Pakistan's Role in the Mumbai Attacks' in India

Pakistan 'role in Mumbai attacks'

BBC | September 30 2006

Comment: Once again a Government's intelligence agency is revealed to be behind terror attacks and in control of the "Islamists". The ISI is basically an extension of the CIA in the middle east.

Pakistan's intelligence agency was behind the train blasts in Mumbai in July that killed 186 people, Indian police say.

The attacks were planned by the ISI and carried out by the Islamist militant group Lashkar-e-Toiba, based in Pakistan, Mumbai's police chief said.

AN Roy said the Students' Islamic Movement of India had also assisted.

Pakistan rejected the allegations and said India had given no evidence of Pakistani involvement in the attacks.

"We have solved the 11 July bombings case. The whole attack was planned by Pakistan's ISI and carried out by Lashkar-e-Toiba and their operatives in India," Mumbai (Bombay) police commissioner AN Roy told a news conference.

'Baseless'

Mr Roy said 15 people had been arrested, and that some of the bombers had received training in Pakistan.

Tariq Azim Khan, Pakistan's minister of state for information, rejected the allegations.

"We are still studying the Indian statement. Needless to say, this is once again baseless allegations - yet another attempt by India to malign Pakistan," he told the BBC.

"Both the president and the prime minister condemned this terrorist attack on the train when it happened. But India also must look at home for reasons for this growing insurgency at home," he said.

On 11 July 2006, seven co-ordinated blasts within 15 minutes ripped through trains on Mumbai's busy commuter network.

Indian security officials suggested early on in their investigations that the bombings bore the hallmarks of Lashkar-e-Toiba, a leading militant group fighting in Kashmir and based in Pakistan.

Pakistan denied any involvement in the blasts and Lashkar-e-Toiba condemned the attacks.

India postponed talks with Pakistan after the bombs, but Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf met recently in Cuba and said they had agreed to resume talks.

The two nations, both nuclear armed, have fought three wars since independence, two over the disputed territory of Kashmir.

IF YOU ARE FOR HABEAS CORPUS, YOU ARE A TERRORIST

Wiretap Bill Sets up the End of the Fourth Amendment

Associated Press | September 29, 2006
By LAURIE KELLMAN

The House approved a bill Thursday that would grant legal status to President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program with new restrictions. Republicans called it a test before the election of whether Democrats want to fight or coddle terrorists.

"The Democrats' irrational opposition to strong national security policies that help keep our nation secure should be of great concern to the American people," Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement after the bill passed 232-191.

"To always have reasons why you just can't vote 'yes,' I think speaks volumes when it comes to which party is better able and more willing to take on the terrorists and defeat them," Boehner said.

Democrats shot back that the war on terrorism shouldn't be fought at the expense of civil and human rights. The bill approved by the House, they argued, gives the president too much power and leaves the law vulnerable to being overturned by a court.

"It is ceding the president's argument that Congress doesn't matter in this area," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (news, bio, voting record), D-Md.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., that give legal status under certain conditions to Bush's warrantless wiretapping of calls and e-mails between people on U.S. soil making calls or sending e-mails and those in other countries.

Under the measure, the president would be authorized to conduct such wiretaps if he:

• Notifies the House and Senate intelligence committees and congressional leaders.

• Believes an attack is imminent and later explains the reason and names the individuals and groups involved.

• Renews his certification every 90 days.

The Senate also could vote on a similar bill before Congress recesses at the end of the week. Leaders concede that differences between the versions are so significant they cannot reconcile them into a final bill that can be delivered to Bush before the Nov. 7 congressional elections.

For its part, the White House announced it strongly supported passage of the House version but wasn't satisfied with it, adding that the administration "looks forward to working with Congress to strengthen the bill as it moves through the legislative process."

But with Congress giving Bush the other half of his September anti-terrorism agenda — a bill setting conditions on how terrorism suspects are to be detained, interrogated and tried — Republicans shifted from lawmaking to campaign mode.

After the House voted 253-168 to set rules on tough interrogations and military tribunal proceedings, Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., was even more critical than Boehner.

"Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and 159 of her Democrat colleagues voted today in favor of more rights for terrorists," Hastert said in a statement. "So the same terrorists who plan to harm innocent Americans and their freedom worldwide would be coddled, if we followed the Democrat plan. "

Retorted Pelosi: "I think the speaker is a desperate man for him to say that. Would you think that anyone in our country wants to coddle terrorists?"

She and other Democratic critics of the GOP's September anti-terrorism agenda contend the Republican-written bills make Bush's programs vulnerable to being overturned in court. More broadly, they argue the legislation reflects the White House's willingness to fight the war on terrorism at the expense of civil and human rights.

A Democratic majority in either House would set the balance right, Democrats say. "In 40 days, we can put an end to this nonsense," said Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass, referring to the election.

A federal judge in Detroit who struck down the warrantless surveillance program turned aside a government request for an indefinite stay Thursday. U.S. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said the government could have a week to appeal.

___

The House bill is H.R. 5825; the Senate bill is S. 3931.

Gonzales cautions judges on interfering

By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 15 minutes ago

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is defending President Bush's anti-terrorism tactics in multiple court battles, said Friday that federal judges should not substitute their personal views for the president's judgments in wartime.

He said the Constitution makes the president commander in chief and the Supreme Court has long recognized the president's pre-eminent role in foreign affairs. "The Constitution, by contrast, provides the courts with relatively few tools to superintend military and foreign policy decisions, especially during wartime," the attorney general told a conference on the judiciary at Georgetown University Law Center.

"Judges must resist the temptation to supplement those tools based on their own personal views about the wisdom of the policies under review," Gonzales said.

And he said the independence of federal judges, who are appointed for life, "has never meant, and should never mean, that judges or their decisions should be immune" from public criticism.

War Signals? What is the White House Planning in Relation to Iran?

by Dave Lindorff

September 28, 2006
thenation.com

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

As reports circulate of a sharp debate within the White House over possible US military action against Iran and its nuclear enrichment facilities, The Nation has learned that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have issued orders for a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast. This information follows a report in the current issue of Time magazine, both online and in print, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1.

As Time writes in its cover story, "What Would War Look Like?," evidence of the forward deployment of minesweepers and word that the chief of naval operations had asked for a reworking of old plans for mining Iranian harbors "suggest that a much discussed--but until now largely theoretical--prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran."

According to Lieut. Mike Kafka, a spokesman at the headquarters of the Second Fleet, based in Norfolk, Virginia, the Eisenhower Strike Group, bristling with Tomahawk cruise missiles, has received recent orders to depart the United States in a little over a week. Other official sources in the public affairs office of the Navy Department at the Pentagon confirm that this powerful armada is scheduled to arrive off the coast of Iran on or around October 21.

The Eisenhower had been in port at the Naval Station Norfolk for several years for refurbishing and refueling of its nuclear reactor; it had not been scheduled to depart for a new duty station until at least a month later, and possibly not till next spring. Family members, before the orders, had moved into the area and had until then expected to be with their sailor-spouses and parents in Virginia for some time yet. First word of the early dispatch of the "Ike Strike" group to the Persian Gulf region came from several angry officers on the ships involved, who contacted antiwar critics like retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner and complained that they were being sent to attack Iran without any order from the Congress.

"This is very serious," said Ray McGovern, a former CIA threat-assessment analyst who got early word of the Navy officers' complaints about the sudden deployment orders. (McGovern, a twenty-seven-year veteran of the CIA, resigned in 2002 in protest over what he said were Bush Administration pressures to exaggerate the threat posed by Iraq. He and other intelligence agency critics have formed a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.)

Colonel Gardiner, who has taught military strategy at the National War College, says that the carrier deployment and a scheduled Persian Gulf arrival date of October 21 is "very important evidence" of war planning. He says, "I know that some naval forces have already received 'prepare to deploy orders' [PTDOs], which have set the date for being ready to go as October 1. Given that it would take about from October 2 to October 21 to get those forces to the Gulf region, that looks about like the date" of any possible military action against Iran. (A PTDO means that all crews should be at their stations, and ships and planes should be ready to go, by a certain date--in this case, reportedly, October 1.) Gardiner notes, "You cannot issue a PTDO and then stay ready for very long. It's a very significant order, and it's not done as a training exercise." This point was also made in the Time article.

So what is the White House planning?

On Monday President Bush addressed the UN General Assembly at its opening session, and while studiously avoiding even physically meeting Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was also addressing the body, he offered a two-pronged message. Bush told the "people of Iran" that "we're working toward a diplomatic solution to this crisis" and that he looked forward "to the day when you can live in freedom." But he also warned that Iran's leaders were using the nation's resources "to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons." Given the President's assertion that the nation is fighting a "global war on terror" and that he is Commander in Chief of that "war," his prominent linking of the Iran regime with terror has to be seen as a deliberate effort to claim his right to carry the fight there. Bush has repeatedly insisted that the 2001 Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force that preceded the invasion of Afghanistan was also an authorization for an unending "war on terror."

Even as Bush was making not-so-veiled threats at the UN, his former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, a sharp critic of any unilateral US attack on Iran, was in Norfolk, not far from the Eisenhower, advocating further diplomatic efforts to deal with Iran's nuclear program--itself tantalizing evidence of the policy struggle over whether to go to war, and that those favoring an attack may be winning that struggle.

"I think the plan's been picked: bomb the nuclear sites in Iran," says Gardiner. "It's a terrible idea, it's against US law and it's against international law, but I think they've decided to do it." Gardiner says that while the United States has the capability to hit those sites with its cruise missiles, "the Iranians have many more options than we do: They can activate Hezbollah; they can organize riots all over the Islamic world, including Pakistan, which could bring down the Musharraf government, putting nuclear weapons into terrorist hands; they can encourage the Shia militias in Iraq to attack US troops; they can blow up oil pipelines and shut the Persian Gulf." Most of the major oil-producing states in the Middle East have substantial Shiite populations, which has long been a concern of their own Sunni leaders and of Washington policy-makers, given the sometimes close connection of Shiite populations to Iran's religious rulers.

Of course, Gardiner agrees, recent ship movements and other signs of military preparedness could be simply a bluff designed to show toughness in the bargaining with Iran over its nuclear program. But with the Iranian coast reportedly armed to the teeth with Chinese Silkworm antiship missiles, and possibly even more sophisticated Russian antiship weapons, against which the Navy has little reliable defenses, it seems unlikely the Navy would risk high-value assets like aircraft carriers or cruisers with such a tactic. Nor has bluffing been a Bush MO to date.

Commentators and analysts across the political spectrum are focusing on Bush's talk about dialogue, with many claiming that he is climbing down from confrontation. On the right, David Frum, writing on September 20 in his National Review blog, argues that the lack of any attempt to win a UN resolution supporting military action, and rumors of "hushed back doors" being opened in Washington, lead him to expect a diplomatic deal, not a unilateral attack. Writing in the center, Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler saw in Bush's UN speech evidence that "war is no longer a viable option" in Iran. Even on the left, where confidence in the Bush Administration's judgment is abysmally low, commentators like Noam Chomsky and Nation contributor Robert Dreyfuss are skeptical that an attack is being planned. Chomsky has long argued that Washington's leaders aren't crazy, and would not take such a step--though more recently, he has seemed less sanguine about Administration sanity and has suggested that leaks about war plans may be an effort by military leaders--who are almost universally opposed to widening the Mideast war--to arouse opposition to such a move by Bush and war advocates like Cheney. Dreyfuss, meanwhile, in an article for the online journal TomPaine.com, focuses on the talk of diplomacy in Bush's Monday UN speech, not on his threats, and concludes that it means "the realists have won" and that there will be no Iran attack.

But all these war skeptics may be whistling past the graveyard. After all, it must be recalled that Bush also talked about seeking diplomatic solutions the whole time he was dead-set on invading Iraq, and the current situation is increasingly looking like a cheap Hollywood sequel. The United States, according to Gardiner and others, already reportedly has special forces operating in Iran, and now major ship movements are looking ominous.

Representative Maurice Hinchey, a leading Democratic critic of the Iraq War, informed about the Navy PTDOs and about the orders for the full Eisenhower Strike Group to head out to sea, said, "For some time there has been speculation that there could be an attack on Iran prior to November 7, in order to exacerbate the culture of fear that the Administration has cultivated now for over five or six years. But if they attack Iran it will be a very bad mistake, for the Middle East and for the US. It would only make worse the antagonism and fear people feel towards our country. I hope this Administration is not so foolish and irresponsible." He adds, "Military people are deeply concerned about the overtaxing of the military already."

Calls for comment from the White House on Iran war plans and on the order for the Eisenhower Strike Group to deploy were referred to the National Security Council press office, which declined to return this reporter's phone calls.

McGovern, who had first told a group of anti-Iraq War activists Sunday on the National Mall in Washington, DC, during an ongoing action called "Camp Democracy," about his being alerted to the strike group deployment, warned, "We have about seven weeks to try and stop this next war from happening."

One solid indication that the dispatch of the Eisenhower is part of a force buildup would be if the carrier Enterprise--currently in the Arabian Sea, where it has been launching bombing runs against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and which is at the end of its normal six-month sea tour--is kept on station instead of sent back to the United States. Arguing against simple rotation of tours is the fact that the Eisenhower's refurbishing and its dispatch were rushed forward by at least a month. A report from the Enterprise on the Navy's official website referred to its ongoing role in the Afghanistan fighting, and gave no indication of plans to head back to port. The Navy itself has no comment on the ship's future orders.

Jim Webb, Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan Administration and currently a Democratic candidate for Senate in Virginia, expressed some caution about reports of the carrier deployment, saying, "Remember, carrier groups regularly rotate in and out of that region." But he added, "I do not believe that there should be any elective military action taken against Iran without a separate authorization vote by the Congress. In my view, the 2002 authorization which was used for the invasion of Iraq should not extend to Iran."

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net

EXAMINING THE BUSH TORTUE BILL: DAILY SHOW VIDEO

BUSH GIVEN APPROVAL TO TORTURE CHILDREN

Bush Given Authority
To Sexually Torture American Children

The "horror of the shrieking boys" gets
a rubber stamp from the boot-licking U.S. Congress & Senate as America
officially becomes a dictatorship

Paul
Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | September 29 2006

Slamming the final nail in the coffin
of everything America used to stand for, the boot-licking U.S. Senate last
night gave President Bush the legal authority to abduct and sexually mutilate
American citizens and American children in the name of the war on terror.

There is nothing in the "detainee"
legislation that protects American citizens from being kidnapped by their
own government and tortured.

Yale
Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times, "The
compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citizens
as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And
once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers
or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."

Similarly,
law Professor Marty Lederman explains: "this [subsection
(ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the
Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria
they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are
one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."

We have established that the bill allows
the President to define American citizens as enemy combatants. Now let's
take it one step further.

Before this article is dismissed as another
extremist hyperbolic rant, please take a few minutes out of your day to
check for yourself the claim that Bush now has not only the legal authority
but the active blessings of his own advisors to torture American children.

The backdrop of the Bush administration's
push to obliterate the Geneva Conventions was encapsulated by
John “torture” Yoo, professor of law at Berkeley, co-author
of the PATRIOT Act, author of torture memos and White House advisor.

During a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre
Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel, John
Yoo gave the green light for the scope of torture to legally include sexual
torture of infants.

Cassel: If the president deems that he’s
got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s
child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty.

Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is
what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks
he needs to do that.

Click
here for the audio.

So if the President thinks he needs to order children's
penises to be put in vices, there is no law that can stop him and after
last night's vote, the Senate and Congress, exemplified by sicko
16-year-old boy groomer Mark Foley (R-FL), has graciously provided
Bush its full support for kids around the world to be molested in the name
of stopping terror.

Yoo's comments were made before the
passage of the torture legislation last night. Up until that point Bush
had merely cited his role as dictator-in-chief as carte-blanche excuse for
ordering torture - now his regime have the audacity to openly put it in
writing - going one step further than even the Nazis did.

Again, for those who are still deluded into thinking
the extent of the "pressure" is loud music and cold water being
thrown over Johnny Jihad in Ragheadistan, consider for a moment the fact
that your own Congress and President who, according to the Constitution,
are mandated to serve you, have just legalized abducting your kids from
your home and electric shocking their genitals.

Now that the criminals have declared themselves
outside of the law does that mean we'll see Bush barbecuing babies on the
White House lawn? Of course not, but the policy of torturing children in
front of their parents has already been signed off on by the Pentagon and
enacted under the
Copper Green program and it
happened at Abu Ghraib.

Women who were arrested with their children were forced
to watch their boys being sodomized with chemical glow sticks as the cameras
rolled. Investigative journalist Seymour
Hersh says that the U.S. government is still withholding the tapes
because of the horror of the "soundtrack of the shrieking boys"
and their mothers begging to be killed in favor of seeing their children
raped and tortured.

Your government has just lobbied for and Congress has
passed legislation to discard the Geneva Conventions and mandate all this.

Pedophiles nationwide should rejoice - they can comfortably
take a stroll down to the local swimming pool, grab whoever they like, drag
them home, rape and torture them, and then in their defense cite the U.S.
government as an example of how one should conduct themselves.

The bill also retroactively
gives Bush, the Neo-Cons or any of their henchmen immunity from war crimes
charges dating back to September 11. Ask yourself why they
would be so careful to protect themselves from accusations of war crimes.

Could that possibly be because they are knowingly committing
war crimes?

The legislating of torture itself should be a criminal
act. All laws that contradict the U.S. Constitution are null and void. It
was once a law that black people were slaves.

Only by engaging in civil disobedience and refusing
to tolerate or acknowledge the laws of a criminal regime that has greased
the skids for sexually torturing kids can we ever have a hope of returning
America to its past glory.

"Free Iraq" Criminalizes Criticism, Ridicule of Government

PAUL von ZIELBAUER / NY Times | September 28 2006

BAGHDAD — Ahmed al-Karbouli, a reporter for Baghdadiya TV in the violent city of Ramadi, did his best to ignore the death threats, right up until six armed men drilled him with bullets after midday prayers.

He was the fourth journalist killed in Iraq in September alone, out of a total of more than 130 since the 2003 invasion, the vast majority of them Iraqis. But these days, men with guns are not Iraqi reporters’ only threat. Men with gavels are, too.

Under a broad new set of laws criminalizing speech that ridicules the government or its officials, some resurrected verbatim from Saddam Hussein’s penal code, roughly a dozen Iraqi journalists have been charged with offending public officials in the past year.

Currently, three journalists for a small newspaper in southeastern Iraq are being tried here for articles last year that accused a provincial governor, local judges and police officials of corruption. The journalists are accused of violating Paragraph 226 of the penal code, which makes anyone who “publicly insults” the government or public officials subject to up to seven years in prison.

On Sept. 7, the police sealed the offices of Al Arabiya, a Dubai-based satellite news channel, for what the government said was inflammatory reporting. And the Committee to Protect Journalists says that at least three Iraqi journalists have served time in prison for writing articles deemed criminally offensive.

The office of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has lately refused to speak with news organizations that report on sectarian violence in ways that the government considers inflammatory; some outlets have been shut down.

In addition to coping with government pressures, dozens of Iraqi journalists have been kidnapped by criminal gangs or detained by the American military, on suspicion that they are helping Sunni insurgents or Shiite militias. One, Bilal Hussein, who photographed insurgents in Anbar Province for The Associated Press, has been in American custody without charges since April.

And all Iraqi journalists have to live with the fear of death, which often dictates extreme security measures. Abdel Karim Hamadie, the news manager for Al Iraqiya Television, said he sometimes went months without leaving the station’s compound.

“The last time I went home was three weeks ago,” he said, showing off a small room adjacent to his office where he sleeps each night. “Before that, I spent three months at work. I used to hit my chair because I was so angry. But then I got a new chair.”

American diplomats here say they admire the dedication of Iraqi reporters in covering the war and the government’s efforts to create a democracy.

“Journalists here work under very, very difficult conditions,” said a United States Embassy official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “They are taking fire from every direction. They’ve got the defamation law hanging over their heads. They’ve got their political opponents gunning for them. They are trying very hard, and we want to encourage them.”

Under Mr. Hussein, reporters and editors were licensed and carefully watched. Even typewriters had to be registered with the government. During that time, some reporters got by on the conviction that their articles, about the government’s glorious new water projects or certain victory in the war with Iran, were at least patriotic.

“I never praised Saddam himself, never,” said Shihab al-Tamimi, 73, who runs the Iraqi Journalists Union from a battered old mansion here. “But I praised the project, for the good of the country.”

Now, Iraqi journalists still operate with considerable freedoms, at least compared with those in Saudi Arabia and other neighboring countries, and many Iraqis have achieved a new level of professionalism by working closely with Western journalists. So despite the growing government pressure, the news media have become increasingly aggressive.

Ethical boundaries, though, often remain murky. It was disclosed last year that the Lincoln Group, an American public relations firm hired by the Pentagon, paid Iraqi news outlets to print positive articles on the American presence here and provided stipends to Iraqi journalists in exchange for favorable treatment.

Even though the Iraqi news media have made strides, the journalists themselves are being killed at an extraordinary rate.

Since the Iraq war began, more than 130 journalists — most of them Iraqi — have been fatally shot, beaten or tortured to death, according to the Journalistic Freedoms Observatory, the most prominent domestic advocacy group for journalists to emerge since the invasion. (The Committee to Protect Journalists, which requires more evidence to verify reported killings, lists 79 journalists and 28 news workers.)

Most of the victims — reporters, photographers and editors — were working for local newspapers and television stations.

“Don’t be surprised if you wake up one day to find that I have also been killed,” said Habib al-Sadr, the chief executive of the government-financed Iraqi Media Network, the nation’s largest media organization. In the network’s office lobby, a display case holds the photographs of 13 reporters and editors killed on the job since 2003, including Amjad Hameed, the head of the network’s television channel, Al Iraqiya.

“The road to democracy is not smoothly paved,” Mr. Sadr said during a recent interview in his office, cigarette smoke curling around his face. “It is filled with bombs.”

Despite the danger, Falah al-Mishaal, the editor of Al Sabah, the government-run newspaper in Baghdad, said he enjoyed his job now because he felt like a real journalist.

“Now, we are free,” he said in an interview in late July. “We can write whatever we want.”

Three weeks after the interview, a man drove a minibus filled with explosives into Al Sabah’s rear parking lot and blew it up, killing two people and wounding 20 others.

September has been particularly deadly for journalists.

Safa Ismael Enad, a freelance news photographer, was buying film at his favorite print shop in eastern Baghdad on Sept. 13 when two men with guns walked in, fired two shots into his chest and dragged his bleeding body away.

Three days earlier, gunmen blocked Abdul-Kareem al-Rubaie, a designer for Al Sabah, as he traveled to work one sunny morning, and they shot him through the windshield. Last month, Mohammad Abbas Mohammad, a newspaper editor, was shot to death in western Baghdad, and Ismail Amin Ali, a blunt-spoken columnist, was killed on the street across town on the same day.

The disdain for truly free expression cuts across sectarian lines. The men who killed Mr. Karbouli after warning him to stop his critical reporting on the insurgency were almost certainly Sunni. The former governor of Wasit Province, and the judges and police officials who brought charges against the three journalists for questioning their ethics, were all Shiites.

In April, Mastura Mahmood, a young journalist for the women’s weekly paper Rewan, was charged with defamation for an article that quoted an anti-government demonstrator in Halabja comparing the Iraqi police there with the Baathists who once ran the country. She was arrested and then released on bail.

In May, a court in Sulaimaniya, in Iraq’s autonomous Kurdish region, sentenced two journalists, Twana Osman and Asos Hardi, to six-month suspended jail terms for an article claiming that a Kurdish official had two telephone company employees fired after they cut his phone service for failing to pay his bill.

“These cases show that Iraqi officials are quick to use the same kinds of onerous legal tools as their neighbors to punish outspoken media,” said Joel Campagna, the Middle East program director for the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Last month, more than 70 news organizations signed a nine-point pledge supporting the national reconciliation plan of Prime Minister Maliki, promising not to use inflammatory statements or images of people killed in attacks, and vowing to “disseminate news in a way that harmonizes with Iraq’s interests.” Days later, the police barred journalists from photographing corpses at the scenes of bombings and mortar attacks. Since then, policemen have smashed several photographers’ cameras and digital memory cards.

At Al Arabiya, the Baghdad station shuttered by the Iraqi authorities earlier this month, the studio door handle is sealed in red wax and bound in police tape. (The door is adorned with a photo of Atwar Bahjat, who was kidnapped, tortured and killed in Samarra in February while reporting on the bombing of a Shiite shrine.)

Some news executives express support for Al Arabiya’s closing.

“It is the right of the Iraqi government, as it combats terrorism, to silence any voice that tries to harm the national unity,” said Mr. Sadr, of the Iraqi Media Network.

Bush Admin Pardoning themselves from WAR CRIMES

THIS IS A SAD DAY FOR AMERICA AND ANYONE THAT UPHOLDS THE RULE OF LAW IN THIS NATION. WHAT ARE WE AS A PEOPLE AND THIS NATION COMING TO, EXPECIALLY THE PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES PEOPLE OF GOD. ANYONE THAT HAS A BRAIN CAN SEE THAT MANY IN THIS ADMINISTRATION COULD BE CHARGED WITH WAR CRIMES SO THIS WAS THE PERFECT WAY TO SLIDE THIS LITTLE MEASURE INTO A BILL THAT THE PEOPLE DON'T READ ANYWAY. IT IS VERY ODD THAT THE SAME PEOPLE THAT SAY THEY FOLLOW JESUS ARE THE SAME PEOPLE THAT WANT TO TORTUE PEOPLE INCLUDING "CHILDREN", EVEN THOUGH JESUS GOT TORTUED.

AT THE SAME TIME IN THIS BILL, IT BRINGS UP HOW AMERICANS ARE A "FITH ELEMENT", MEANING THAT WE CAN BE HELD TO THESE SAME STANDARS IF DEEMED A ENEMY COMBATANT. BASED ON TRACK RECORD, THE AMERICANS AND CANADIANS THAT HAVE BEEN DETAINED UNDER SO CALLED TERRORISM CHARGES HAVE BEEN RELEASED UNDER NO EVIDENCE, BUT THEIR NAMES ARE NOT CLEARED. PEOPLE ON THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT FORGET THESE SIMPLE THINGS. IT JUST GOES IN ONE EAR AND OUT THE OTHER. PEOPLE AR SO QUICK TO BRING UP THE SO CALLED TERROR BUST IN FLORIDA OR THE UK, BUT IN FLORIDA ALL THE MEN WERE SET FREE B/C MANY OF THEM WERE MENTALLY BEHIND AND IN THE UK OF THREE FORTHS OF THOSE CAUGHT WERE RELEASED AND THEY STILL HAVE NOT PINNED CHARGES RELATED TO TERRORISM ON THE OTHERS BECAUSE THEY HAD NO WEASPONS OR EVIDENCE OF WEAPONS OR PLANNING. ITS VERY FUNNY HOW THE MEDIA WON'T COVER THESE TOPICS AFTER THE MEDIA HYPE HAS DIED DOWN. BUT HEY THATS CORPORATE MEDIA FOR YOU, THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH.

Senate voting on Tortue and Trial Bill As I type

It looks like this bill is going to pass.

In no way should it be though, I don't think Americans would like it very much it other nations said now we can arrest, detain, tortue and hold trials with out leting US citizens see the evidence against them.

This bill clearly is not about tortue. What this bill is about is getting this law changed so that Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Gonzalez, Rice and others will not be charged with war crimes for supporting tortue and approving it.


I really do think this is one of thoughs times that the founding fathers talked about when it is the citizens right to removed their government from office.

VIDEO:BBC HIDDEN CAM SHOWS CHINA SELLING ORGANS

IRAQ FOR SALE: VIDEO

Revolution just ain't what it used to be

By Mickey Z.

09/27/06 "Information Clearing House" -- - If you were to publicly declare your discontent with the U.S. government and your subsequent desire to abolish that government, the land of the free would likely reward you with an orange jumpsuit and a one-way ticket for an all-inclusive vacation at Guantanamo Bay.

Now imagine if you instead chose to stand in front of a crowded room and utter something along these lines: "I think all men-and women-are created equal and are endowed with certain undeniable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights, governments are created and derive their powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government tries to destroy or take away these undeniable rights, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that government and replace it with a new one."

Bingo: you're a high school history teacher. Okay class; turn to page 257. Today we'll be talking about Patrick Henry (and don't tell me "give me liberty or give me death" sounds an awful lot like what an insurgent might say).

Thomas Jefferson can pronounce: "Every generation needs a new revolution." But that doesn't mean I can. Honest Abe once declared: "Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and force a new one that suits them better." Hey, I'd love a government that suits me-and most humans-better, but making plans to "shake off the existing government and force a new one" would just about guarantee you a place on that secret no-fly list.

Let's face it, revolution just ain't what it used to be. Mao Tse-Tung warned: "A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery." Today, revolution is a Chevy commercial or a Beatles song. Che Guevara believed "the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love." By 1994, Newt Gingrich and his merry band of Republicans were using "revolution" to describe a minor reshuffling of ruling class allegiances. "The most heroic word in all languages is revolution," stated Eugene Debs, but if he were around today and typed "revolution" into Google, he'd find the top response was for a software company.

As long as you're not talking about the U.S. government, you can have as many revolutions as you please. You can have 33 per minute, for all Dick Cheney cares. Fitness, music, film, art, and countless ways to make money-the mutinous mood is alive and well. This time around, however, the revolution was indeed televised and is now enjoying a long, successful run in syndication.

Can the huddled befuddled masses to snap from their self-induced trance to recapture the subversive spirit of '76? I'll give the last word to Abraham Lincoln: "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

Remember: Abe said it, not me.

Mickey Z. can be found on the Web at http://www.mickeyz.net

Are You an Enemy Combatant?

Kurt Nimmo | September 27 2006

Slowly but surely, the Bush neocons and their perfidious allies in Congress are cobbling together a secret police apparatus that will eventually mirror Hitler’s Gestapo, Stalin’s NKVD, East Germany’s Stasi, and Chile’s Dirección Nacional de Inteligencia, to cite but a few examples.

“The United States could detain more foreigners as enemy combatants under legislation Congress will debate this week after a last-minute change in the bill, lawmakers said on Tuesday,” reports Reuters. “Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a key negotiator on the bill, said enemy combatants would now include those who provided money, weapons and other support for terrorist groups as well as those involved in actual operations.”

Of course, many would argue that the key word here is “foreigners” and this legislation poses no threat to Americans. However, considering previous comments of “key negotiator” Lindsey Graham, we can likely expect this legislation to be used against “fifth columnists,” as the good senator from South Carolina deems all who oppose the neocon doctrine of forever war.

As Graham told the Senate Judiciary Committee in February, “the administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue fifth column movements…. And let me tell folks who are watching what a fifth column movement is. It is a movement known to every war where American citizens will sympathize with the enemy and collaborate with the enemy. And it’s happened in every war,” never mind that this particular war is undeclared. Naturally, for the neocons, simply opposing the “war” in Iraq and the parallel “war” against terrorism at home is an act of sympathizing with the enemy, that is to say “al-Qaeda,” the black op pseudo gang crafted by the CIA and the Pentagon.

“Graham said U.S. citizens could not be deemed enemy combatants under the bill, but several human rights advocates said the language was so broad that they believed Americans could be detained under it. The Center for Constitutional Rights said even attorneys representing Guantanamo inmates could be deemed enemy combatants,” Reuters continues.

Of course, as everything changed on September 11, 2001, everything will change for the worse once again after the neocons shock and awe Iran, the Iranians retaliate by blocking the Strait of Hormuz with flaming oil tankers, thus sending oil prices through the ceiling and precipitating a world-wide economic crisis.

More than ever, our “way of life” will be on the line and Bush and the neocons will demand you are either “with us or with the terrorists” and the KBR-Halliburton camps will fill up with Graham’s “fellow travelers” who “sympathize with the enemy and collaborate with the enemy” simply due to the fact they will not be calling for mass murder and frantically waving their little plastic American flags made by slaves in China.

Why Won't the Media Talk about the bombs

Oh thats right if they talk about the bombs, the offical story would be a lie and more investigation would be needed!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why Won't The Media talk About the Bombs

Oh thats right if they talk about the bombs, the offical story would be a lie and more investigation would be needed!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why Won't The Media talk About the Bombs

Oh thats right if they talk about the bombs, the offical story would be a lie and more investigation would be needed!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Forgotten Lower 9th Ward

he forgotten
By Josh Peter, Yahoo! Sports
September 26, 2006

Josh Peter
Yahoo! Sports

NEW ORLEANS – Crumpled houses. Overgrown weeds. Deserted neighborhoods.

Those images of the lower Ninth Ward flashed onto the TV screen during the first quarter of the Monday Night Football game between the New Orleans Saints and the Atlanta Falcons. But as the announcers called attention to the devastation that still exists a year after Hurricane Katrina slammed into the city, here's what the cameras failed to capture in that same community:

A group of 30 people gathered to watch the game next to a FEMA trailer. There were residents struggling to rebuild their homes and volunteers there to help them sharing red beans and rice. It was a congregation cheering as if it were inside the Superdome instead of inside a garage.

Later in the broadcast, with more images of the Ninth Ward on the screen, one of the TV announcers described the neighborhood as "a graveyard of a community that no longer exists."

James Lemann Jr., who organized the gathering in his garage for the much-anticipated Saints home opener, turned to a visitor and said, "I hate to tell you, but that's where you are."

Right there in that graveyard, in the heart of the lower Ninth Ward, where floodwaters drowned dozens of people and destroyed hundreds of homes. And there inside Lemann's freshly painted garage, a group young and old, black and white, locals and out-of-towners gathered Monday night for a game that marked the reopening of the Dome and return of the Saints to New Orleans.
James Lemann's garage
A crowd gathered in James Lemann's
garage to watch the Saints game.

Sure, there was Pookie, Cooter, the Sno-Ball Lady and all the regulars better known by their nicknames. But there also were two contractors from Wisconsin and one from California helping rebuild homes; the nine college-aged volunteers from Common Ground, the non-profit relief center; and of course Lemann, a 48-year-old jack-of-all trades with a big belly and an even bigger belly laugh.

While more than 70,000 fans packed the newly renovated Dome, Lemann and his guests assembled inside the garage that doubles as home of the "Church of All Souls" and sits next to his gutted, double-shotgun house in the sparsely populated area.

"We're still here," Deborah Massey snapped at the TV announcer. "They can't get rid of us."

As the Saints were tearing into the Falcons, Lemann's guests were tearing into the food, and the crowd spilled outside the garage and into the driveway, with a few under a tent fashioned with a red, white and blue canopy that blew off the nearby Kentucky Fried Chicken during the hurricane. With the crowd now at 30, Lemann grinned and said, "And we ain't even gotten to halftime yet. And you never know what's going to happen."

Up to that point, here's exactly what happened:

When Katrina bore down on New Orleans, Lemann left his house on North Rampart Street and headed for the Superdome. He stayed there for six hellish days before boarding a bus and arriving in Texas. Then he bought a broken-down van with $2,000 of the money he got from FEMA, repaired the vehicle and in January headed home.

Among the first to return to the area swamped with up to 12 feet of water, he started cleaning up his home and the entire neighborhood. He used a weed eater to cut the grass of all of his neighbors.

He rescued speakers, amplifiers and instruments from flooded churches and moved them into his own garage, where a local minister now holds services twice a week.

He hosted parties for holidays and special occasions, including the one-year anniversary of Katrina. And on Sunday, about 24 hours before kickoff of the Saints game, he decided to host the next party.

Six people rolled in for the pregame show at 7:30 p.m. local time. Six more rolled in by kickoff. Then came the nine volunteers – a little late because three had been at the stadium for a march to protest the $184 million dedicated to rebuilding the Dome.

At one point, a TV camera showed a fan holding up a sign that read, "Home Sweet Dome." Lance Edwards, who operates a BBQ shack on St. Claude Street, shook his head.

"A hundred and eighty million dollars," he said, referring to the approximate amount spent to renovate the 30-year-old building, "and my first customer of the day is begging me for a pork chop."
Deborah Massey
Deborah Massey made
red beans and rice.

And so the group found itself in a strange position. They were swept up in the euphoria of the game, but also mired in the despair of the slow recovery in the lower Ninth Ward and overriding feeling of being neglected by public officials. Like the red beans and rice, the bitter was mixed with sweet.

There was homegrown Irma Thomas singing the national anthem, and Massey stood and motioned for the others to join her. "See, whether you're in the Dome, or wherever you are, you stand."

They were on their feet again 2½ minutes into the game when Steve Gleason blocked a punt and Curtis Deloatch recovered the ball in the end zone for the touchdown as the Saints jumped out to a 7-0 lead.

They were cackling when Spike Lee was asked during an interview if he realized how much the game meant to the city. His reply: "This is all they have really. It's four hours and back to your FEMA trailers."

No one laughed harder than Lemann.

But the cackles gave way to cheers when the Saints scored on a double reverse and went up 14-3. And the cheers grew louder when John Carney booted a 51-yard field goal on the final play of the first half to give New Orleans a 20-3 lead.

At halftime, Keith Calhoun, a photojournalist who grew up in New Orleans, pulled aside one of the young volunteers.

"See, look at Jimmy," Calhoun said. "That's what we need in this neighborhood."

Look at Jimmy, indeed. He sat among the group, uncharacteristically quiet, while the others whooped and hollered and cheered. "My work is done," he explained with a grin. "I brought the people together. We got the food together. Now they're here and having a good time."

After the game clock expired, after those gathered let out final cheers in celebration of the Saints' 23-3 victory, Lemann tracked down two of the young volunteers. They thanked him and said the group planned to return Wednesday for bible study and hoped to join him for one of the regular jam sessions in his garage.

"We do all kinds of stuff," Lemann said. "You never know what to expect."

Josh Peter is a writer for Yahoo! Sports. Send Josh a question or comment for potential use in a future column or webcast.

Detainee Measure to Have Fewer Restrictions

By R. Jeffrey Smith
The Washington Post

Tuesday 26 September 2006

Republican lawmakers and the White House agreed over the weekend to alter new legislation on military commissions to allow the United States to detain and try a wider range of foreign nationals than an earlier version of the bill permitted, according to government sources.

Lawmakers and administration officials announced last week that they had reached accord on the plan for the detention and military trials of suspected terrorists, and it is scheduled for a vote this week. But in recent days the Bush administration and its House allies successfully pressed for a less restrictive description of how the government could designate civilians as "unlawful enemy combatants," the sources said yesterday. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of negotiations over the bill.

The government has maintained since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that, based on its reading of the laws of war, anyone it labels an unlawful enemy combatant can be held indefinitely at military or CIA prisons. But Congress has not yet expressed its view on who is an unlawful combatant, and the Supreme Court has not ruled directly on the matter.

As a result, human rights experts expressed concern yesterday that the language in the new provision would be a precedent-setting congressional endorsement for the indefinite detention of anyone who, as the bill states, "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or its military allies.

The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant. It is broader than that in last week's version of the bill, which resulted from lengthy, closed-door negotiations between senior administration officials and dissident Republican senators. That version incorporated a definition backed by the Senate dissidents: those "engaged in hostilities against the United States."

The new provision, which would cover captives held by the CIA, is more expansive than the one incorporated by the Defense Department on Sept. 5 in new rules that govern the treatment of detainees in military custody. The military's definition of unlawful combatants covers only "those who engage in acts against the United States or its coalition partners in violation of the laws of war and customs of war during an armed conflict."

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said that by including those who "supported hostilities" - rather than those who "engage in acts" against the United States - the government intends the legislation to sanction its seizure and indefinite detention of people far from the battlefield.

Martin noted that "the administration kidnapped an innocent German citizen" and "held him incommunicado for months ... because the CIA or Pentagon wrongly suspected him of terrorist ties." She was referring to Khalid al-Masri, who the Bush administration eventually acknowledged was detained on insufficient grounds.

Nothing in the proposed legislation - which mostly concerns the creation of new military panels, known as "commissions," to try terrorism suspects - directly addresses such CIA apprehensions and "renditions."

But the bill's new definition "would give the administration a stronger basis on which to argue that Congress has recognized that the battlefield is wherever the terrorist is, and they can seize people far from the area of combat, label them as unlawful enemy combatants and detain them indefinitely," said Suzanne Spaulding, an assistant general counsel at the CIA from 1989 to 1995.

Traditionally, courts have found it reasonable for parties to armed conflicts to seize or try people they encounter on a battlefield, to keep them from returning to the hostilities, added Spaulding, who was also a general counsel for the House and Senate intelligence committees. "The Supreme Court could potentially look at this and say Congress has now defined how anyone anywhere in the world" is subject to detention and military trial, even when far from an active combat zone, she said.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: "We are satisfied with the definition because it will allow us to prosecute the terrorists, and it also has important limitations that say a terrorist must have purposefully and materially supported terrorism."

Spokesmen for John W. Warner (R-Va.), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) - the senators leading negotiations with the Bush administration - did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the new language, but others on Capitol Hill said the three had accepted it.

Under a separate provision, those held by the CIA or the U.S. military as an unlawful enemy combatant would be barred from challenging their detention or the conditions of their treatment in U.S. courts unless they were first tried, convicted and appealed their conviction.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) yesterday assailed the provision as an unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus, which he said was allowable only "in time of rebellion or in time of invasion. And neither is present here."

He was joined by the committee's senior Democrat, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), who said that under the provision, legal U.S. immigrants could be held "until proven innocent, not until proven guilty."

Bruce Fein, a senior Justice Department official in the Reagan administration, testified against the provision at a Senate hearing. Kenneth W. Starr, a solicitor general under President George H.W. Bush, said in a letter to Specter that he concerned the legislation "may go too far in limiting habeas corpus relief."

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) defended the provision, saying alien enemy combatants are not "entitled to rights under the United States Constitution similar to those accorded to a defendant in a criminal lawsuit."

Congressional sources said Specter is unlikely to derail the compromise legislation over those objections.

--------

Staff writer Michael A. Fletcher and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

Bush Admin Planning for war with Iran

Bush Administration Plans for a US War vs. Iran

by Dennis Kucinich

September 23, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

Urgent Letter from Dennis Kucinich about Bush Administration Plans for a US War vs. Iran

Dear Friends,

The Bush Administration is preparing for war against Iran, using an almost identical drumbeat of weapons of mass destruction, imminent threat, alleged links to Al Queda, and even linking Iran with a future 911.

In the past few months reports have been published in Newsweek, ABC News and GQ Magazine that indicate the US is recruiting members of paramilitary groups to destabilize Iran through violence. The New Yorker magazine and the Guardian have written that US has already deployed military inside Iran. The latest issue of Time writes of plans for a naval blockade of Iran at the Port of Hormuz, through which 40% of the world’s oil supply passes. Other news reports have claimed that an air strike, using a variety of bombs including bunker busters to be dropped on over 1,000 targets, including nuclear facilities. This could obviously result in a great long term humanitarian and environmental disaster.

Earlier this year, I demanded congressional hearings on Iran and was able to secure the promise of a classified briefing from the Department of Defense, the State Department and the CIA. When the briefing was held, the Department of Defense and the State Department refused to show and are continuing to block any congressional inquiry into plans to attack Iran.

Just this past week, the International Atomic Energy Agency called “erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated” statements relating to Iran’s nuclear program which came from a staff report of the House Intelligence committee. Other intelligence officials have claimed over a dozen distortions in the report which, among other things, said Iran is producing weapons grade uranium. The Washington Post wrote: “The IAEA called that ‘incorrect’ noting that weapons grade uranium is enriched to a level of 90 percent or more. Iran has enriched uranium to 3.5% under IAEA monitoring.”

I have demanded that the Government Oversight subcommittee on National Security and International Relations, of which I am the ranking Democrat, hold hearings to determine how in the world the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, viewed the report without correcting the obvious inaccuracies before it was published. Once again a case for war is being built on lies.

You will recall that four and a half years ago I warned this nation about the deception behind the build up to war against Iraq. Everything I said then turned out to be 100% right. I led 125 Democrats in opposing the Iraq war resolution in March of 2003. The very same people who brought us Iraq in 2003 are getting ready to bring us a war against Iran.

With your help, I will lead the way to challenge the Bush Administration’s march to war against Iran. Please support my campaign for re-election with a generous donation to help continue my work in the Congress. The plan to attack Iran, on its face, threatens the safety of every US soldier serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the countless Iranian lives at risk and the threat to world peace and environmental catastrophes.

With your support, I intend to continue to insist upon:

(1) Direct negotiations with Iran.
(2) The US must guarantee Iran and the world community that it will not attack Iran.
(3) Iran must open once again to international inspections of its nuclear program.
(4) Iran must agree not to build nuclear weapons.
Many of you joined me three years ago as I ran for President to challenge the deliberate lies about WMDs, Iraq and 911, Iraq and Al Queda and the Niger “yellowcake” claims which put us onto the path of an unnecessary, illegal, costly war in Iraq. The Iraq war has caused greater instability and violence in the world community. In the meantime, our government has used the oxymoronic war on terror to trample our Constitution, rip up the Bill of Rights and rule by fear.

Please join with me as we continue our efforts for the end of fear and the beginning of hope, for international dialogue, for cooperation and for peace.

Thank you,

Dennis

Bush pursues Ties to Oil-Rich Kazakhstan

US Pursues Ties to Oil-Rich Kazakhstan
The Associated Press

Monday 25 September 2006

New York - President Bush is pursuing closer ties to oil-rich Kazakhstan despite what human rights observers have said is a disturbing backslide toward autocracy in the former Soviet republic.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice did not answer when asked Monday whether human rights or energy would top the agenda for a meeting with her Kazakh counterpart. The session on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly sets up a coveted White House invitation for Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev on Friday.

Nazarbayev's trip starts Tuesday with a private visit to the Bush family home in Maine to meet his father, former President George H.W. Bush.

"The time has come when we can raise our relations to a completely new level," the Kazakh leader said before leaving for the United States.

Kazakhstan has grown in importance because of its huge oil reserves. The vast Central Asian republic, which is the size of Western Europe, is expected to pump 3.5 billion barrels of oil a day in the coming decade.

With the other four former Soviet Central Asian nations being more authoritarian, too unstable, too poor, or a combination of all three, Kazakhstan emerges as the West's logical ally in the strategic energy-rich region north of Afghanistan and Iran.

The Bush administration also has praised Kazakhstan as a model because of its decision in the 1990s to dismantle nuclear weapons it acquired under Soviet rule.

Nazarbayev has held tight control for 17 years, overseeing Kazakhstan's notable economic advance after the 1991 Soviet breakup. The economy has grown around 10 percent annually in the past eight years.

But democratic reforms have stumbled and Nazarbayev's image has been tarnished by allegations of graft.

Nazarbayev was re-elected with 91 percent of the vote in December balloting that international observers called flawed. The 2004 parliamentary vote produced a legislature without a single opposition lawmaker.

In July, Nazarbayev signed legislation that sets up new regulations for media organizations.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe called the law "a step backward" for media freedoms. Freedom House, a New York-based pro-democracy group, said the law "will greatly threaten freedom of expression and freedom of the press."

Two of Nazarbayev's most outspoken critics were killed over the past year - a worrying signal in a country that had no culture of political murders. Authorities have said both slayings were nonpolitical.

The United States has criticized the election and Kazakhstan's human rights record, but kept its comments mild.

"We have talked to the government of Kazakhstan about the importance of a free, open and vibrant media as part of an evolving democracy, so certainly any moves that would run counter to that kind of idea and that kind of trend would be a source of concern to us," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in May.

The State Department's top official for human rights and democracy accompanied Rice to her session with Kazakhstan Foreign Affairs Minister Kassymzhomart Taokaev, held in her suite at the opulent Waldorf-Astoria hotel. The short session was their second in three months.

Afterward, the State Department said the session included discussions about Kazakh cooperation in Afghanistan and Iraq, and hopes for "a multidimensional relationship with Kazakhstan which includes US encouragement for continuing reforms."

Associated Press writer Bagila Bukharbayeva contributed to this report from Almaty, Kazakhstan.

Newsweek and More Media Lies and Disinfo

A report at the beg. of this year stated that the US was behind Latfia, Albania, and many other nations in terms of freedom of speech.

Maybe this will help expalin why. This was the geographical Newsweek covers for the world for October. This is clearly amazing and just as some on Air America discussed the the other day, there is no fair media in this nation anymore. You have corporations who are doing the bidding of the government who pays them and tells them what to print and what not to print.


Link for World Cover: http://www.newsweekasia.com/

Link for US Cover: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032542/site/newsweek/

Regan's Chief Economist Speaks Out Again

Iran Attack - Crisis Is Upon Us

By Paul Craig Roberts

09/245/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- A number of experts have concluded that despite the Bush administration’s desire to attack Iran, the aggression would be too rash and the consequences too dire even for the irrational Bush administration.

Military experts point out that at a time when generals are calling for more troops for Afghanistan and Iraq, it would be ill-advised for Bush to add Iran to the war theater. Experts note that Iran is well armed with missiles capable of attacking US ships and oil facilities throughout the Middle East and that Iran can direct its Shiite allies in Iraq to assault US troops there and set in motion terrorist actions throughout the Middle East.

Diplomatic experts point out that the US is isolated in its desire for war with Iran and has no ally except Israel, thus validating Muslim claims that the US is Israel’s instrument against Muslims in the Middle East. Experts note that military aggression is a war crime and that US violations of international law isolate the US and destroy the soft power on which US leadership has been based. An attack on Iran could be the last straw for Muslims chaffing under the rule of US puppet governments in Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Economic experts point out that the impact on the price of oil would be severe and the economic consequences detrimental. With the US housing bubble deflating, now is not the time for an oil shock.

It is difficult to take exception to this expert analysis. Nevertheless, the Bush administration continues to send war signals. Credible news organizations have reported that US naval attack groups have been given “prepare to deploy orders” that would put them on station off Iran by October 21.

How can Bush administration war plans be reconciled with expert opinion that the consequences would be too dire for the US?

Perhaps the answer is that what appears as irrationality to experts is rationality to neoconservatives. Neocons seek maximum chaos and instability in the Middle East in order to justify long-term US occupation of the region. Following this line of thought, neocons would regard the loss of a US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf as a way to solidify public support for the war. US public anger at the Iranians could even result in US public support for a military draft in order to win “the war on terror.”

The Bush administration could bring Congress around by announcing a “Gulf of Tonkin” incident or by orchestrating a “terrorist attack.” However, this is unnecessary as Bush has prepared the ground for bypassing Congress with his propagandistic allegations that Iran, by arming Iraqi insurgents, sponsoring terrorism, and building nuclear weapons, is the major part of the ongoing “war against terrorism.” Now that Iran is blamed for rising violence in Iraq, an attack on Iran follows as a matter of course. All Bush has to do is to continue with his lies in order to bring the American public to a new war hysteria.

Bush’s attorney general has demonstrated that he has no qualms about validating any and all extra-legal powers that the White House requires for violating the US Constitution and international law. The congressional attempts to block illegal wiretapping and torture have failed. The Senate has refused to authorize torture, but the Senate has not prevented the administration from torturing detainees. The compromise leaves it to the White House to decide whether its interrogation practices are objectionable. In an editorial (September 22, 2006), the Washington Post concluded that “the abuse can continue.”

Polls show that Bush administration propaganda has convinced a majority of inattentive Americans that Iran is making nuclear weapons. Polls show that a majority support an attack on Iran under this circumstance. The neoconservatives and their media allies have succeeded in causing the public to confuse Iran’s legal nuclear energy program with a weapons program.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, whose inspectors pour over Iran’s nuclear energy program for signs of a weapons program, recently denounced a House Intelligence Committee report as “outrageous and dishonest.” Written by the Republican neocon staff, the Republican report falsely alleges that Iran had enriched uranium to weapons grade last April and that the IAEA had removed a senior safeguards inspector to keep the alleged breach of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Pact secret.

Once again neoconservatives have shown that they will tell any and every lie to achieve their goal of attacking Iran. Jingoistic anti-UN Bush supporters will automatically believe the neocon lie and will swallow right-wing talk radio claims that the UN is protecting Iran’s nuclear weapons program. As we learned from the Iraq hysteria, facts and experts are no impediment to the Bush administration’s lies.

Rumsfeld’s neocon Pentagon has rewritten US war doctrine to permit preemptive nuclear attack on non-nuclear countries. As the US paid a huge public relations cost in terms of world opinion and distrust of the US by endorsing the first use of nuclear weapons, the revision of US war doctrine must have a purpose. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=9255

Neocons claim that tactical nuclear weapons are necessary to destroy Iran’s underground facilities. However, the real reason for using nukes against Iran is to intimidate Iran from retaliating and to threaten the entire Muslim world with genocide unless Muslims bend to the neocons’ will and accept US hegemony over their part of the world.

In his speech to the United Nations, Hugo Chavez might not have been too deep into hyperbole when he described Bush as an example of demonic evil.

IRAQ FOR SALE: 75 MIN MOVIE

Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers

The story of what
happens to everyday Americans when corporations go to war.

Acclaimed director Robert Greenwald (Wal-Mart:
The High Cost of Low Price, Outfoxed and Uncovered) takes you
inside the lives of soldiers, truck drivers, widows and children
who have been changed forever as a result of profiteering in the
reconstruction of Iraq. Iraq for Sale uncovers the connections
between private corporations making a killing in Iraq and the
decision makers who allow them to do so. 

Brave New Films are both funded and
distributed completely outside corporate America. Over
3000 people
donated to make Iraq for Sale, and it is up to you to
distribute it. Give
copies to co-workers and
organize a
screening in your neighborhood.
Get involved
→

09/25/06 Runtime 75 Minutes -
Watch this video in Real Video

CLICK PLAY TO VIEW

 

This video is available for sale here

You may need to


download Windows Media Player 10 to view this video. Its
FREE

National Guard to Be Called Upon to Help Tired Army

NBC Nightly News

Friday 22 September 2006

Brian Williams, anchor:

They are the people who help us at Home Depot. They deliver our mail,patrol our streets. They are our neighbors and friends and fellow citizens who make up the National Guard and ready reserve. They have suffered heavy casualties and have held up under a tremendous burden as this nation has fought wars on two fronts. And we learn today they're about to be asked to give even more.

The problem is most US Army units are right now not ready for combat as we see here on this broadcast night after night. It's not as if the fight is going away. Now we have learned the Pentagon may send more Guard soldiers into battle. We'll begin with this story here tonight with our Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski.

Jim, good evening.

Jim Miklaszewski reporting:

Good evening, Brian.

A senior military official tells NBC News that five years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched the Army to a dangerous breakpoint.

For the Army, the pace of combat has been relentless. Many soldiers are already on their third combat tour. Frequent deployments have cut training time at home in half, which has left two thirds of all Army combat units rated not ready for combat.

General Barry McCaffrey, Retired (NBC News Military Analyst): I think,arguably, it's the worst readiness condition the US Army has faced since the end of Vietnam.

Miklaszewski: So the Army's looking again to the National Guard for relief. A year ago, more than one third of US ground forces in Iraq were National Guard. Guard chief, Lieutenant General Steven Blum, is prepared for his soldiers to get the call again.

Lieutenant General Steven Blum: If you think the National Guard's busy today, I think we're going to look back and say 'These were the good old days' in about three years.

Miklaszewski: But the Guard is also under stress. Two hundred seventy thousand Guard soldiers-60 percent of the force-have already hit their limit for overseas combat. The Pentagon would have to change its policy,which now limits Guard combat tours to two out of every five years.

Gen. McCaffrey: More is being asked of them, particularly the National Guard and reserve components, than they signed up to do. And in the near-term, we think it's going to unravel.

Miklaszewski: Perhaps worse, most Guard equipment like humvees and trucks, has either been destroyed or left behind in Iraq. That makes it difficult for the Guard to train or fulfill its primary duty: respond to disasters here at home.

Lt. Gen. Blum: If you want the Guard to do a mission three years from now, no one should be surprised that they're ill-equipped or underequipped to do the job.

Miklaszewski: General Blum remains confident, however, if needed, the Guard will answer the call.

But uprooting Guard soldiers from their jobs and families and sending them off to war can be politically explosive. So military officials predict that any decision to mobilize the Guard won't happen until after the November elections. Brian:

Williams: Jim Miklaszewski at the Pentagon for us tonight. Jim, thanks for that.

The October Surprise from a CFR member

By Gary Hart
HuffingtonPost.com

Saturday 23 September 2006

It should come as no surprise if the Bush Administration undertakes a preemptive war against Iran sometime before the November election.

Were these more normal times, this would be a stunning possibility, quickly dismissed by thoughtful people as dangerous, unprovoked, and out of keeping with our national character. But we do not live in normal times. And we do not have a government much concerned with our national character. If anything, our current Administration is out to remake our national character into something it has never been.

The steps will be these: Air Force tankers will be deployed to fuel B-2 bombers, Navy cruise missile ships will be positioned at strategic points in the northern Indian Ocean and perhaps the Persian Gulf, unmanned drones will collect target data, and commando teams will refine those data. The latter two steps are already being taken.

Then the president will speak on national television. He will say this: Iran is determined to develop nuclear weapons; if this happens, the entire region will go nuclear; our diplomatic efforts to prevent this have failed; Iran is offering a haven to known al Qaeda leaders; the fate of our ally Israel is at stake; Iran persists in supporting terrorism, including in Iraq; and sanctions will have no affect (and besides they are for sissies). He will not say: ...and besides, we need the oil.

Therefore, he will announce, our own national security and the security of the region requires us to act. "Tonight, I have ordered the elimination of all facilities in Iran that are dedicated to the production of weapons of mass destruction....." In the narrowest terms this includes perhaps two dozen targets.

But the authors of the war on Iraq have "regime change" in mind in Iran. According to Colonel Sam Gardiner (author of "The End of the 'Summer of Diplomacy': Assessing U.S. Military Options in Iran," The Century Foundation, 2006) to have any hope of success, such a policy would require attacking at least 400 targets, including the Revolutionary Guard. But even this presumes the Iranian people will respond to a massive U.S. attack on their country by overthrowing their government. Only an Administration inspired by pre-Enlightenment fantasy could believe a notion such as this.

Embracing this reverie requires believing in the Iranian Ahmed Chalabi, or perhaps even Mr. Chalabi himself since he has been working both sides of the street in both countries for some time.

It does not involve much imagination to understand the timing. The U.S. is poised to adopt a Congressional regime change of its own in November. A political strategy totally based on fear can offer few other options to prevent this. Besides, occupation by Democrats of even one house of Congress in January would make this scheme more difficult (one would certainly hope).

Further, time for super-power military conquest may be running short in the emerging age of fourth generation warfare. "...the age of Western military ascendancy is coming to an end." ("No Win," Andrew Bacevich, The Boston Globe, August 27, 2006).

The consequences? The sunny neoconservatives whose goal has been to become the neo-imperial Middle Eastern power all along will forcast few. But prudent leaders calculate all the risks, and they are historic.

These include: violent reaction throughout the Islamic world; a dramatic increase in jihadist attacks in European capitals and the U.S.; radicalization of Islamic youth behind a new generation of jihadist leaders; consolidation of support for Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, and a rapidly spreading malignant network; escalating expansion of anti-American sentiment throughout the world, including the democratic world; and the formation of WWIII battle lines between the U.S. and the Arab and Islamic worlds.

In more rational times, including at the height of the Cold War, bizarre actions such as unilateral, unprovoked, preventive war are dismissed by thoughtful, seasoned, experienced men and women as mad. But those qualities do not characterize our current leadership.

For a divinely guided president who imagines himself to be a latter day Winston Churchill (albeit lacking the ability to formulate intelligent sentences), and who professedly does not care about public opinion at home or abroad, anything is possible, and dwindling days in power may be seen as making the most apocalyptic actions necessary.

N. American students trained for 'merger'

10 universities participate in 'model Parliament' in Mexico to simulate 'integration' of 3 nations

JOHN TROUP / London Sun | September 25 2006

In another example of the way the three nations of North America are being drawn into a federation, or "merger," students from 10 universities in the U.S., Mexico and Canada are participating annually in a simulated "model Parliament."

Under the sponsorship of the Canadian based North American Forum on Integration, students met in the Mexican Senate for five days in May in an event dubbed "Triumvirate," with organizers declaring "A North American Parliament is born."

A similar event took place in the Canadian Senate in 2005.

The intentions of organizers are clear.

"The creation of a North American parliament, such as the one being simulated by these young people, should be considered," explained Raymond Chretien, the president of the Triumvirate and the former Canadian ambassador to both Mexico and the U.S.

Participants discuss draft bills on trade corridors, immigration, provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement and produce a daily newspaper called "The TrilatHerald."

The 10 universities taking part include Harvard, American University, Carlton University, Simon Fraser, Universite de Montreal, Ecole nationale d'administration publique, Monterrey TEC, CIDE, Monterrey University and Instituto Mexicano de la Juventud.

Officials taking part have included James Williams, the former U.S. ambassador to Canada. The North American Forum on Integration says the annual event enjoys the support of the U.S. Embassy in Canada, the Canadian Embassy in Mexico and the North American Development Bank. It also has been supported by at least one U.S. news organization – the Houston Chronicle.

NAFI says it is "a non-profit organization devoted to developing North American dialogue and networks and at publicizing issues raised by North American integration."

The board of directors of NAFI include Robert A. Pastor, professor and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University and vice chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on North America. He has testified before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on the idea of merging the United States, Mexico and Canada in a North American union stretching from Prudhoe Bay to Guatemala.

"What we need to do," Pastor instructed, "is forge a new North American Community. ... Instead of stopping North Americans on the borders, we ought to provide them with a secure, biometric border pass that would ease transit across the border like an E-Z pass permits our cars to speed through tolls."

Pastor is the author of "Toward a North American Community," a book promoting the development of a North American union as a regional government and the adoption of the amero as a common monetary currency to replace the dollar and the peso.

As vice chairman of the May 2005 CFR task force, he is an architect of the Building a North American Community" plan that presents itself as a blueprint for using bureaucratic action within the executive branches of Mexico, the U.S. and Canada to transform the current trilateral Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America into a North American union regional government.

The CFR report is a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter." Some see it as the blueprint for merger of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. It calls for "a common economic space ... for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital and people flow freely."

The CFR's strategy calls specifically for "a more open border for the movement of goods and people." It calls for laying "the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America." It calls for efforts to "harmonize visa and asylum regulations." It calls for efforts to "harmonize entry screening."

In "Building a North American Community," the report states that Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "committed their governments" to this goal March 23, 2005, at that meeting in Waco, Texas.

Pastor believes the U.S. and Canadian government should divert significant new taxpayer funding to solving the problems of the poor in Mexico.

"If Canada and the United States contributed just 10 percent of what the European Union spends on aid for its poorest member, and if Mexico invested it wisely in infrastructure and education, then Mexico could begin to grow at twice the rate of its northern neighbors, and North America would have found the magic formula to lift developing countries to the level of the industrialized world," he said in 2002.

The next Triumvirate model parliament conference will be in the United States – in either New York or Washington, according to a spokeswoman for the North American Forum.

It's not just the mock "parliament" sessions involving students of the three countries that raises concerns among those suspicious about political and social "inertia" moving the U.S. into a European Union-style merger with its northern and southern neighbors.

Earlier this month, a high-level, top-secret meeting of the North American Forum took place in Banff, Canada – with topics ranging from "A Vision for North America," "Opportunities for Security Cooperation" and "Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration."

Pastor was listed as a confirmed participant in that meeting, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Central Intelligence Agency Director R. James Woolsey, former Immigration and Naturalization Services Director Doris Meissner, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former Energy Secretary and Defense Secretary James Schlesinger and top officials of both Mexico and Canada.

Opposition is mounting to such meetings, policy papers and presidential directives leading to what some critics characterize as "NAFTA on steroids." The concerns began in earnest March 31, 2005, when the elected leaders of the U.S., Mexico and Canada agreed to advance the agenda of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

Perhaps the most blistering criticism came earlier this summer from Lou Dobbs of CNN – a frequent critic of President Bush's immigration policies.

"A regional prosperity and security program?" he asked rhetorically in a recent cablecast. "This is absolute ignorance. And the fact that we are – we reported this, we should point out, when it was signed. But, as we watch this thing progress, these working groups are continuing. They're intensifying. What in the world are these people thinking about? You know, I was asked the other day about whether or not I really thought the American people had the stomach to stand up and stop this nonsense, this direction from a group of elites, an absolute contravention of our law, of our Constitution, every national value. And I hope, I pray that I'm right when I said yes. But this is – I mean, this is beyond belief."

No one seems quite certain what that agenda is because of the vagueness of the official declarations. But among the things the leaders of the three countries agreed to work toward were borders that would allow for easier and faster moving of goods and people between the countries.

Coming as the announcement did in the midst of a raging national debate in the U.S. over borders seen as far to open already, more than a few jaws dropped.

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo. and the chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus as well as author of the new book, "In Mortal Danger," may be the only elected official to challenge openly the plans for the new superstate.

Responding to a WND report, Tancredo is demanding the Bush administration fully disclose the activities of the government office implementing the trilateral agreement that has no authorization from Congress.

Tancredo wants to know the membership of the Security and Prosperity Partnership groups along with their various trilateral memoranda of understanding and other agreements reached with counterparts in Mexico and Canada.

Why the secrecy?

Geri Word, who heads the SPP office, told WND the work had not been disclosed because, "We did not want to get the contact people of the working groups distracted by calls from the public."

The concerns about the direction such powerful men could lead Americans without their knowledge is only heightened when interlocking networks are discovered. For instance, one of the components envisioned for this future "North American Union" is a superhighway running from Mexico, through the U.S. and into Canada. It is being promoted by the North American SuperCorridor Coalition, or NASCO, a non-profit group "dedicated to developing the world’s first international, integrated and secure, multi-modal transportation system along the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation Corridor to improve both the trade competitiveness and quality of life in North America."

The president of NASCO is George Blackwood, who earlier launched the North American International Trade Corridor Partnership. In fact, NAITCP later morphed into NASCO. A NAITCP summit meeting in 2004, attended by senior Mexican government officials, heard from American University's Pastor.

U.S. gets ‘Sovietized’

ERIC MARGOLIS / C News | September 25 2006

In the late 1980s, I was the first western journalist allowed into the world’s most dreaded prison, Moscow’s sinister Lubyanka. Muscovites dared not even utter the name of KGB’s headquarters, calling it instead after a nearby toy store, “Detsky Mir.”

I still shudder recalling Lubyanka’s underground cells, grim interrogation rooms, and execution cellars where tens of thousands were tortured and shot. I sat at the desk from which the monsters who ran Cheka (Soviet secret police) — Dzerzhinsky, Yagoda, Yezhov, Beria — ordered 30 million victims to their deaths.

Prisoners taken in the dead of night to Lubyanka were systematically beaten for days with rubber hoses and clubs. There were special cold rooms where prisoners could be frozen to near death. Sleep deprivation was a favourite and most effective Cheka technique. So was near-drowning in water fouled with urine and feces.

I recall these past horrors because of what this column has long called the gradual “Sovietization” of the United States. This shameful week, it became clear Canada is also afflicted.

We have seen America’s president and vice president, sworn to uphold the Constitution, advocating some of the same interrogation techniques the KGB used at the Lubyanka. They apparently believe beating, freezing, sleep deprivation and near-drowning are necessary to prevent terrorist attacks. So did Stalin.

The White House insisted that anyone — including Americans — could be kidnapped and tried in camera using “evidence” obtained by torturing other suspects. Bush & Co. deny the U.S. uses torture but reject the basic law of habeaus corpus and U.S. laws against the evil practice. The UN says Bush’s plans violate international law and the Geneva Conventions.

This week’s tentative agreement between Bush and Congress may somewhat limit torture, but exempts U.S. officials from having to observe the Geneva Convention.

Canadians had a shocking view of similar creeping totalitarianism as the full horror of Maher Arar’s persecution was revealed. Thanks to false information from the RCMP, the U.S. arrested a Canadian citizen and sent him to Syria. Arab states and Pakistan were being used by the Bush administration for outsourced torture. Syria denies the charges.

Suspects were kidnapped by the U.S., often on the basis of faulty information or lies, then sent to Arab states to be tortured until they confessed. The apparent objective of this “rendition” program? To find a few kernels of useful information. The Cheka and East Germany’s Stasi used the same practice.

I never thought I’d see the United States — champion of human rights and rule of law — legislating torture and Soviet-style kangaroo tribunals. I never thought I’d see Congress and a majority of Americans supporting such police state measures. Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln must be turning in their graves.

To me, Canada has always been a haven of moderation, decency, and rule of law — until the Maher Arar affair shockingly showed this country could also quickly fall into police state behaviour.

Arar’s despicable treatment by Canada and the U.S. was the result of a U.S. witch hunt, plus anti-Muslim racism, stupidity, bureaucratic cowardice and incompetence.

We saw Ottawa aiding the outrageous persecution of its citizens, and the U.S. shamefully refusing to aid the Arar inquiry.

Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, who authorized Arar’s arrest, should face justice for this and many other malfeasances. The current U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, who denied the Bush administration was responsible for Arar’s abduction and torture, should be ashamed.

Canada must demand a thorough U.S. investigation, apology, and guarantee Canadians will never again become victims of such state-run criminal activity. It’s time for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to advise his new best friends in Washington that Canada is not a banana republic.

Officials directly involved in the most sordid, disgraceful case in Canada’s modern history, must face justice. They are as much guilty as the torturers who beat Maher Arar mercilessly for 10 months.