of Independent India’s existence. Be it market fundamentalism, or militarism directed at “terrorists” and “naxals” or love of American imperialism there is little daylight between the Congress and the BJP.

Even on that “basic” postulate of the Constitution of India, “secularism,” one has always known that substantial sections among the Congress party covertly share the majoritarian impulses of the BJP, even as the party as a whole swears by the principle of secularism as an article of faith and a feature of its long history. Which is not to deny that other sections within the Congress continue to remain laudably wedded to Nehru’s vision of a welfare state of which secular citizenship was envisaged as a founding bedrock. Without question, this section within the Congress has the great good luck of having Sonia Gandhi as a bearer of that legacy.

Continues >>

Tags: , , , , , ,

Winners and Losers in the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock

Immanuel Wallerstein, Commentary No. 278, April 1, 2010

Anyone who thinks there is going to be any significant change in the status quo in Israel/Palestine is suffering from multiple delusions. The Israeli government is dead set against the creation of a Palestinian state, even a weak Palestinian state, and this view has the support of a very large majority of the Israeli Jews. The Palestinian leaders are more divided. But even the most accommodating are not willing even to consider anything less than a state based on the 1967 frontiers, with East Jerusalem as its capital. The rest of the world cannot budge either side. This is called deadlock.

The question is who gains and who loses by deadlock? The Israeli political elite seem convinced that they will gain. There is a very large group who are so resolutely irredentist that they would consider a peace agreement a veritable disaster. The Israelis have always thought that if they dug in their heels, eventually the rest of the world (including even the Arab Palestinians) would yield to what they call “realities on the ground.”

Continues >>

Tags: , , , , , ,