Torture As Official US Policy

Torture As Official US Policy - by Stephen Lendman

Post-9/11, torture has been official US policy under George Bush - authorized at the highest levels of government. Evidence of its systematic practice continues to surface. First some background.

On September 17, 2001, George Bush signed a secret finding empowering CIA to "Capture, Kill, or Interrogate Al-Queda Leaders." It also authorized establishing a secret global network of facilities to detain and interrogate them without guidelines on proper treatment. Around the same time, Bush approved a secret "high-value target list" of about two dozen names. He also gave CIA free reign to capture, kill and interrogate terrorists not on the list. It was the beginning of events that followed.

On November 13, 2001, the White House issued a Military Order regarding the "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism." It "determined that an extraordinary emergency exists for national defense purposes, that this emergency constitutes an urgent and compelling government interest and that issuance of this order is necessary to meet the emergency."

It defined targeted individuals as Al Queda and others for aiding or abetting acts of international terrorism or harboring them. These individuals shall be denied access to US or other courts and instead tried by "military commission" with the power to convict by "concurrence of two-thirds of the members."

On December 28, 2001, Deputy Assistant Attorney Generals, Patrick Philbin and John Yoo, sent a Memorandum to General Counsel, Department of Defense, William Haynes II titled: "Possible Habeas Jurisdiction over Aliens Held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." It said federal courts have no jurisdiction and cannot review Guantanamo detainee mistreatment or mistaken arrest cases. It further stated that international laws don't apply in the "war on terror." This laid the groundwork for abuses in all US torture prisons.

On January 18, 2002, Bush issued a "finding" stating that prisoners suspected of being Al Queda or Taliban members are "enemy combatants" and unprotected by the Third Geneva Convention. They were to be denied all rights and treated "to the extent....consistent with military necessity." Torture was thus authorized. The 2006 Military Commissions Act (aka the "torture authorization act") later created the Geneva-superceded category of "unlawful enemy combatant" to deny them any chance for judicial fairness.

International law expert Francis Boyle spoke out about this lawless designation: "this quasi-category (created a) universe of legal nihilism where human beings (including US citizens) can be disappeared, detained incommunicado, denied access to attorneys and regular courts, tried by kangaroo courts, executed, tortured, assassinated and subjected to numerous other manifestations of State Terrorism" on the pretext of as protecting national security.

The January 18 memo was preceded by a January 9 one to William Haynes II - co-authored by John Yoo, and Special Council Robert Delahunty. It read in part:

Regarding "international treaties and federal laws on the treatment of individuals detained by the US Armed Forces (in) Afghanistan....the laws of armed conflict (don't) apply to the conditions of detention and the procedures for trial of members of al Queda and the Taliban militia." These treaties "do not protect members of the al Queda organization (or) the Taliban militia."

On January 19, 2002 Donald Rumsfeld sent a memo to the Joint Chiefs titled: "Status of Taliban and al Queda." It stated that these detainees "are not entitled to prisoner of war status for purposes of the Geneva Conventions of 1949." It gave commanders enormous latitude to treat prisoners "to the extent appropriate with military necessity" or essentially as they saw fit.

On January 22, 2002, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, Jay Bybee (now a federal judge), issued a Memorandum to Counsel to the President, Alberto Gonzales and William Haynes II. It was titled: "Application of Treaties and Laws to al Queda and Taliban Detainees." It covered the same ground as the Yoo/Delahunty memo plus added misinterpretations of international law with regard to war.

On January 25, 2002, Alberto Gonzales, then issued a sweeping memo to George Bush. In it he called the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and "obsolete" and said the administration could ignore Geneva law in interrogating prisoners henceforth. He also outlined plans to try prisoners in "military commissions" and deny them all protections under international law, including due process, habeas rights, and the right to appeal. In December 2002, Donald Rumsfeld concurred by approving a menu of banned interrogation practices allowing anything short of what would cause organ failure.

On February 7, 2002, the White House issued an Order "outlining treatment of al-Qaida and Taliban detainees." It stated that "none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al-Qaida (or Taliban detainees) in Afghanistan 'or elsewhere throughout the world...' " It meant they'd be afforded no protection under international law and could be treated any way authorities wished, including use of torture as was later learned.

A virtual blizzard of similar memos followed covering much the same ground to allow all measures banned under international and US law (including the 1996 War Crimes Act, 1994 Torture Statute and the Torture Act of 2000). The War Crimes Act is especially harsh. It provides up to life in prison or the death penalty for persons convicted of committing war crimes within or outside the US. Torture is a high war crime, the highest after genocide.

Two other memos particularly deserve mention - written by John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, Jay Bybee and David Addington (Cheney's legal counsel). One was for the CIA on August 2, 2002. It argued for letting interrogators use harsh measures amounting to torture. It said federal laws prohibiting these practices don't apply when dealing with Al Queda because of presidential authorization during wartime. It also denied US or international law applies in overseas interrogations. It essentially "legalized" anything in the "war on terror" and authorized lawlessness and supreme presidential power.

On March 14, 2003, the same quartet issued another memo - this one for the military titled: "Military Interrogation of Alien Unlawful Combatants Held Outside the United States." It became known as "the Torture Memo" because it swept away all legal restraints and authorized military interrogators to use extreme measures amounting to torture. It also gave the President as Commander-in-Chief "the fullest range of power....to protect the nation." It stated he "enjoys complete discretion in the exercise of his authority in conducting operations against hostile forces."

Military law expert and Yale University lecturer, Eugene Fidell, called it "a monument to executive supremacy and the imperial presidency....(and) a road map for the Pentagon (to avoid) any prosecutions." It denied due process is applicable and virtually all other constitutional protections. It argued against any prohibition banning "cruel and unusual treatment." It was a document that would make any despot proud. So much so that in late 2004, Office of Legal Counsel head, Jack Goldsmith, rescinded the Memorandum saying it showed an "unusual lack of care and sobriety in (its) legal analysis (and it) seemed more an exercise of sheer power than reasoned analysis."

Nonetheless, other administration documents authorized continued use of practices generally reflecting John Yoo's views. They may inflict "intense pain or suffering" short of what would cause "serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure, (loss of significant body functions), or permanent damage" may result.

The President's July 20, 2006 Executive Order (EO) was one such document, titled: "Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 as Applied to a Program of Detention and Interrogation Operated by the Central Intelligence Agency." It pertained to "a member or part of or supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated organizations (who might have) information that could assist in detecting, mitigating, or preventing terrorist attacks....within the United States or against its Armed Forces or other personnel, citizens, or facilities, or against allies or other countries cooperating in the war on terror...."

It authorized the Director of CIA to determine interrogation practices. Based on what's now known, they include sleep deprivation, waterboarding or simulated drowning, stress positions (including painfully extreme ones), prolonged isolation, sensory deprivation and/or overload, beatings (at times severe and life-threatening), electric shocks, induced hypothermia, and other measures that can cause irreversible physical and psychological harm, including psychoses.

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on Bush Administration Use of Torture

In a secret 2007 report, the ICRC concluded that CIA interrogators tortured high-level Al Queda prisoners. Abu Zubaydah was one, a reputed close associate of Osama bin Laden and Guantanamo detainee. He was confined in a box "so small (that) he had to double up his limbs in the fetal position" and stay that way. He and others were also "slammed against the walls," waterboarded to simulate drowning, and given other harsh and abusive treatment.

The report also said Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the supposed chief 9/11 planner, was kept naked for over a month - "alternately in suffocating heat and in a painfully cold room." Most excruciating was a practice of shackling prisoners to the ceiling and forcing them to stand for as long as eight hours. Other techniques included prolonged sleep deprivation, "bright lights and eardrum-shattering sounds 24 hours a day."

ICRC's Bernard Barrett declined to comment but confirmed that Red Cross personnel regularly visit Guantanamo detainees, including high-level ones. They also "have an ongoing confidential dialogue with members of the US intelligence community, and we would share any observations or recommendations with them."

In her new book just out, "The Dark Side," Jane Mayer went further using sources familiar with ICRC's report. She wrote it "warned that the abuse (at torture prisons) constituted war crimes, placing the highest officials in the US government in jeopardy of being prosecuted." She also explained that Red Cross investigators based their report largely on prisoner interviews. However, CIA officers she spoke to confirmed what ICRC disclosed. More on Mayer's book below.

Presidential July 20, 2007 Executive Order (EO) 13440: Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 as Applied to a Program of Detention and Interrogation Operated by the Central Intelligence Agency

The EO is noteworthy for what it doesn't say, not what it does. Its language is reassuring but avoids stopping short of the administration's official policy of torture. Or real compliance with Geneva's Common Article 3 that states in part:

(1) Noncombatants, including "members of armed forces who laid down their arms....shall in all circumstances be treated humanely...."

...."the following acts are prohibited at any time and in any place....:

-- violence to life and person (including) murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

-- taking of hostages;

-- ....humiliating and degrading treatment;"

-- sentencing or executing detainees "without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees....recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples;" and

-- assuring wounded and sick are cared for.

Various human rights organizations weighed in on the EO. Washington Director of Human Rights First, Elisa Massimino, said: The Order "fails to make clear whether (CIA authorized) interrogation techniques are still permitted." If CIA interprets the Order "as authorization to (continue using) techniques such as waterboarding, stress positions, hypothermia, sensory deprivation (and overload), sleep deprivation and isolation, it sends a powerful - and dangerous - message" that these and other banned practices are permissible. Bush's EO avoided clarity and left considerable leeway for abuse.

New Yorker Writer Jane Mayer's New Book: "The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals"

Mayer's book reflects what the ICRC reported and is now common knowledge except for more grim details and personal accounts. Prior to its release, the publisher's promotion commented:

"The Dark Side is a dramatic, riveting, and definitive narrative account of how the United States made terrible decisions in the pursuit of terrorists around the world - decisions that not only violated the Constitution to which White House officials took an oath to uphold, but also hampered the pursuit of Al Queda. In gripping detail...Jane Mayer relates the impact of these decisions - US-held prisoners, some of them completely innocent, were subjected to treatment more reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition than the twenty-first century."

"The Dark Side" recounts the fallout from the above administration documents and more. It reveals high-level contempt for the law to advance an imperial project. The story is gripping and comprehensive. It's about an American gulag throughout the world where mostly innocent detainees are held secretly outside the law and subjected to ritual abuse, humiliation and excruciating torture - day after day repeatedly. Some don't survive. All who do remain scarred for life.

Mayer states that decisions were taken at the highest levels - to make "torture the official law of the land in all but name," and it's no longer secret. Her evidence is compelling and comes from military officers, intelligence professionals and other conservative Bush appointees - "hard-line law-and-order stalwarts in the criminal justice system" who came forward nonetheless, and apparently for good reason.

Unlike past lawless periods, this time is different given the menu of what occurred post-9/11: an array of

-- illegal aggressive wars and the possibility of others;

-- police state laws enacted;

-- extremist Executive Orders;

-- similar National and Homeland Security Presidential Directives; military orders and signing statements;

-- "unitary executive" authority assumption granting unlimited presidential powers;

-- lawless and pervasive spying on Americans;

-- turning elections into shams;

-- gutting the Constitution, article by article, including the Bill of Rights;

-- ending any sense of checks and balances;

-- ignoring international laws and norms;

-- establishing an official policy of secrecy;

-- silencing dissent and free speech;

-- conducting massive sweeps against Muslims, Latino immigrants and other designated targets;

-- convicting innocent people (mostly Muslim men) in US courts and holding them as political prisoners;

-- constructing US-based concentration camps for declared enemies of the state to be used if martial law is declared;

-- using NORTHCOM, DHS, CIA, FBI, NSA and private paramilitary security forces to militarize the continent; and

-- ending the rule of law, crushing any sense of democracy, and heading the country for tyranny.

Instituting the above fell to a small group of lawyers known as the "War Council." Also other select high-level officials reporting to Dick Cheney and George Bush as head co-conspirators. They seized on 9/11 to establish what David Addington called a "new paradigm" authorizing vast new executive powers in the "war on terror." They believe the US legal system is "a burden" to be countered by "error-prone legal decisions whose preordained conclusions were dictated by Addington" as Dick Cheney's legal counsel following Lewis Libby's resignation.

Their view is hard-line and simple. On matters of national security (meaning anything), presidential authority isn't "limited by any laws." It's empowered "to override existing laws that Congress had specifically designated to curb him" and thus render checks and balances and the Constitution null and void.

For these men, everything changed post-9/11. The gloves came off. Conventional law enforcement methods were inappropriate, and only global conflict without end can keep us safe. It sounds bizarre and like the ravings of madmen, and maybe to a degree they are. But very smart and cunning ones who've led us to the current brink.

In 2001, Max Waxman served as special assistant to then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. He told Mayer that the decision to go to war (post-9/11) was made with "little or no detailed deliberation about long-term consequences" because none were thought necessary. But it set us on "a course not only for our international response, but also in our domestic constitutional relations."

It also worked for the executive as a wartime commander-in-chief with considerable help from Congress, the courts, and the media. It left him free from accountability after what Mayer calls "the worst intelligence failure in the nation's history." Others see it differently - in "deep state" terms as Peter Dale Scott defines it. He refers to facts in every society and culture "which tend to be suppressed because of the social and psychological costs of not doing so." In other words, covert criminal policies, unaccountable, lawless and self-serving that hide disturbing truths like both Kennedy and King assassinations, the Korean and Vietnam wars, and the more recent 9/11 event.

The War Council wasn't concerned if extremist policies were banned. Only security matters and supreme presidential power. A discussion of policy was missing, according to Mayer, "not just (about) what was legal, but what was moral, ethical, right, and smart to do." These were peripheral matters because "fundamentally, the drive for expanded presidential authority was about (unlimited) power" outside of the law.

Prior to her book's release, she wrote articles for The New Yorker on torture, and her book is largely based on them. One on November 14, 2005 was titled "A Deadly Interrogation - Can the CIA legally kill a prisoner?" It was about CIA officer Mark Swanner who "performed interrogations and polygraph tests for the Agency...." In 2003, an Iraqi Abu Ghraib prisoner in his custody, Manadel al-Jamadi, died during an interrogation. His head was covered with a plastic bag. It inhibited his breathing, and according to forensic pathologists, he suffocated. Subsequently US authorities "classified Jamadi's death as a 'homocide.' " Yet Swanner wasn't charged and continued to work for the Agency.

Post-9/11, the DOJ "fashioned secret legal guidelines that appear to indemnify CIA officials who perform aggressive, even violent interrogations outside the United States" - to win the "war on terror." In 2001, Dick Cheney condoned it in a Meet the Press interview saying: We may have to go to "the dark side" in handling terrorist suspects. "It's going to be vital....to use any means at our disposal."

Subsequently, administration officials sought to turn the CIA loose and protect its "classified interrogation protocol." The idea was to give the Agency "flexibility" to make "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment permissible. It means anything goes regardless of US and international laws and norms.

Another Mayer article appeared on August 13, 2007 titled: "The Black Sites - A rare look inside the CIA's secret interrogation program." In military terminology, such sites are locations where "black" projects are conducted. Post-9/11, they refer to secret CIA or military prisons outside the country with no oversight, accountability, detainee rights, and where torture and abuse are freely practiced.

Mayer discussed the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, an Al Queda leader, supposed lead architect of the 9/11 attacks, and the CIA's claim that he confessed to killing Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. No evidence supported it, and Mayer called his confession "perplexing." He had no lawyer, was detained at black sites for over two years, and in 2006 was sent to Guantanamo. No one witnessed his confession, and it was certain he was tortured. It was also at the time of the US Attorney scandal when critics called for Gonzales' resignation. Further, in 2002, a Pakistani named Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh had already been convicted of Pearl's abduction and murder, but that hardly mattered to US authorities.

They continued to interrogate Mohammed. It was part of a secret CIA program in which detainees were held in "black sites" outside the country - out of sight, out of mind, and subject to "unusually harsh treatment." In 2006, the program was supposedly suspended when George Bush said CIA detainees were being sent to Guantanamo. It followed the June 2006 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Supreme Court ruling granting habeas rights to Guantanamo prisoners. It also acknowledged that Geneva's Common Article 3 was violated. The October 2006 Military Commissions Act followed. It overrode the High Court to allow "alternative interrogations methods" to continue.

Secrecy and unlimited presidential authority are the hallmarks of this administration so everything in the "war on terror" is classified and permissible. Even few congressional members know much, and those who do won't say, let alone act to uphold the law.

Mayer notes how since the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the ICRC "played a special role in safeguarding" prisoner rights. "For decades, governments allowed (their) officials (access to) detainees, to insure that (proper treatment was) being maintained." However, Red Cross personnel were denied permission to interview US prisoners for five years. When they finally saw Mohammed, a spokesman declined to comment because ICRC's work is confidential.

Nonetheless, information leaked out to confirm what's now known. CIA interrogation methods are "tantamount to torture, and (responsible) American officials....could have committed serious crimes." Other Geneva breaches also along with violations of US law. Mayer characterized ICRC's revelations as having "potentially devastating legal ramifications." She also mentions an unnamed CIA officer, supportive of current policy, but worried that "if the full story of the CIA program ever surfaced, Agency personnel could face criminal prosecution." Within CIA, he said, there's a "high level of anxiety about political retribution" regarding the interrogation program. Some CIA operatives even took out liability insurance to help defray potential legal bills. Others saw the operation as a "can of worms (that might) become an atrocious mess."

Based on Mayer's account, it's far more than that - a systematic scheme to rewrite laws and norms; to make any practice permissible; to break and destroy human beings through intense coercion and psychological stress - without letup; and to avoid all accountability. Regarding torture: "It's one of the most sophisticated, refined programs ever," one expert explained. "At every stage, there was a rigid attention to detail....It was almost automated. People were utterly dehumanized. (They) fell apart. It was the intentional and systematic infliction of great suffering masquerading as a legal process. It is just chilling."

Mohammed's case is typical and shows what he was put through when accounts of his ordeal leaked out. Initially he was told: "We're not going to kill you. But we're going to take you to the brink of your death and back." He was first taken to a secret Afghanistan prison near Kabul International Airport - distinctive for its absolute lack of light and known by detainees as the "Dark Prison." Another one north of Kabul was called the "Salt Pit." An infamous 2002 death occurred there when a detainee was stripped naked and left chained to the floor in freezing temperatures until he died.

Mohammed endured some of these abusive practices. He was taken to Afghanistan by a team of "black-masked commandos attached to the CIA's paramilitary Special Activities Division." According to a report titled "Secret Detentions and Illegal Transfers of Detainees," he and others were "taken to their cells by strong people (in) black outfits, masks that covered their whole faces and dark visors over their eyes." It was a carefully choreographed 20 minute routine during which detainees are "hog-tied, stripped naked, photographed, hooded, sedated with anal suppositories (amounting to sodomy), placed in diapers, and transported by plane to a secret location."

Stripping demonstrates the captors' omnipotence and and debilitates detainees. Interrogators were advised to "tear clothing from (them) by firmly pulling downward against buttons and seams....pulling detainees off balance." Techniques also include the "Shoulder Slap, Stomach Slap, Hooding, Manhandling, Walling," and a variety of "Stress Positions."

Mohammed said he was placed in his own cell, kept naked for several days, and questioned by female interrogators for added humiliation. He was also attached to a dog leash and yanked to propel him into walls in his cell. In addition, he was suspended from the ceiling by his arms so that his toes barely touched the ground and he was unable to sleep. It caused intense pain and swelling to his legs. He may have also been beaten with electric cables, commonly used against other detainees. Some also got repeated electric shocks.

Mohammed further described being chained naked to a metal ring in his cell in a painful crouch - for prolonged periods in alternating intense heat and extreme cold when he was doused with ice water, a banned practice that can cause hypothermia. Other detainees were bombarded with deafening sounds round the clock for weeks or even months. This and other practices went on endlessly, and its effect was shattering. Detainees "lost their minds." You could "hear people knocking their heads against walls and doors, screaming their heads off." Attempted suicides were common, and some succeeded.

Mohammed was later secretly taken to a "specially designated (Polish) prison for high-value detainees." Up to a dozen others like him were there, but no first-hand accounts emerged of what happened. However, "well-informed sources" said it was far more high-tech than in Afghanistan - including hydraulic doors, video surveillance and more.

From what's known from others who were there, Mohammed was kept in a prolonged state of sensory deprivation, perhaps as long as four months. He was also waterboarded multiple times. There was no exposure to natural light, and the only human contact was with silent masked guards. The ICRC report seemed to confirm that he was kept shackled and naked, except for a pair of goggles and earmuffs. Meals came sporadically to keep prisoners disoriented. It was largely tasteless and barely enough to sustain him.

Under this type treatment, virtually everyone breaks down, and Mohammed was no exception. He ended up confessing to so many crimes, he was barely credible. In addition to the Pearl murder, he said he planned to assassinate Presidents Clinton and Carter, Pope John Paul II and a great deal more, including plots to blow up New York suspension bridges and the Panama Canal - anything to end the pain. Later on, like many other detainees, he said he lied "to please his captors."

As for taking blame for Daniel Pearl's killing, one of Pearl's friends said: "I'm not interested in unfair justice, even for bad people. Danny was such a person of conscience. I don't think he would have wanted all of this dirty business. I don't think he would have wanted someone being tortured. He would have been repulsed." So are all people of conscience at a grim time in our history.

Mayer recounts Mohammed's ordeal as well as Abu Zubaydah's and others in her book. She also notes that Dick Cheney "saw to it that some of the sharpest and best-trained lawyers in the country, working in secret in the White House and US Department of Justice, came up with legal justifications for a vast expansion of the government's power in waging war on terror. As part of the process, for the first time in history, the United States sanctioned government officials to physically and psychologically torment US-held captives, making torture the official law of the land in all but name." This "extralegal counterterrorism program presented the most dramatic, sustained, and radical challenge to the rule of law in American history."

The Bush White House adopted a "doctrine of presidential prerogative." It functions in secret and allows no challenge to its authority. In the "war on terror," everything is permissible even against innocent victims. And Mayer found there are many. She revealed a classified 2002 CIA report stating that one-third of Guantanamo's 600 prisoners (at the time) have no connection to terrorism. In fact, the number was far higher as most sent there were snatched randomly for bounty and victimized by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Major General Michael Dunlavey agreed and suggested up to half of Guantanamo detainees were innocent of any crime. A Seton Hall University Law School study put the number even higher.

CIA, however, later lowered their estimate to 50 unjustifiably detained. But either way it contradicted the administration's claim that Guantanamo held "the worst of the worst" even though most never were charged with a crime and none so far have been tried. They continue being held at black holes sites, totally outside the law, and for most without any hope again for a normal life. After what they've endured, that's impossible. It's America's darkest hour, and Mayer powerfully recounts it.

Late News on Torture Victims

Salim Hamdan was captured during the Afghanistan invasion, held at Guantanamo, and accused of being Osama bin Laden's personal driver. After US District Court judge James Robertson's July 17 ruling (that may be appealed in light of the Boumediene decision), he'll be the first detainee tried by a military commission (possibly beginning July 21) in which he'll receive no due process and no hope for judicial fairness. On July 15, he testified at a pretrial hearing and described everyday life at Guantanamo - a six year ordeal of interrogation, torture, isolation, sexual humiliation and more. A snapshot follows:

-- his "confessions" were made under extreme duress - torture; his lawyer is trying to exclude them from trial; there's practically no chance he'll succeed;

-- "Camp Echo," where was held, "is like a graveyard where you place a dead person in a tomb;"

-- according to prosecutors, he was disciplined 84 times; his counsel said 15 were for trying to speak to other detainees - "through walls, through vents and in the recreation yard;"

-- he described an interrogation by a woman who touched his thigh and groin area; "She behaved in an improper way; She came very close with her whole body towards me. I couldn't do anything;"

-- he described months in isolation, multiple episodes of sleep deprivation, including Operation Sandman for 50 days in 2003, and being force-fed - by military personnel in white coats; they strapped him down and snaked a tube through his nose to his stomach; "Doctors, butchers, I couldn't tell the difference;" it's a very painful procedure;

-- during one month of FBI interrogation, guards rapped on his cell door every five to ten minutes all night to wake him;

-- a tape of his first interrogation was revealed; he said he was a Muslim charity worker, not a bin Laden employee; nonetheless he underwent harsh battlefield questioning with his arms and legs bound, a soldier's boot on his shoulder to keep his head bowed, and a "bag over my head;"

-- he described persistent back pain and no medical treatment;

-- he's charged with transporting weapons for Al Queda and helping bin Laden escape after 9/11; he calls himself a Muslim charity worker, not a terrorist; a judge in Washington will shortly rule on whether he should be tried in federal court; on July 14, several hundred current and former European officials asked the judge to block the military tribunal saying it was "clearly at odds with the most basic norms of fair trial and due process."

In another July 15 development, the Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals made two rulings, both 5 - 4. One (reversing a June 2007 three-judge panel decision) allows the Bush administration to order indefinite military detentions of civilians captured in the US. A second held that Ali al-Marri, a Qatar citizen held at the Charleston, SC naval brig, may challenge his detention in federal court but will remain imprisoned without charge. The decision is disturbing because the court was vague about about what type new proceeding is allowed. The Bush administration may also appeal to the Supreme Court so al-Marri and others like him remain in limbo.

He's the only known person in mainland custody held as an "unlawful enemy combatant." Defense intelligence official, Jeffrey Rapp, calls him (without evidence) an Al Queda "sleeper agent" sent to America to commit mass murder and disrupt the banking system. He was arrested in Peoria, IL where he lived with his family.

His lawyer, Jonathan Hafetz, called the court's decision disturbing. It means "the president can pick up any person in the country - citizen or legal resident - and lock them up for years without the most basic safeguard in the Constitution, the right to a (fair and speedy) criminal trial."

Final Comments

On February 17, 2008 in a New York Times Op-Ed, Air Force Colonel Morris Davis, former chief Guantanamo military commissions prosecutor, went public. He resigned last year because political operatives and military superiors pushed prosecutors to file charges before trial rules were written. He also called the tribunals tainted by political influence and by evidence obtained through torture. He further accused Pentagon general counsel, William Haynes II, of saying detainee acquittals would make the US look bad. "We can't have acquittals, we've got to have convictions." In 2004, three other prosecutors also quit, calling the process rigged.

Davis explained his prosecutorial standard - "that evidence derived through waterboarding was off limits. That should still be our policy. To do otherwise is not only an affront to American justice, it will potentially put prosecutors at risk for using illegally obtained evidence."

"Unfortunately, I was overruled....and I resigned my position to call attention to the issue - efforts that were hampered by my being placed under a gag rule and ordered not to testify at a Senate hearing. While some high-level military and civilian officials have rightly expressed indignation on the issue, the current state can be described generally as indifference and inaction....Military justice has a proud history; this was not one of its finer moments."

Guantanamo convictions are only justifiable "after trials we can truthfully call full, fair and open. In that service, we must declare that evidence obtained by waterboarding be banned in every American system of justice." Hopefully he means all evidence gotten through torture and abuse.

On another matter following the Supreme Court's important June 12 Boumediene v. Bush decision, the administration is reportedly preparing to transfer Guantanamo's remaining 265 detainees to mainland locations. Boumediene overrode the 2006 Military Commissions Act by ruling Guantanamo prisoners have habeas rights and can challenge their detention in civil courts. The administration has several choices. It can stall, ignore the Court, act as reportedly rumored, or ask Congress to pass new supportive legislation.

Currently around 80 detainees are to be tried in military commissions. Another 65 can be repatriated home, leaving 120 others. According to Boumediene, they all have habeas rights unless Bush administration officials obstruct justice to prevent it. Given what they've done, a smooth road to justice is far from certain. George Bush was noncommittal about Boumediene saying only that the ruling was being analyzed. Both presidential candidates favor closing Guantanamo, then transferring prisoners to US military prisons. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas is a likely possibility.

Another issues involves "prison ships," and in 2005, the UN's Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism took note. He spoke of "very, very serious" allegations that the US was secretly detaining terrorist suspects aboard special ships at various locations around the world, notably in the Indian Ocean.

The UK legal action charity, Reprieve, believes up to 17 floating prisons are involved where detainees are held under torturous conditions and subjected to harsh and brutal treatment, in some cases worse than Guantanamo. Details have emerged from US administration and military sources as well as the Council of Europe, various parliamentary bodies, journalists, and former prisoner testimonies.

The USS Bataan is one ship mentioned, and a former Guantanamo detainee described his treatment on board. About 50 in total were there. They were closed off in the ship's bottom area and beaten more severely than at Camp X-Ray. Reprieve's Director, Clive Stafford Smith, said: "The US administration chooses ships to try to keep their misconduct as far as possible from the prying eyes of the media and lawyers. We will eventually reunite these ghost prisoners with their human rights."

"By its own admission, the US government is currently detaining at least 26,000 people without trial in secret prisons, and information suggests up to 80,000 have been 'through the system' since 2001. The US government must show a commitment to rights and basic humanity by immediately revealing who these people are, where they are, and what has been done to them." The Bush administration's response so far: silence.

Leaving aside other countries, America, to some degree, has practiced torture for many decades, and especially since the CIA's establishment in 1947. During the Vietnam War, Paul Blackstock wrote an essay titled the "Moral Implications of Torture and Exemplary Assassination" for the Carnegie Council On Ethics and International Affairs. He described widespread CIA and special forces torture saying this policy created a situation wherein "for the majority of private individuals (the) intolerable (became) tolerable." That's the situation today in the Middle East, Central Asia, Guantanamo, on prison ships, and at all secret US black sites worldwide.

Unless exposed, denounced and stopped, it's heading to mainland America and maybe a neighborhood near you. It's no idle threat given that, on July 14, the ACLU revealed that the nation's terrorist watch list hit one million names - based on the government's own reported numbers. It's also symbolic of what's wrong with "this administration's approach to security - unfair, out-of-control, a waste of resources, (treating) the rights of the innocent as an afterthought," and recklessly endangering what little freedom remains. Even worse, by Bush administration standards, there is none.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of The Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9569

Drought and Israeli Policy Threaten West Bank Water Security

Drought and Israeli Policy Threaten West Bank Water Security - by Stephen Lendman

Fresh water is precious everywhere but especially in one of the driest, hottest places on earth - the Middle East. It's why it's a strategic resource and the reason countries like Israel do everything possible to secure a reliable supply. In the words of former prime minister Moshe Sharett: "Water to us is life itself." It shapes Israeli policy going back to the early Mandate period.

A Brief History

Post-WW I, Zionists wanted Sykes-Picot borders altered to include the Jordan River, Lower Litani, east coast of the Sea of Galilee and Lower Yarmouk headwaters and tributaries. These affect Palestine, southern Lebanon, Syria and the Jordan Valley. Efforts to secure them fell short because French opposition blocked them. But it didn't prevent further regional hydrological studies. They were needed because by WW II's end accommodating a growing Palestinian and Jewish population grew acute.

Israel's "War of Independence" followed in 1947-48. It assured water sovereignty as well. Israel was free to act unilaterally - to tap and develop all available resources plus whatever it could seize later on. They'd be needed after Israel's 1950 Law of Return was passed. It granted Jews worldwide special rights - to emigrate freely and become citizens of the land of Israel. It brought in waves of new immigrants requiring considerable water resources for them, but Israel's supply was inadequate. At the time, four states shared the Jordan-Yarmouk watershed. Developing it was essential. Each had growing needs so securing a dependable supply was vital.

Several regional water-sharing proposals failed in part because Israel linked them to recognizing the Jewish state. It also rejected solutions not in its strategic interest and acted unilaterally instead. Take its National Water Carrier project. Construction began in the late 1950s and early 1960s and became the country's largest water project - to transfer Sea of Galilee northern water to highly populated areas in the center and south and to facilitate efficient water use. To neighboring Arab states, however, it was a hostile act, and they responded with their own diversion plans. Israel viewed them as a national security threat.

Confrontation followed. The National Water Carrier was targeted. Israel retaliated against Syrian construction sites. Skirmishes broke out, and the 1967 war resulted. Officially it began on June 5, 1967. Others, including Ariel Sharon, said it started two and a half years earlier when Israel acted against diverting the Jordan River. Earlier, Ben-Gurion warned that Jews and Arabs would battle over strategic water resources and determine Palestine's fate. Its people as well. Aside from other strategic aims for land and regional control, Israel secured water rich lands in southern Lebanon, Jordan, the Golan, and West Bank.

It fully exploited them and is a key reason why the Golan was never returned. West Bank water is another issue. It has three principle aquifers supplying about one-quarter of Israel's needs, including for its settlements and nearly all of what West Bank Palestinians get. They are:

-- the Yarkon-Tanninim Aquifer supplying Israel with about 340 million cubic meters (mcm) of water annually - to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv mainly; Palestinians get far less - about 20 mcm a year;

-- the Nablus-Gilboa Aquifer supplying about 115 mcm annually, largely for agricultural irrigation in Galilee-based kibbutzim and moshavim cooperative settlements;

-- the Eastern Aquifer supplying about 40 mcm a year to Jordan Valley-based settlements; another 60 mcm go to Palestinians.

Water also comes from the upper Jordan River and its tributaries - the Sea of Galilee, the Yarmouth, and lower Jordan River. Palestinians are denied most of it. As their population grows, shortages have become more acute because of Israel's restrictive policies.

Israel's Water Policy in the Territories

The policy works this way - to preserve an unequal division of western, eastern, and northern West Bank aquifer supply. It was the same for Gaza's aquifer prior to disengagement. The result is a hugely disproportionate distribution policy causing growing shortages for Palestinians. Israel does little to alleviate it. It invests little in infrastructure leaving 20% of West Bank Palestinians unconnected to a running-water system:

-- around 227,000 in 220 West Bank towns and villages;

-- another 190,000 only partially connected; and

-- even in towns and villages with a water network, most often supply is irregular - only on some hours of the day and sometimes rotationally; in distant areas, supply may be disconnected for days or weeks; it's part of Mekorot's (Israel's National Water Company) discriminatory policy to assure settlers are adequately supplied.

In addition, Israeli maintenance (for Palestinians) is shoddy. Water pipes are old and leak, and in some cases more than 50% of fresh water is lost. Qalqiliya and Tulkarm have been especially affected.

Consider the disparity between Israeli and Palestinian supply. For Palestinians, per capita West Bank consumption is 60 liters a day - for domestic, urban, rural, and industrial use. It's far below the minimum 100 daily liters required according to the World Health Organization. In contrast, look how much Israelis get - 280 liters a day per capita for domestic, urban and rural use or about four and a half times more than Palestinians. Including industrial use, and it's 330 liters or five a half times Palestinian consumption.

Israeli Violations of International Law on Water in the Occupied Territories

By integrating Occupied Territory water resources into its legal and bureaucratic system and denying Palestinians the right to develop them for their own use, Israel violates international law under Articles 43 and 55 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. Also Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relating to treating "all protected persons....with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are...."

Then there's Article 6 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. It requires water division between states to be reasonable and equitable. Not according to a specific formula but with regard to seven factors:

-- the watercourse's shared natural features - its geography, climate, hydrology, and so forth;

-- each state's social and economic needs;

-- its population;

-- how watercourse use in one state affects another;

-- watercourse existing and potential uses;

-- watercourse resources conservation, protection and development and the cost of measures to assure them; and

-- planned or existing use alternatives.

Taking international law and all the above factors into account, Palestinian rights are severely compromised.

Water security is crucial for Israel. Securing and preserving supply essential. In the occupied West Bank, Arabs are prohibited from drilling new wells without special permission, but it's practically impossible to get and won't likely change. Many existing wells were also sealed to restrict Palestinians to a very low quota, far below Israelis. Most West Bank water goes to Israel and the expanding settlement population. Jordan River water is also diverted - from 50 to 75%. As its population grows, so does its water needs. It was one among other factors behind the 1982 Lebanon invasion - to control the Litani River in the country's south. It remains out of reach today, but a richer resource would be to secure access to major rivers like the Nile, Euphrates or Seyhan and Ceyhan in Turkey.

Since the 1990s, water and other environmental issues were among the most important in Israeli bilateral relations. Its October 1994 peace treaty with Jordan included five annexes. Two addressed water and environmental concerns.

The water rich Golan has been a stumbling block toward a similar deal with Syria. It's much the same in bilateral Palestinian talks. The Territories' water resources have been over-exploited for years, but precious little of it for Palestinian use. It's a major destabilizing factor and obstacle to real peace and security. So many issues are at stake. One rarely discussed is the inequitable distribution of scarce and valued water resources.

Summer 2008 Drought Compounds the Problem

Israelis nearly always have enough water for their needs - agricultural, drinking, bathing, watering lawns, washing cars, and filling swimming pools for those who have them. In contrast, Palestinians have precious little. In summer it's always worse, but this year the most severe draught in a decade made it grave. In the northern West Bank, consumption is at about one-third the minimum required. It's because rainfall this year has been less than two-thirds normal. In southern areas, it's barely over half. Cities like Tubas, Jenin, Nablus and the Southern Hebron hills have been especially impacted.

According to Palestinian Water Authority estimates, the West Bank's water shortfall is from 42 to 69 mcm. Its consumption is 79 mcm making emergency supplies needed. Throughout the West Bank, per capita consumption is about 66 liters (for domestic, urban, rural and industrial use), far below the World Health Organization's 100 liter minimum for personal needs.

Making matters worse is the price of privately purchased water that constitutes 50% of West Bank supply - from 15 to 30 shekels or three to six times higher that Israelis pay. Because of this year's shortfall, it's heading higher and putting an impossible burden on impoverished Palestinians to buy enough of it. The alternative is drinking from questionable sources after amounts collected in cisterns run dry - stagnant water or from dirty springs that may expose users to frequent and serious illnesses.

Oslo II's Broken Promise

The 1995 Oslo II agreement assured "the equitable utilization of joint water resources for implementation in and beyond the interim period." It never happened because Israel's Palestinian dealings are nearly always duplicitous. It sets traps and uses devious language to assure interpretations go its way.

Post-Oslo II, a Joint Water Committee (JWC) was established to approve new West Bank water and sewage projects. It's composed of an equal number of Israeli and Palestinian representatives, but that's where equality ends. All decisions are by consensus, but no procedure is in place to settle disputes when agreement can't be reached. As a result, Israel can veto Palestinian requests for new wells - even though Oslo II assured it.

Desalinization Plans

The publication New Scientist has covered "the latest science and technology news, reports, developments and research" for over 50 years. In May 2004, it reported that Israel had a "secret plan for a giant desalination plant to supply (privatized) drinking water to (Palestinians in) the West Bank." It was to preserve fresh water supplies for Israelis, but here's the catch. Israel won't fund it nor can Palestinians. It means the world community or possibly the US would have to do it. Just as bad, if it's ever completed, is the cost as leading hydrologists point out: "desalinating seawater and pumping it to the West Bank....would cost around $1 per cubic meter," an impossible amount for Palestinians to pay at an exchange rate of 3.3 shekels to the dollar. Many if not most Israelis as well.

Nonetheless, Alvin Newman, USAID's Tel Aviv head of water resources, supported the project, and with good reason. If funding is secured, it would mean lucrative business contracts for favored USAID contractors. Palestinians, on the other hand, are fearful. They object to desalinization plans dependent on their abandoning claims to West Bank water - resources beneath their own land. Ihad Barghothi, Palestinian Water Authority's head of water projects said at the time: "We cannot do that (nor do we) have the money or expertise for desalination."

Gaza is another issue. It depends almost exclusively on small wells tapping the coastal aquifer. But as the water table falls, it's being increasingly polluted by salt sea water. UN scientists conclude that within 15 years (from 2004) Gaza will have no drinkable water and will have to import its needs. But even now the World Health Organization reports that Gaza's water quality falls below its acceptable standards due to the aquifer's degradation. Besides that, 40% of Gaza homes lack running water, according to the Palestinian Water Authority.

Another possible solution is an approved and apparently funded so-called ocean depth reverse osmosis plant to provide the Territory's supply. It's another method of desalinating sea water, but here again there's the cost.

New Scientist points out that if these two projects become reality they'll make "Palestine more dependent on desalination than almost any other nation in the world." And given the cost of desalinated water, it will be out of reach for the great majority of impoverished Palestinians.

Palestinian Resilience and Nonviolent Resistance

Palestinian resilience is impressive despite overwhelming obstacles. Take Nahhalin village, 20 kilometers southeast of Bethlehem where the Applied Research Institute of Jerusalem (ARIJ) is active. For the past 17 years, it's represented Palestinian interests - economic, social, natural resources management, sustainable agriculture, politics, and water management.

In 2007, it began a waste water treatment project it will replicate in other rural areas to provide new sources of water for irrigation. In Nahhalin, ARIJ's water and environment research unit will install on-site waste water treatment systems for about 180 homes accommodating 1800 people. The project is scheduled for completion in 2010. Wherever else it's used, it'll manage waste water and improve access to fresh supplies. ARIJ believes its plan is one of the most feasible and economical ways to provide a sanitary use for household waste water. When in place, it'll increase agricultural productivity and food security, a vital Palestinian concern.

ARIJ sees other benefits as well. Treatment units will be manufactured locally to provide much needed jobs. In addition, these type projects further peace and are powerful nonviolent resistance acts.

The Palestinian Hydrology Group (PHG) complements ARIJ's efforts with its own projects. It's an NGO "promot(ing) the role of women in civil societies in managing local water and its related environmental resources to ensure transparency, good water governance and just and equal provision of water and sanitation services to the rural and marginal communities in the West Bank and Gaza."

One of its projects is in the northern West Bank villages of Jayyus and Karr Jammal near Qalqilya where Israel's Separation Wall cuts off off farmers from their lands. PHG is helping them maintain pumps and irrigation systems so they have greater control of their natural resources despite overwhelming Israeli restrictions. It's another expression of their nonviolent resistance and it's spreading.

International law is supportive. It recognizes non-discriminatory access to adequate fresh water as a fundamental human right and requires occupying powers to assure it. The UN General Assembly also affirmed Palestinians' right to self-determination and control of their natural resources - in Resolutions 1803 (1962), 2672C, (1970), 2787 (1971) and 3098D (1980).

In December 1966, it adopted the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Article 1(1) affirms self-determination, and Article 1(2) states: "All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic cooperation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence." It's now up to the international body to enforce its own rulings.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9569

Sami Al-Arian: From Exoneration to Criminal Indictment

Sami Al-Arian: From Exoneration to Criminal Indictment - by Stephen Lendman

A personal note. I've twice before written about Al-Arian and discussed his case on my radio program with his wife and daughter. Since February 20, 2003, he's been unjustly imprisoned. The FBI hounded him for 11 years. It falsely accused him of backing organizations fronting for Palestinian Islamic Jihad - a 1997 State Department-designated "Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO)." It's one of 30 organizations so-designated that year. In 1999, three were removed. Another was added in 2001 for a total of 28. Sixteen of them are Arabic/Muslim and include Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Hezbollah and Al Queda. Their ideologies differ from western standards. Washington thus calls them FTOs that "engage in terrorist activity (and) threaten the security of US nationals or the national security of the US."

In August 2001, Palestinian Islamic Jihad's (PIJ) General Secretary, Dr. Fathi Shikaki, agreed to be interviewed. He called the organization "an independent, Islamic, and popular movement with Islam (advocating) grassroots popular action and armed struggle (for the) liberation of (Occupied) Palestine." In this respect, it's no different from the Vichy French resistance. They were renown freedom fighters. So were the Mujahideen (when they were on our side) against the Soviets in Afghanistan and Serbia in the Balkans.

As Michel Chossudovsky noted in a September 2001 Global Research.ca article titled "Who is Osama Bin Laden?:" ....while the Islamic Jihad - featured by the Bush administration as "a threat to America" - is blamed for the (9/11 attacks), these same Islamic organizations constitute a key instrument of US military intelligence in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union." In other words, they're (unwittingly) used to further US interests and at the same time justify Washington's war on Islam (aka the "war on terrorism").

Shikaki denied that PIJ or the Islamic Jihad Movement (IJM) practice "terrorism." On the contrary, "terrorism is practiced by a state (Israel) that is fully supported by the West. (It and especially America back) dictatorial regimes that are tyrannical, oppressive and practice human rights abuses on massive scales....Tens of thousands of Islamists have been arrested and....held under severe conditions." However, "only a small segment used violence against the state-sponsored and state-supported violence."

How can Palestinians be called terrorists. We "scream from pain and suffering and (are) defending (our) land against Jewish soldiers....We are calling for peace based on justice, rights and dignity. We must be dealt with as equals and as carriers of a great civilization. Only then will peace prevail in our region and the whole world....Our state is Palestine....As for the Jews, they have lived peacefully with us for centuries....They could (always) live among us freely, but not as a political entity....We don't espouse throwing the Jews into the sea (but) there will be no peace unless Palestine is returned to the Palestinians."

Al-Arian: Falsely Targeted For Supporting "Terrorism"

Because of his faith, ethnicity, political activism and prominence, Al-Arian became a prime target. He was falsely vilified for supporting terrorism. Then at the behest of Governor Jeb Bush and despite his tenured status, the University of South Florida fired him following his February 20, 2003 arrest. Ever since, he's been imprisoned and held in brutalizing and dehumanizing confinement in over a dozen maximum and other federal prison facilities. Only his spirit sustains him.

His June 2005 trial was a travesty. It lasted six months, cost about $50 million, and in the end Al-Arian was exonerated on eight false terrorism charges. On nine lesser ones, jurors were deadlocked 10 - 2 for acquittal.

Al-Arian is a Palestinian refugee, a distinguished professor and scholar, community leader and civil activist. His crime - being an activist Muslim at the wrong time in America. After his exoneration, prosecutors planned to retry him but instead struck a secret plea bargain with his lawyers. It stipulated:

-- he neither engaged in or had any knowledge of violent acts;

-- that he would not be required to cooperate further with prosecutors;

-- and that he would be released on time served and deported voluntarily to his country of choice.

He remained in custody pending sentencing and deportation on May 1, 2006. Yet he's still imprisoned and his ordeal continues. In October 2006, assistant prosecutor Gordon Kromberg violated plea bargain terms by subpoenaing Al-Arian before a grand jury. It was to entrap him on perjury and obstruction of justice charges through clever and manipulative questioning.

At the time, he said this about all Muslims that should have automatically disqualified him: "If they can kill each other during Ramadan, they can appear before the grand jury - all they can't do is eat before sunset. I believe Mr. Al-Arian's request is part of the attempted Islamization of the American Justice System. I am not going to put off (his) grand jury appearance just to assist in what is becoming the Islamization of America." Following these comments, Al-Arian's attorney accused Kromberg of anti-Muslim bias and asked him to recuse himself. He denied the request and called Al-Arian before the grand jury.

He refused to testify and was held in contempt. He refused again before a newly convened grand jury, was again held in contempt, and had his sentence extended without mitigation until April 7, 2008. On March 3, 2008 (three weeks before his scheduled release and deportation), Al-Arian was again ordered to appear before another March 19 grand jury. He again refused, remained imprisoned, and on June 26 was indicted on two counts of criminal contempt.

Al-Arian's case is crucially important. It shows the peril of being Muslim in America. It also represents a disturbing abuse of the grand jury system before which Al-Arian has no obligation to testify. It's at a time our constitutional checks and balances have eroded, our civil liberties are weakest, a president has usurped "unitary executive" powers to claim the law is what he says it is, and when we teeter on the edge of tyranny unless these practices are stopped.

Law Professor and Lead Al-Arian Counsel Jonathan Turley

Turley calls Al-Arian's case "a classic perjury trap used repeatedly by the government to punish those individuals who could not be convicted before an American jury." All the more so if you're Muslim, high-profile, and easily exploited for political advantage.

On June 30, Al-Arian was arraigned before Judge Leonie Brinkema of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Columbia. Turley was denied the right to meet with him in advance and wasn't prepared to enter a plea. The Court did it for him - "not guilty." His trial is scheduled to begin on August 13, 2008.

Turley requested that Al-Arian be released on bail. He's not charged with terrorism, has no passport, and isn't a flight risk. Since charges involve contempt, there's no reason to hold him. He's lived in the country since 1975, has lawful alien status, his children are US citizens, and they have deep ties here. In addition, citizens have volunteered to be custodians, and Al-Arian is willing to be continually monitored under home confinement. Turley calls the government's actions "purely gratuitous and retaliatory under (these) conditions."

He further requested a bond hearing, and Judge Brinkema agreed. During his Florida trial, friends offered millions in property as security. They were denied. Prosecutors asked for a one-day trial. Turley requested three days and told Judge Brinkema that counsel believes Al-Arian's indictment is "invalid on its face." He didn't refuse to cooperate. He'd already given two detailed affidavits establishing that he had no knowledge of any crimes committed by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (a Herndon, Virginia think tank) or its officers. He also repeatedly asked to take a polygraph exam for verification. He was denied.

Turley also explained that the day before his indictment the government expressed satisfaction with his affidavits. By indicting him, "the government's long pattern of retaliation against Dr. Al-Arian has now degraded further into raw thuggery." It has no interest in truth and justice. It intends to act outside the law by whatever means it takes to keep an innocent man imprisoned. Al-Arian is now at Alexandria, VA City Jail awaiting his bond hearing.

On July 10 it was held, and for the first time since his February 2003 arrest there was good news - at least so far. Over strong government objections, Judge Brinkema agreed that Al-Arian is not a flight risk or danger to his community and granted him bail. But it's not over yet because DOJ is sure to fight it. One possible way according to Turley - having ICE officials hold him for deportation and keep him imprisoned until his trial.

Turley cited Judge Brinkema's "significant statements in the hearing:

-- that she was getting "strange signals" about this case; that "the government should not be found to have harassed efforts for another government to accept Dr. Al-Arian under his plea agreement;

-- that the plea agreement still applies and the government is required to deport him "with expedition;"

-- should ICE resume custody, the deportation provision would be triggered; and

-- Judge Brinkema wants confirmation that Al-Arian already gave the government detailed statements and repeatedly offered to take a polygraph exam to prove his truthfulness.

Prosecutor Kromberg twisted the truth to deny Al-Arian bail. Turley expertly countered him. The week of July 14 he'll submit pre-trial motions and (formally) request Al-Arian's release on bail. DOJ will surely fight it. The case is far from resolved, and according to Turley: "Things are likely to become stranger still as the government continues its long campaign to hold Dr. Al-Arian by any means or method. We remain hopeful, however, that (he'll) be vindicated and (allowed) to leave the country" as his plea bargain stipulates.

Yassin Aref - Another Muslim Political Prisoner

A personal note. I've twice before written about Aref, discussed his case with his lawyers on my radio program, and have personal contact with him in prison. Like others of his faith, he was hunted down, rounded up, held in detention, kept in isolation, denied bail, restricted in his right and access to counsel, tried on secret evidence and trumped-up charges, then convicted in a kangaroo court proceeding and given a long prison term.

Like Al-Arian and other Muslims, Aref was targeted for his faith and ethnicity. He's an innocent man and another victim of police state justice. He's now serving a 15 year sentence at the secret Terre Haute, Indiana federal penitentiary's Communication Management Unit (CMU). Opened in December 2006, it's for "high-security risk" Muslim and Middle Eastern prisoners to limit or cut them off entirely from outside contact. Doing so violates the Supreme Court's 2004 Johnson v. California decision and Prison Bureau regulations. However, the courts and Congress haven't intervened.

Aref appealed on March 24, 2008 before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. After the proceeding, one of his pro bono trial lawyers, Stephen Downs, was hopeful but cautious. He explained that predicting the outcome was uncertain at best and foolhardy at worst.

On July 2 in United States v. Aref, the (three-judge panel) Appeals Court rendered a unanimous decision. Aref was denied, and unless a motion for rehearing or the Supreme Court decides otherwise, he'll remain imprisoned for 15 years. The Court issued an 11 page summary order rejecting evidentiary challenges and other defendant claims. Appeals Court lawyers Terrence Kindlon and Kathy Manley expressed profound disappointment with Kindlon saying: "I feel like somebody hit me in the face with a pie....We were feeling some optimism here. We thought there were some significant issues that dealt not just with the law but with some of the events that occurred throughout the course of the trial....I can honestly say I strongly and respectfully disagree with the decision."

A Schenectady, NY columnist, Carl Strock, was also dismayed and commented: "I thought the arguments (for reversal) were compelling, but I could hardly imagine an appeals court overturning a jury verdict in something so sensitive as Muslim terrorism, even if the terrorism was" bogus. The ruling "means it's OK for the FBI to lure law-abiding citizens (or legal residents) into doing something illegal" or that government prosecutors can claim (with secret evidence unavailable to counsel) is illegal and then arrest, charge and convict them for it. "That's the long and short of this case."

It's also OK for federal judges to assure jurors that the government has "good and valid (prosecutorial) reasons" even when there are none. The same government claimed "valid reasons" to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. We now know there were none.

Kindlon said he's preparing an en banc motion for rehearing before the full Appeals Court and a writ of certiorari petition to the Supreme Court asking it to review the lower court ruling. Winning a reversal in either court will be daunting given the preponderance of hard right federal judges on the bench. It shows what all Muslims (and the rest of us) are up against despite the important Boumedienne v. Bush Supreme Court decision. It ruled Guantanamo detainees have habeas rights even if they're not US citizens and are held outside the country. Despite having them, however, getting justice in US federal courts may prove a bridge too far. Especially for those targeted as enemies of the state with or without evidence.

Like Al-Arian, Aref is an innocent man. His crime is being Muslim at the wrong time in America. He committed no crime and was victimized by an FBI frame. I have direct contact with him in prison. We exchange letters and occasional emails when he's allowed to send and receive them. He's a friend and a supremely gracious and decent man. Injustice to him, Al-Arian and others denies it to everyone. Today we're all Yassin Arefs and Sami Al-Arians, Boumedienne v. Bush notwithstanding.

"I Am Not Surprised"

On the web site maintained for him (yassinaref.com), Aref responded to the Appeals Court decision in prose and poetry. Below are extended excerpts.

"I am not surprised. When they arrested me....I was shocked the next morning when they took me to court. I was surprised to see all those police, marshals and media, and I was really confused: what was all that about? Who am I (to be so important)? What did I do? What was going on? All of it was unbelievable. I (told) the marshals that there is a law in this country and I did nothing wrong, so the judge will free me and let me go back to my family."

He didn't and refused me bail, "claiming I was a flight risk and danger to the community, even" though I have no "travel documents and there was 50 cents in my wallet, plus I am stateless and have no country to go to. Above all, I did nothing wrong (and) have (nothing) to hide.

Then while....in jail....I understood what was going on....it's not me, it's politics and discrimination....if I was not a Muslim and Imam....never would I have been targeted (or) indicted" or tried without evidence. Even if they" tried me, no "jury (would) find me guilty," and if they did no judge would accept it. Even if the judge did, no "appeal court" would go along. "But all of this happened....because I was a foreigner, a Muslim who had a little beard.

All the government did was misrepresent their evidence to confuse the court and prevent justice from taking place." Everyone in the drama played a role. "But still I am happy because I did nothing wrong and harmed no one....what they did to me is wrong and not fair, and I believe the truth will never die and people will find it sooner or later."

The government "dishonored justice and humiliated the Constitution, not me. Anyone who knows me....knows I am innocent." Knows I'm not "a dangerous wild animal who must be locked down in an isolated unit. I am just a scapegoat for the (government's wrong policies and a victim (of) their nonsensical ongoing war." Millions of others are suffering like me.

"The government....know(s) very well I had nothing to do with terrorists or (have any) anti-American (beliefs) or (approve of) violence, and that never in my life did I participate in any fighting or....support any terrorists....I am just a Muslim and a stateless Kurd....Let the government celebrate their victory for destroying my family and for putting an innocent man in prison. Let the media" and appeals court support what they did. It changes nothing. "I am innocent and did nothing wrong.

I am grateful for everyone who has supported me, wished and prayed for the best for me and felt sorry for my family....They cannot put hate in my heart and revenge in my thoughts. I know it's not over, and I hope you believe the same and stay firm until justice takes place and the truth comes out. Please do not forget my family."

We never will Yassin or stop supporting your struggle for justice. Or other innocent victims like yourself.

For Muslims in America, Their Ordeal Continues

Rumors are circulating about new police state tactics later this summer - so the DOJ may open new investigations without evidence of wrongdoing. Merely on the basis of an undisclosed "terrorist profile" or "pattern of behavior" suggesting suspects should be watched and interrogated about their Muslim or Arab-connected activities. Other grounds as well - where they travel as well as their occupation, race or ethnicity. It means millions of Americans will be targeted at a time no one's civil liberties are protected. Bogus charges will be brought against innocent people, and if they're Muslims and called "terrorists" imagine what little justice they'll get.

Congress won't help either. It gutted the Fourth Amendment further after both Houses passed and George Bush signed (on July 10) the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. It's FISA on steroids and more by granting telecom companies retroactive immunity to conduct warrantless spying post-9/11. Obama and McCain supported it. So did most others in Congress. Everyone has reason to fear it. Muslims most of all. They've suffered hugely since 9/11. No letup is in sight. This is how a police state works. Congress, the courts, and executive are on board. So is his successor. Expect little change in 2009 and no open public debate. The law of the land is now lawlessness. No one is safe, and there's no place to hide.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9569

McCain's Nomination - A Possible September Surprise?

McCain's Nomination - A Possible September Surprise? - by Stephen Lendman

Party conventions are less than two months off, and already rumors are circulating. When the Democrats hold theirs from August 25 - 28, Obama is the virtually sure nominee. According to some, however, things aren't settled for Republicans a week later. Presumptive nominee John McCain may not be as certain as most people think, and why so should be asked.

For one thing, he trails in the polls (including in key battleground states like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania) but not enough to be worrisome (in most of them), and the latest June Reuters/Zogby one is typical. It shows Obama ahead by about five points, and in recent months he's been up by from 6 to 10 and in one poll down six to McCain. It's much the same from a June Financial Dynamics one, but shows up much differently when respondents are asked which party's candidate they'll support. In recent months, Democrats have been strongly favored - since January from up 6 to 15 with three of the five survey months showing double digit leads.

That's indeed worrisome, and it showed up last March 29 in the Cook Political Report. It noted that by "almost every available gauge, Republicans are in deep trouble. Except that is, for the one that counts most - the presidential election trial heat." Back then, Obama or Clinton v. McCain came out pretty even with either side gaining an edge in different polls but not by much.

Fast forward to June 14, and the Cook Report said this: "After Clinton dropped out (Democrats quickly united and in Gallup polls) Obama is holding a steady 7-point lead, his largest since Gallup began tracking in March. (Further) Democrats now routinely hold a 6-to-8 point advantage on party identification. So Obama will have a distinct edge if he is as popular among Democrats as McCain is among Republicans. (He) represents the embodiment of change, which is an advantage in this political climate" when voters are begging for it. Yet it's too early to predict an outcome, and months earlier the Cook Report called the race a toss-up. It still says "anyone has a 50-50 chance of picking the winner today."

That view may change after the latest Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll came out June 25 - conducted from June 19 - 23. Right or wrong, it was hugely different from others up to mid-June. It showed Obama with a "sizable" lead over McCain, and here are the numbers:

-- head to head in a two-man race, Obama leads McCain by 49% to 37%;

-- however, in a four-man race (including Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr), Obama outscores McCain 48% to 33% for a 15 point spread.

Conclusion: Nader, Barr, and a Green Party candidate are running; others likely also but not enough to matter unless a prominent figure unexpectedly does as an independent; alternate candidates at this stage are taking votes from McCain, most likely Republican ones. Why so? Largely because voters trust Obama more on their top concern - the economy. Other domestic issues also while McCain scores higher on national security matters.

Most significant is McCain's "passion gap" among conservatives - 58% support him, but 15% are for Obama and another 13% undecided. In contrast, 79% of self-described "liberals" back Obama. Further, and equally significant, more than half (55%) of McCain supporters lack enthusiasm, and only 13% are "very enthusiastic." It's mirror opposite for Obama - 81% of his backers are "enthusiastic" and nearly half "very enthusiastic."

Two Times/Bloomberg poll results highlight McCain's problem. First is George Bush's approval rating. It scored the lowest ever: 23% with 73% disapproving of his job performance.

Second is the Christian right's feeling that McCain isn't solid on its issues, and as a senator flip-flopped on key ones. Supporting abortion in cases of rape and incest, for example, and wanting stem cell research to go forward. Also his reference to Pat Robinson and Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance" in his 2000 presidential campaign. He later apologized, but it may be too little, too late.

Discord In the Ranks

Rumblings below the surface have Republicans worried. It's clear from the above poll results and in a May 11 AFP report. It noted that "many party members (are) having a hard time accepting (McCain and they're) showing it with symbolic votes against him in" primaries. Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina to name three recent ones. It worries party leaders that "as many as 25% of Republicans want a different candidate" based on how many preferred other choices than McCain. Why so? Because his "reputation as a party maverick and a compromising moderate" makes him unpredictable. It also disgruntles "the party's most conservative and ideological members," and they've got plenty of clout to matter.

In recent weeks, however, McCain fought back by tilting noticeably to the right the way he's often done in the past. His speeches focused on conservative red meat issues like the Iraq war, national security, and appointing conservative High Court Justices while avoiding controversial ones like abortion, gay rights and others the religious right opposes. Nonetheless, his electability problem showed up in a May Wall Street Journal poll. It gave Bush a 27% approval rating, and 43% think McCain is "too closely aligned with the Bush agenda." That spells trouble (like the Times/Bloomberg results), and Democrats are exploiting it.

There's also McCain's temperament, his unimpressive intellect, unpredictability, his bigotry, arrogance, hardheadedness, legendary temper, instability, and his genius for making enemies among the faithful he needs for support. Observers also describe some recent speeches as wooden, halting, mechanical, bumbling, uninspiring, mean-spirited, and clearly no match for Obama who outclasses him. Then consider how Alexander Cockburn described him last February in a CounterPunch article: "a dunderhead in statecraft, devoid of self control, capricious in moral standards and an imbecile in his lack of political judgment." Worst of all it shows, and "the better people get to know (him), the less they care for him." The public as well that's shifting more to Obama as the two candidates face off with four months to go until November.

More reasons are McCain's flip-flops on long-held positions - on defense spending, domestic spying, torture, the estate tax, Social Security, balanced budgets, immigration, taxes, and numerous others - to convince conservatives he's one of them, pretend he's also centrist, but end up satisfying neither side because he's not believable. He may triangulate around domestic issues like abortion and campaign finance reform but in most respects he's conservative, hard right, and pro-business down the line. And on foreign policy, he's a super-hawk, as extremist as any, a shoot-first kind of guy, and an unabashed adherent of the Bush-Cheney doctrine, much like Joe Lieberman who's rumored as one of his vice-presidential choices.

Consider another issue as well - widely reported on July 3. The pro-McCain Wall Street Journal headlined: "McCain Shakes Up Campaign Organization." It went on to say he did it "for the second time in a year (because he) lags behind....Obama in the polls and faces criticism that his message is fractured and his operation is disorganized." McCain approved the changes after close aides told him his presidential hopes were endangered, and his campaign had to be revamped to save it.

The Journal reported more bad news as well by comparing his war chest to Obama's. Through May, Obama raised $287.5 million, had $43.1 million in cash on hand, continues to raise about $1 million a day, and expects to bring in another $200 million by November 4. In contrast, McCain trails badly and surprisingly so for a Republican. He raised $119 million, had $36 million in cash on hand left, and new campaign-finance loopholes may net him tens of millions more. That plus whatever public funding brings in, however, will still leave him well behind.

On July 6, AP reported more trouble as well. For starters, McCain's "trying to succeed a deeply unpopular fellow Republican in a year that favors Democrats." He also lacks a "coherent message let alone much of a strategy." His "troubles are so acute that he recently gave (his) senior advisor "full operational control" of his campaign and "scaled back the duties of (his) campaign manager." Republican pollster, Steve Lombardo, stated his concern: " McCain's got "no big theme around which to build a winning campaign." He needs a "big strategic message (to) show differences between" him and Obama to help him win.

At best, GOP insiders are "cautious." They worry that every poll shows McCain behind, and "on voters' most important issues, (he) trails on (all of them) but Iraq and terrorism. He also lags in key states," including key battleground ones. And when "it comes to message and strategy, McCain has appeared to flounder." One more thing as well. "McCain's campaign is roughly 300-strong compared with Obama's 1000-person plus operation." Another sign of a mismatch, so far at least.

McCain's Health As A Campaign Issue

Then there's the health issue and delay in releasing his medical records. His former bouts with skin cancer raise questions about his fitness. He's had one or more very common squamous cell carcinomas, but three more serious "thin" melanomas and one a potentially deadly deep one since 1993. On June 18 Dermatologist Kevin Berman explained the risks in a SkinCancerConnection.com piece.

Three of McCain's tumors were diagnosed as "melanoma in-situ," meaning they were caught early, were superficial, hadn't penetrated into deep layers of skin, so hadn't spread to other parts of his body. His deep melanoma is another matter. It was diagnosed and treated in 2000 after it penetrated to a depth of 2.2 mm on his face and was excised "with wide margins (through) a lymph node dissection that showed that the cancer had not spread to the lymph nodes and 'presumably' not to any other internal organs." The five-year survival rate in this case is about 80%, so Dr. Berman asks is McCain's health an issue.

Overall, younger patients do better than older ones, and McCain will be 72 in August. In addition, women survive better than men, and limb melanomas turn out better than facial ones for which McCain was treated. However, everyone is unique, and "the fact that (he's been) cancer free for 8 years is a good sign that (he's) cured." But it's no guarantee for anyone, let alone a man with a history of skin cancer.

Further, melanoma is deadly and "can reappear later without any warning on any internal organ," so it's unwise to say McCain is "out of the woods" and the reason periodic checks are necessary. He gets full body ones every three months because it's uncommon to have had this many melanomas. That alone is reason for concern.

Dr. Berman's prognosis: he won't place odds on reoccurrences or complications, nor will he predict how McCain's history will affect his campaign or his health as president if elected. His only advice is to avoid excessive sun and suntanning, use a good sunscreen when exposed, and hope a good set of genes provide protection. McCain doesn't have them, however.

On May 23 (a quiet time ahead of the Memorial Day weekend), he released an astonishing 1173 pages of medical records (covering 2000-2008 only), including what relates to his August 2000 melanoma surgery. They showed no evidence of a recurrence, and his primary care physician, Dr. John Eckstein, said: "While it is impossible to predict any person's future health, today I can find no medical reason or problems that would preclude Senator McCain from fulfilling all the duties and obligations of the president of the United States." We find "no evidence of metastasis or recurrence of the invasive melanoma as we approach the eighth anniversary of that operation." Mr. McCain's prognosis is "very good" because the greatest risk comes within "the first few years after surgery."

The records also revealed:

-- a history of kidney stones;

-- high cholesterol;

-- nasal allergies;

-- a recent colonoscopy in which six benign polyps were removed;

-- occasional brief episodes of "benign postitional vertigo" (dizziness) when he stands up too quickly, but it's "not a precursor for a stroke;" and

-- a "significantly reduced range of motion" in his shoulders, arms and right knee from his wartime injuries and as a POW.

Overall, he was pronounced healthy and cancer-free.

He takes simvastatin for high cholesterol; hydrochlorothiazide for kidney stone prevention; aspirin to prevent blood clots; the antihistamine Zyrtec for nasal allergies; Ambien CR to aid sleep while traveling; and a multivitamin.

In 1999, McCain released 1500 earlier medical documents prior to his presidential run against George Bush. They were part of a US Navy project to assess the health of former POWs. They showed normal psychological tests and mental state and judged he had readjusted "exceptionally well" to civilian life. A 1974 psychiatric evaluation described him as "ambitious, competitive and energetic" with no evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) despite admitting twice he attempted suicide in captivity.

For now at least, McCain's health seems not an issue unless there's something hidden or his enemies or Obama want to make it one. Consider also at least six past presidents who were incapacitated for a time, unable to fulfill their duties as a result, but remained in office nonetheless - Lincoln, Garfield, Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson.

Health As A Campaign Issue and For Serving Presidents

Consider four in particular who as candidates ran and were elected president in spite of debilitating or soon to be worrisome health problems. Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921 in office) for one. On October 3, 1919 (in his second term), he suffered a disabling stroke that doctors should have predicted from his history. Prior to his first election, he had atherosclerosis. He suffered a stoke in 1896 that caused marked weakness of the right upper limb and "sensory disturbances" in his fingers. For a time, he couldn't write normally. He suffered a recurrence of right upper limb weakness in 1904 and lost vision in his left eye in 1906.

Up to and after his first 1912 election, he had multiple other neurological problems, and from 1915-1919 severe headaches causing double vision and signs of heart weakness. Wilson was a sick man, was twice elected president anyway, hid his condition from officials and the public, and when incapacitated remained president anyway.

Franklin Roosevelt (1933-1945 in office) was another example from prior to his first election. A 1921 poliomyelitis attack (at age 39) left him paralyzed below the hips. Between 1920 and 1932, he developed an enlarged pigmented lesion above his left eye that some believe was a malignant melanoma. As president, it was excised, leaving a scar above the eyebrow. In 1944, his health was so poor, he was advised not to run a fourth time. In January that year, he complained of headaches, "seemed strangely tired, even in the morning," and once blacked out at his desk. He was gravely ill, but kept it hidden.

In March 1944, hypertensive heart disease and high blood pressure were discovered, and he was diagnosed as cyanotic from poor circulation. By month's end, he was worse with congestive heart disease. He had a series of other problems throughout the year, was in no condition to remain president, yet he ran and was reelected in November. On April 12, 1945, he died at age 63, and, considering his wartime stress, it's a wonder he lasted that long. A stroke of good luck as well that disaster was avoided because a leader in his condition was commander-in-chief but couldn't perform his duties.

Jack Kennedy was done in by an assassin, not his health, but had he lived long enough it might have. Some around him said "from a medical standpoint, (he) was a mess." He was hospitalized more than three dozen times in his life and given last rites on three occasions.

He nearly died of scarlet fever at age 2 years, 9 months. He contracted measles, whooping cough and chicken pox the same year, and as a child, was susceptible to upper respiratory infections and bronchitis. He suffered jaundice in 1935, had a history of sports-related injuries because "his physique was inadequate," and his mother remembered him as "a very, very sick little boy." He began taking steroids for colitis in the 1930s and developed later complications from it, including duodenal ulcer, back problems, and underactive adrenal glands known as Addison's disease.

He had a host of other problems as well, including a likely bout of malaria as a naval officer in the Pacific. The 1960 presidential campaign exhausted him (at age 43) because he overdid it for a man in his health. His Addisonism was diagnosed in 1947, at the time told he had one year to live, and was given his last rites shortly after. Yet as senator and president, it was hidden, and one observer called it "one of the most cleverly laid smoke screens ever put down around a politician('s)" health.

Finally, there's Ronald Reagan. After childhood, he had a series of health problems but nothing debilitating or serious - severe nearsightedness, fractures, urinary tract infections, prostate stones, hearing loss, temporomandibular (jaw) joint degeneration, osteoarthritis in his right thumb, and in 1967 a "trans-urethral prostatectomy" because of his history of "benign prostatic hypertrophy and several episodes of prostatitis."

Things changed, however, after he was shot in March 1981. He was lucky and might have died from loss of blood alone, and only modern surgical care saved him. He had polyps removed in 1984 and a more serious one surgically in 1985. Some minor skin cancer as well in 1987. Alzheimer's disease was another matter, and there were early signs in his presidency long before he was officially diagnosed (at age 83) or the public learned of it.

Straightaway in Cabinet meetings, he forgot the names of his officers. At other times his trusted aides and visiting dignitaries and once referred to his vice-president as "Prime Minister Bush." In Brazil he toasted the people of Bolivia, and on one memorable occasion went completely blank when asked a question, until his wife Nancy whispered a response in his ear. After being shot, he became disoriented, and it took months for him to recover but likely never fully. Those around him began to speculate, and it became noticeable in his second term. Alzheimer's progresses slowly, and though marginalized with it in office, he survived to age 93 when he died at his California home in June 2004.

John McCain - Will He or Won't He Be Nominated in September

Writer Steve Rosenbaum thinks maybe not, and if so, it will be a "genuine September Surprise." Why so? He thinks around mid-August, he and/or the party will decide he can't win, but he'll cite health or another excuse for dropping out. True or not, he looks bumbling and uncertain on stage and at times like he's about "to keel over."

As bad or worse, he's got tepid Christian right support. The public sees him as pro-war as George Bush, and they want the Iraq one at least ended. Further, Bush's endorsement is a kiss of death, and he may rue the day he got it. That along with his temper, unpredictable flip-flops, and a legion of enemies on the Hill make him vulnerable to stepping down or being dumped. But not to "sit this one out" and hand Obama the election, according to Rosenbaum. Not this time at least when Republicans plan to win and keep the presidency even though Democrats seem poised for big congressional gains.

They'll do it the same way as in 2004, electoral fraud aside. They'll "swift boat" Obama John Kerry-style, dig up any dirt they can find, play up the race card, call him soft on national defense, say he plans to raise taxes, whatever it takes to tear down a candidate who looks like a winner - and do it with a fresh new face, but a well-known conservative one or at least conservative enough. The possibilities range from Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell to Michael Bloomberg, Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar with a host of others as well - all without McCain's baggage.

Can it happen? Why not, according to Rosenbaum, and he's not alone thinking it. It may be Republicans best chance to win, although changing horses this late ups the odds against it. Nonetheless, some party faithful want a bona fide conservative and nearly anyone but McCain. Others hate his flip-flops and at least one calls him the most flawed candidate ever and the Republican from Hanoi, referring to allegations that he got preferential POW treatment after his father, Admiral JS McCain, became CINCPAC Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command over all Vietnam forces.

An organization called "Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain" feels a lot of questions remain about his time in captivity. They want answers, and feel he's obligated to provide them. So far he hasn't. It fuels criticism and doubts, and it's not doing his campaign or the party any good.

Will it sink him? Who knows, but we're into July, the convention is approaching, so party brokers have little time left to decide. Let him run and maybe lose, or if elected be unacceptable because he's too unpredictable. Stay tuned. If Rosenbaum and others are right, a September surprise is coming, and the fireworks are about to start.

On the other hand, Republicans may stick with a likely loser, someone many insiders dislike, go for a 1976 repeat, turn things over to a Democrat, let him deal with their mess, then retake the presidency next time around. Either way, whoever takes over next year faces an unenviable task. Maybe one too great for any head of state.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9506

Legitimizing Permanent Occupation of Iraq

Legitimizing Permanent Occupation of Iraq - by Stephen Lendman

Washington is currently negotiating two accords with the al-Maliki government to take effect after expiration of the UN's military mandate on December 31. One agreement is for a long-term "strategic framework" to establish "cooperation in the political, economic, cultural and security fields." Or according to the administration - to defend Iraq's "sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, and airspace."

The other is a so-called "status of forces agreement" (SOFA) to provide legitimacy for the US occupation beginning January 1, 2009. Following the 2003 invasion, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1511. It officially recognized the "Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)" and authorized a multinational force to bring "stability" to the country. Part of the agreement was for the mandate to be reauthorized each year. It's been done "at the request of the Iraqi government." By late 2007, al-Maliki asked for a mandate extension "for the last time" to officially end Iraq's international peace and security threat designation that's been in place since August 1990.

In November 2007, George Bush and al-Maliki signed a preliminary US - Iraq political, economic, and security agreement. Part of it is for an indefinite US military presence. Final completion was to be by July 31, 2008, but with the date fast approaching and widespread opposition, things may likely change.

For months, US plans generated considerable opposition - within and outside Iraq. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani objected. So has Iran and a majority of Iraqi parliamentarians who vowed to veto any agreement not approved by the country's Council of Representatives. On May 29, they further said that any US - Iraq bilateral agreement must "obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq." On May 28, Muqtada al-Sadr went further. He called for protests against the ("forces of darkness") SOFA and issued orders to:

-- raise awareness of its terms;

-- unite political opposition against it;

-- participate in weekly protests;

-- hold a national referendum or if denied gather millions of opposition signatures;

-- form political and religious delegations in opposition;

-- set a timetable for the occupation's end;

-- inform the Iraqi government it has no right to sign an agreement; and

-- to have the Hawza Shiite religious academy become more active and stand against an agreement that's clearly against the interests of the Iraqi people.

Within the US, some in Congress object that George Bush claims authority as commander-in-chief to constitutionally bypass lawmakers and deal unilaterally with the Iraqi government. Others like Yale Law School Professors Oona Hathaway and Bruce Ackerman concur and believe the agreement "moves far beyond" traditional accords and must be subject to congressional review.

In a February 15, 2008 Washington Post.com op-ed, they state "The Bush administration is so intent on securing its legacy in Iraq that it is once again ignoring the Constitution....it is well on its way toward (deepening America's) commitment without the congressional support the Constitution requires."

They cite examples:

-- exempting civilian contractors from prosecution under Iraqi laws; it assures their immunity elsewhere as well; current federal law "only subjects contractors working in support of the Defense Department to prosecution in American courts for felonies in Iraq;" civilian security forces (like Blackwater Worldwide), the State Department, CIA and others will be in a "no-law" status, subject only to the will of the president; civilians may thus commit murders, rapes, robberies, other lawless acts and get away with them; "no (known) existing status of forces agreement....contains anything like this wide-ranging exemption;"

-- exempting military personnel as well who can be court-martialed but rarely are;

-- allowing the president to exceed his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief; he's only in charge of the military, "not all Americans working overseas;"

-- even worse, most administration plans are secret and what's learned comes out in leaks; more on that below; and

-- Congress held hearings on January 23 and February 8 - "on the legitimate scope of the Iraqi agreement;" the administration refused to testify.

Hathaway and Ackerman conclude by calling for a congressional resolution "declaring invalid any military agreement (going) beyond the traditional (SOFA) limits." No president may unilaterally bypass Congress. It's "especially wrong for a lame-duck (one) to make such a (controversial) commitment (that's) at the very center of the debate among the candidates vying to succeed him."

On July 4, Imam Sadreddin al-Kabandji (an aide to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani) issued a statement. It pressed the Baghdad government to hold a national referendum regarding US forces remaining in the country. Speaking for Iraq's supreme Shiite leader, he stat