Similar to the Greenwald post below on torture, Juan Cole examines the illegitimacy of the Bush/Cheney Wars

"....What is it about the United States that makes for harsh prosecutions over sex crimes but lets leaders off the hook when it comes to war crimes? New York police rushed to arrest Dominique Strauss-Kahn , the head of the international Monetary Fund, on Saturday on learning of charges against him by a hotel maid of sexual assault. This quick action against a wealthy and powerful individual, seeking justice for a person at the bottom rung of the American social hierarchy, is praiseworthy. It affirms the principle that no one is above the law.

"But the widows and orphans of Iraq cannot hope that the New York police would similarly frog-march George W. Bush off his first-class flight and arrest him for crimes against humanity....

"....The body that could most easily gather evidence against Bush, Cheney and others in that administration and begin the process of subpoenas is the two houses of the US Congress. But the Democratic-dominated Senate has openly eschewed prosecution. And the Republican-controlled House of Representatives would resist such a move on partisan grounds. The documentary evidence for criminal activity would surely not be so hard for our national legislature to get hold of, if the will existed to do the right thing. President Eisenhower did not hesitate to defend the UN Charter even against close allies. His like, unfortunately, would be hard to find in American politics today."

Yes, America protects its own. Its own rich, white males.

TORTURE

Matthew Alexander, a former senior military interrogator in Iraq, gave a revealing interview on Democracy Now! about the efficacy and ethics of the use of torture by the U.S. military and intelligence agencies (emphasis added):

"....My argument is pretty simple, Amy. I don’t torture because it doesn’t work. I don’t torture, because it’s immoral, and it’s against the law, and it’s inconsistent with my oath of office, in which I swore to defend the Constitution of the United States. And it’s also inconsistent with American principles. So, my primary argument against torture is one of morality, not one of efficacy.

"You know, if torture did work and we could say it worked 100 percent of the time, I still wouldn’t use it. The U.S. Army Infantry, when it goes out into battle and it faces resistance, it doesn’t come back and ask for the permission to use chemical weapons. I mean, chemical weapons are extremely effective—we could say almost 100 percent effective. And yet, we don’t use them. But we make this—carve out this special space for interrogators and say that, well, they’re different, so they can violate the laws of war if they face obstacles.

"And that’s an insult to American interrogators, who are more than capable of defeating our enemies and al-Qaeda in the battle of wits in the interrogation room. And American interrogators have proven this time and time again, from World War II through Vietnam, through Panama, through the First Gulf War. And let’s go back to the successes of American interrogators. You know, American interrogators found Saddam Hussein without using torture. We found and killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda Iraq, which helped turn the Iraq war, without using torture. And numerous other leaders that we have found and captured—another guy named Zafar, that I describe in my book—all these successes have come without the use of torture...."

"....When I was in Iraq, I oversaw the interrogations of foreign fighters. And those foreign fighters, the majority of them, said, time and time again, the reason they had come to Iraq to fight was because of the torture and abuse of detainees at both Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. And this is not my opinion. The Department of Defense tracked these statistics. And they were briefed, every interrogator who arrived there, that torture and abuse was al-Qaeda’s number one recruiting tool.

"And remember, these foreign fighters that came to Iraq, they made up 90 percent of the suicide bombers. They killed hundreds, if not thousands, of American soldiers. And so, this policy of torture and abuse did not make America safer. What it did was it caused the deaths of hundreds or thousands of American soldiers who are now buried at Arlington National Cemetery. So, this policy has been counterproductive in so many ways.

"And one thing you’ll never hear the torture supporters talk about, Amy, is the long-term negative consequences of torture. They won’t talk about the fact that al-Qaeda uses it to recruit. They won’t talk about the fact that future Americans are going to be subjected to the same techniques by future enemies using our own actions as justification. They’re not going to talk about the fact that it makes detainees more resistant to interrogations as soon as they walked in the interrogation room, because they see us all as torturers. So they’re not going to talk about all these long-term negative consequences...."

Takeaway: torture is bad.

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq

Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show. Graphic: Iraq's burgeoning oil industry The papers, revealed here for the first time, raise new questions over Britain's involvement in the war, which had divided Tony Blair's cabinet and was voted through only after his claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The minutes of a series of meetings between ministers and senior oil executives are at odds with the public denials of self-interest from oil companies and Western governments at the time. The documents were not offered as evidence in the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the UK's involvement in the Iraq war. In March 2003, just before Britain went to war, Shell denounced reports that it had held talks with Downing Street about Iraqi oil as "highly inaccurate". BP denied that it had any "strategic interest" in Iraq, while Tony Blair described "the oil conspiracy theory" as "the most absurd". But documents from October and November the previous year paint a very different picture. Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change. The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP's behalf because the oil giant feared it was being "locked out" of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms. Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on 31 October 2002 read: "Baroness Symons agreed that it would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis." The minister then promised to "report back to the companies before Christmas" on her lobbying efforts. The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq "post regime change". Its minutes state: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity." After another meeting, this one in October 2002, the Foreign Office's Middle East director at the time, Edward Chaplin, noted: "Shell and BP could not afford not to have a stake in [Iraq] for the sake of their long-term future... We were determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq." Whereas BP was insisting in public that it had "no strategic interest" in Iraq, in private it told the Foreign Office that Iraq was "more important than anything we've seen for a long time". BP was concerned that if Washington allowed TotalFinaElf's existing contact with Saddam Hussein to stand after the invasion it would make the French conglomerate the world's leading oil company. BP told the Government it was willing to take "big risks" to get a share of the Iraqi reserves, the second largest in the world. Over 1,000 documents were obtained under Freedom of Information over five years by the oil campaigner Greg Muttitt. They reveal that at least five meetings were held between civil servants, ministers and BP and Shell in late 2002. The 20-year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion were the largest in the history of the oil industry. They covered half of Iraq's reserves – 60 billion barrels of oil, bought up by companies such as BP and CNPC (China National Petroleum Company), whose joint consortium alone stands to make £403m ($658m) profit per year from the Rumaila field in southern Iraq. Last week, Iraq raised its oil output to the highest level for almost decade, 2.7 million barrels a day – seen as especially important at the moment given the regional volatility and loss of Libyan output. Many opponents of the war suspected that one of Washington's main ambitions in invading Iraq was to secure a cheap and plentiful source of oil. Mr Muttitt, whose book Fuel on the Fire is published next week, said: "Before the war, the Government went to great lengths to insist it had no interest in Iraq's oil. These documents provide the evidence that give the lie to those claims. "We see that oil was in fact one of the Government's most important strategic considerations, and it secretly colluded with oil companies to give them access to that huge prize." Lady Symons, 59, later took up an advisory post with a UK merchant bank that cashed in on post-war Iraq reconstruction contracts. Last month she severed links as an unpaid adviser to Libya's National Economic Development Board after Colonel Gaddafi started firing on protesters. Last night, BP and Shell declined to comment. Not about oil? what they said before the invasion * Foreign Office memorandum, 13 November 2002, following meeting with BP: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP are desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity to compete. The long-term potential is enormous..." * Tony Blair, 6 February 2003: "Let me just deal with the oil thing because... the oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it. The fact is that, if the oil that Iraq has were our concern, I mean we could probably cut a deal with Saddam tomorrow in relation to the oil. It's not the oil that is the issue, it is the weapons..." * BP, 12 March 2003: "We have no strategic interest in Iraq. If whoever comes to power wants Western involvement post the war, if there is a war, all we have ever said is that it should be on a level playing field. We are certainly not pushing for involvement." * Lord Browne, the then-BP chief executive, 12 March 2003: "It is not in my or BP's opinion, a war about oil. Iraq is an important producer, but it must decide what to do with its patrimony and oil." * Shell, 12 March 2003, said reports that it had discussed oil opportunities with Downing Street were 'highly inaccurate', adding: "We have neither sought nor attended meetings with officials in the UK Government on the subject of Iraq. The subject has only come up during conversations during normal meetings we attend from time to time with officials... We have never asked for 'contracts'."

Echo Park

This song came out during the Vietnam War. I was way too young to appreciate its deeper meaning, a tribute to forgotten veterans and those whose lives were forever changed by the loss of those young Americans maimed and killed as a result of our nation's incessant imperialistic drive. These days our government, more than ever, entices our young to be all they can be, but fails to tell them that support, at the other end of their military career, will be worse than ever. Considering how we've most recently coerced and fooled our young into going to Iraq and now Afghanistan for no GOOD reasons, I think this song is even more appropriate today.

In memory of Robert Byrd, here is an excerpt from his speech lambasting fellow Senators for supporting Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003:

Middle East expert Juan Cole is optimistic about the Iraqi elections and American troop withdrawal:

"....It seems to me extremely unlikely that the post-election scene will be so violent or unstable as to call for a revision of the current timetable for US troop withdrawal from Iraq, to which President Obama has committed the US government. Iraq has actually seen much worse violence in recent months than anything it has experienced in the run-up to this election, though it is true that civilian casualties spiked in February. Iraqi authorities have repeatedly said proudly that the Iraqi military and other security forces are capable of keeping basic peace now, and they are in charge of security for the voting stations this time, not the US military. I do not believe the Iraqi parliament that is about to be elected will put up with any foot-dragging on troop withdrawals by the US,and I think the US military officers who speak of slowing down the withdrawal are doing so to discourage radical guerrillas from making trouble during the elections (warning them that attacks will backfire by making it harder to get rid of the Americans)...."

We've beaten Iraq to a pulp, so the sooner we get (our soldiers) out of there the better for all.

Based on the fact that I live next to Long Beach, CA this site calculated the following waste of money:

Taxpayers in Long Beach City, California paid $1.2 billion for total Iraq and Afghanistan war spending since 2001. For the same amount of money, any one of the following could have been provided: 510,171 People with Health Care for One Year 2,208,521 Homes with Renewable Electricity for One Year 22,144 Public Safety Officers for One year 17,510 Music and Arts Teachers for One Year 186,282 Scholarships for University Students for One Year 231,686 Students receiving Pell Grants of $5350 3,710 Affordable Housing Units 463,343 Children with Health Care for One Year 148,268 Head Start Places for Children for One Year 17,803 Elementary School Teachers for One Year 15,655 Port Container Inspectors for One year

There aren't 2,208,521 homes in Long Beach, but you get the idea...

OUR YOUNG CANNOT SUSTAIN THESE DEPLOYMENTS!!

"At least 128 U.S. soldiers killed themselves last year... Through April, (2009) 91 soldiers had committed suicide."

15 months after Iraq bloodbath, young veteran takes his life On March 7, 2007, Army Spc. Trevor Hogue was inside his barracks in Baghdad, describing his morning on the battlefield. "I saw things today that I think will mess me up for life," Hogue typed to his mother, Donna, as she sat at her computer thousands of miles away from Iraq, in Granite Bay. That day the young soldier, whose assignment included driving a Humvee through perhaps the most dangerous ZIP code on the globe, saw his sergeant blown to pieces. He saw the bodies of half of the men in his platoon torn apart. Heads were cut off and limbs severed. It happened 30 yards in front of him, and he had never been so afraid, he told his mom. "My arms are around you," Donna Hogue wrote. "You'll be alright." But Hogue never really recovered. Last week, he committed suicide by hanging himself in the backyard of his childhood home. He was 24 years old. According to the Army, soldiers are killing themselves at the highest rate in nearly three decades, surpassing the civilian suicide rate for the first time since the Vietnam War. At least 128 U.S. soldiers killed themselves last year, a number that has risen four years in a row. The death toll could be even higher this year. Through April, 91 soldiers had committed suicide. Hogue's death, because it occurred after he was discharged, is not included in those statistics. But his friends and loved ones believe he was a casualty of war as much as any soldier on active duty. "You think that they are safe when they get back home," Donna Hogue said, tearfully reading printed messages that she and her son exchanged while he was at war. "They're not. The reality of the things that they experienced continues to haunt them."

I don't know what to say... As a disabled Veteran who suffers from PTSD and Bi-Polar disorder, everyday is a struggle. My condolences to the family of Trevor Hogue and all the other military families who have lost loved ones to suicide. I truly believe they were killed on the battlefield... they just didn't know it yet.

I live today with similiar questions... I have to constantly remind myself there are no easy answers but viable alternatives. I will take my medicine daily, give myself a chance and call a V.A. Doctor if I need help. I have a family who loves me and I will not hurt their feelings.

"Memorandum for Record: 05-29-2008"

To: The Office of the President of the United States From: Freeman, Milo D., OIF Sept. '06 - Dec. '07 RE: Detainee Abuse Photos MESSAGE FOLLOWS Mr. President, My name is "Milo Freeman." I am a proud supporter of your election, and an Iraq War veteran. I served in support of OIF from September of 2006 to December of 2007. I am proud to call myself a veteran. I am not, however, proud of the ways which my country has chose to view or exploit my service in the past. While proud of my former occupation, it became clear to me very quickly that our presence in Iraq was in fact a harm to the people of that country. I believe that our presence there caused a great deal of suffering to the people of Iraq, and only served to damage our standing in the world. When I first heard that you were running for President, I eagerly supported your campaign. The night of your election was one of the proudest of my life, because, as a man of 26 years, yours was the first presidency in whose making I had truly had a hand. I have applauded many of your sweeping accomplishments since taking office. I applaud your decisive actions on the economy, and have applauded your efforts to undo the damage of the last eight years. But there is one policy of which I must vehemently disapprove: the decision not to make public ALL of the photographs depicting detainee abuse by US forces. I know that my comrades serve bravely every day in the service of our country. I know that their service is noble, because once it was mine. But I also believe that we are frail, that we are human, and that without the proper guidance we can fail to live up to the values that our Constitution espouses. I believe that being American does not render us incapable of sin. And in these photos, sir, I believe that we have committed many grave sins, indeed. I understand your office's desire not to engage in partisan witch-hunting. I understand that our nation faces many challenges, and simply finding scapegoats for the recent past will solve nothing. But I also believe that we, as Americans, must LOOK our sins in the face. We must know that we have done wrong, so that we can TRULY begin to heal the wounds we have inflicted. Without this catharsis, sir, there can be no justice; there can be no healing. I understand that the photos you have chosen not to release contain images which may incite backlash against the forces responsible. I understand that they contain images which may be upsetting to the American public. My response: good. After an era which was so marked by double standards of justice, my conscience cannot abide the sufferings depicted in these images. I cannot proudly call myself an American, a veteran, while knowing that my service contributed to this shame. It is not merely wrong, sir, it is vile. It is abomination. We allowed ourselves to forget our most basic values, and in so doing we are ALL the less for our silence. Even you, Mr. President. When American forces stormed into Germany in 1945, they discovered horrors beyond belief. They saw how German soldiers had allowed themselves to be co-opted, how German citizens had willingly blinded themselves to the truth. And when they looked upon those crematories, those stacks of corpses piled like cordwood, they did the only thing they felt was right: They rounded up the surviving soldiers, and forced them to bury the dead. They rounded up the villagers, and forced them to confront the hideousness of their own sins. For not all sins are acts of comission, as you well know. In hiding the truth from the public, we are committing sins of OMISSION. If yours is the Administration that I believed it to be, then you can maintain no silence in this. The truth, however ugly, must be made known. If the rumors are true--that the photos you have suppressed not only depict torture and humiliation, but even murder and rape--then we are bound, as Americans, to acknowledge our crimes. Without truth, there can be no healing. I implore you, Mr. President. Serve Justice. Serve Truth. Release these photos. // Freeman, Milo D. (SPC), US Army, 2004-2008 MESSAGE ENDS

"This Veterans Day, U.S. Soldiers Say 'Stop the War'"

An open letter from war resisters calls for an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On this day, Veteran's Day, we would like to express to the American public why we, veterans of the Global War on Terror, have chosen to refuse orders to reactivate into military service. We are direct witnesses to the horrors of this war, having experienced its atrocities at their source, and we have decided that we can no longer carry out these illegal and immoral policies. We believe that veterans and active-duty GIs are in a key position to stop illegal and unjust war, and we are inspired by the resistance of troops who stood against the war in Vietnam. One of the preeminent reasons for the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam was increasing dissent among the active-duty troops stationed abroad and at home. By the end of the war, there were entire units refusing to participate in combat, many going as far as outright mutiny. The United States learned a lesson from the Vietnam War: that it is unlikely, except in the event of self-defense, that regular civilians will execute the life-threatening orders that are given to them by military authority. The solution of policy makers was to create an all-volunteer force that negated the need for a draft. This translates into a mercenary force composed of America's disadvantaged: a sector of the U.S. demographic that is particularly susceptible to military recruitment for lack of other options and finding themselves with deployment orders again and again. To compensate for huge pitfalls in recruitment since the invasion of Iraq, the military has resorted to recalling former service members. This policy is known as "involuntary activation" and utilizes deactivated service members who still have time on their contracts in the Individual Ready Reserves (IRR) to fill shortcomings in specific job specialties. The abuse and misuse of this policy has escalated under the current administration to such a degree that it can now only be viewed as a "backdoor draft" that targets the same disadvantaged individuals the military sought out for enlistment, namely because they are better at not questioning orders. However, we have now begun to question these orders. We are veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and members of the IRR who have refused or will refuse any activation orders that would lead to us serving an unjust and imperial U.S. foreign policy. It is a prevailing notion that this refusal is unpatriotic, but we consider our actions the only choice. Not only did the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan do great harm to the people of those countries, but it undermined the ostensible goal with which the wars were begun: Instead of stopping terrorism, it has proliferated terrorism, an expectation that was predicted well before the war started. By refusing activation, we are refusing to participate in wars that serve the purposes of furthering the careers of politicians and high-ranking officers. We openly support other IRR members who follow in these footsteps. The military is a force that rules through fear of retribution for disobeying its will. In reality, more than a third of IRRs simply refuse to report to duty. Most of the rest report out of fear that the military will change their discharge status or prosecute them for desertion, but up to this point, prosecution has been rare. Members of the IRR are not under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and thus far, the military has had a practice of not prosecuting them with criminal charges unless they report in some form or function to activate. Very few willingly volunteer for activation. There can be no promise that President-Elect Barack Obama will stop the stressful and unfair techniques of back-to-back deployments, "stop-loss" or the "backdoor draft" that are damaging the psychology of veterans in irreparable ways. Nor that he will stop encouraging global violence by unlawful uses of force. It is in this vein that we turn to organizations like Courage to Resist, Iraq Veterans Against the War and many other large-scale and grassroots organizations to solicit change in a largely unrepresentative democracy, and to allow the voices of the people to ring through the halls of the Capital. Benjamin Lewis, former Marine Corps mortarman, Iraq veteran, IRR recall resister, peace activist Brandon Neely, former U.S. Army Military police officer, Iraq veteran, IRR recall refuser.-- Benjamin Lewis and Brandon Neely

Before Americans go to the polls in November, wouldn't it be great if they all would first watch THIS FILM. Watch it for free, courtesy CAP.

I Used to Respect Canada

Robin Long became the first U.S. war resister since the Vietnam War forced to leave Canada and turned over to the U.S. military. Even though on June 3rd 2008 Canada's House of Commons voted in favor "to allow conscientious objectors" to "remain in Canada".

Let's add Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper to the long list of bu$h lapdogs.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper may be set on embracing George Bush and his occupation of Iraq, but on Tuesday, June 3, the Canadian members of Parliament extended their embrace to the war resisters. By a vote of 137-110, the House of Commons called on the Canadian government to “immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members… to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada.” The motion also called on the government to “immediately cease any removal or deportation actions against such individuals.” All the opposition parties — Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, and the Bloc Quebecois — came together to reject the policy of the ruling Conservative Party. The motion, however, is non-binding and the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper may choose to ignore it.

There are still many "war resisters" trying legally to remain in Canada and stay out of a war they view as unjust. However, with the deportation and jailing of Robin Long it does not look good for these soldiers who wanted to take a legal avenue. I hope his penalty is light.

There is blog up called Courage to Resist. Some of these soldiers have been to Iraq and Afghanistan, some are in Canada, others are awaiting trials in the U.S. They all have one thing in common... they are sick of war, fighting and the military. They are a diverse group; religious reasons, female soldiers who have been threatened, sufferers of PTSD, and others who have been there, seen the inhuman treatment of other human beings.

I hope Long tells every prospective troop who wants to sign up to be sure of what they are getting into. Once they sign the contract, give their word... it's too late to say, "Oops, my bad."

When I enlisted, I never relized it would end up being the single biggest decision of my entire life. I figured a few years serving during a time of peace, get some college money, get out in good health, I'd be set for life. It does work for some... if it all goes according to plan. To enter during a time of war and expect all things to be rosy is idealistic to say the least.

These soldiers have my utmost respect. Canada not so much.

"...The extent of Americans' ignorance is underestimated. Only two in five know we have three branches of government and can name them. Only one in five know there are 100 US senators. And five years into the war in Iraq only one in seven can find Iraq on a map. Someone once said--the author is in dispute--that war is God's way of teaching Americans geography. It's a great line, but rather optimistic. A majority of Americans still haven't bothered to take a look at the map of the country where we have been bombing and killing people since 1991..." - - - Rick Shenkman, George Mason University

Testimony of Marjorie Cohn

Has anybody been following the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on GITMO and other torture schemes by the bu$h administration? I go to Balkinization for frequent updates. The comment sections are great.
Here's a little gem I picked up:

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties House Judiciary Committee May 6, 2008 2141 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. From the Department of Justice to Guantánamo Bay: Administration Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules "What does torture have in common with genocide, slavery, and wars of aggression? They are all jus cogens. Jus cogens is Latin for 'higher law' or 'compelling law.' This means that no country can ever pass a law that allows torture. There can be no immunity from criminal liability for violation of a jus cogens prohibition. The United States has always prohibited the use of torture in our Constitution, laws, executive statements and judicial decisions. We have ratified three treaties that all outlaw torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. When the United States ratifies a treaty, it becomes part of the Supreme Law of the Land under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, says, 'No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture.' Whether someone is a POW or not, he must always be treated humanely; there are no gaps in the Geneva Conventions. He must be protected against torture, mutilation, cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating and degrading treatment under, Common Article 3. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration's argument that Common Article 3 doesn't cover the prisoners at Guantánamo. Justice Kennedy wrote that violations of Common Article 3 are war crimes. We have federal laws that criminalize torture. The War Crimes Act punishes any grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, as well as any violation of Common Article 3. That includes torture, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and inhuman, humiliating or degrading treatment. The Torture Statute provides for life in prison, or even the death penalty if the victim dies, for anyone who commits, attempts, or conspires to commit torture outside the United States." The U.S. Army Field Manual's provisions governing intelligence interrogations prohibit the "use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind." Brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion, including the use of drugs, are also prohibited. Military personnel who mistreat prisoners can be prosecuted by court-martial under provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. These include conspiracy, cruelty and maltreatment, murder, manslaughter, maiming, sodomy, and assault. - (Continue reading) Marjorie Cohn President, National Lawyers Guild Professor, Thomas Jefferson School of Law

Question for today:

WHY ARE WE STILL IN IRAQ?
Quick, without thinking, what's the first answer that comes to mind? Right, there is no clear answer. You can sit back and start thinking of many fine ones:

• The Democratic Congress keeps succumbing to Bush's threat-filled spending requests
• A quick exit will create even more chaos and death
• If we leave we'll lose access to all that sweet crude oil
• The military/industrial/petroleum complex really controls everything and will never leave until forced
• We couch-potato Americans are too lazy to demand what we want (unless pollsters call us)
• We still haven't found all those WMDs that Bush demanded were there
• Iraqis won't be truly free until every last one of them is dead or a refugee
• We were promised rose petals and parades in the streets of Baghdad and won't leave until those ungrateful Iraqis start meeting our expectations

Some of these are likely true, and some are just Neocon fantasies. The point is, we Americans (myself excluded) wanted to hurt Iraq because they did NOT cause 9-11. Makes no sense? Neither does this war nor the outrageous way in which all of us (myself included) have failed to stop our lawless government. Shame on us all.

(cross-posted at Liberal Coalition)

Lurch

Mr. Bush explains what we've been doing in Iraq for the last five years.
h/t Jeff Huber, Pen and Sword

It's not often you can say of blogging friends, "I've met that person, we had beers, we talked about blogging and blogsites, politics, music interests, they came inside my house and met my family." I was fortunate enough to meet D.J. Moonbat 2 years back. A few weeks later, Lurch, of Main and Central stopped by. Unfortunately, Valentines Day of this year I learned that he had passed away.

I find myself going back and remembering where I first encountered Lurch. I know we first talked at Jo Fish's place, Democratic Veteran. Upon stopping by Jeff Huber's place today, I remember reading his comments there as well. I was just getting my blogging legs then, coming out from being a lurker. With the help of Jo Fish, he started Main and Central with some other Veterans. I was always amazed at how prolific he was. Story after story... sometimes, 6 in one day. I have a tough time putting out one or two pieces a week. It wasn't only how productive he was, his articles had substance. I think Lurch was the best at reporting on the lack of equipment (such as Body Armor) the troops had in Iraq. His commentary on the War of the Bridges in Iraq was simply outstanding!

I'm glad he took the time to visit. I was able to go all out because it was a weekend when he stopped by. We had a large Mexican feast in his honor. That's what we do in AZ in early summer, Bar-B-Que some marinated chicken and beef for tacos, all the trimmings, some Corona or Dos Equis all poolside, laughing and talking. He loved it. Easy going, smiling the whole time. He spoke lovingly of his late wife. That's how I'll remember him...

In short, I miss my friend Lurch... RIP. He, like Steve Gilliard, leaves a "blogging void" of which few can replace. I find myself visiting Veteran websites for a glimpse of Lurch. He would have laughed at that picure and comment of bu$h...

Crossposted at Low and Left Part Deux

"Veterans not entitled to mental health care, U.S. lawyers argue"

Veterans not entitled to mental health care, U.S. lawyers argue Veterans have no legal right to specific types of medical care, the Bush administration argues in a lawsuit accusing the government of illegally denying mental health treatment to some troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The arguments, filed Wednesday in federal court in San Francisco, strike at the heart of a lawsuit filed on behalf of veterans that claims the health care system for returning troops provides little recourse when the government rejects their medical claims... They said the law entitles veterans only to "medical care which the secretary (of Veterans Affairs) determines is needed, and only to the extent funds ... are available." The plaintiffs say that the department has a backlog of more than 600,000 disability claims and that 120 veterans a week commit suicide...

King George,

They have done your dirty work for you. You extended their tours, preventing them from going home when their commitment was over (stop-loss) and repeatedly sent them back for longer tours.

Damn bu$h, what a sorry SOB! Support the Troops! HELP THESE MENTALLY ILL SOLDIERS!!!

Professor Juan Cole, Iraqi expert, has summarized the current status of the Iraqi population, and I can't imagine it being any worse than this:

A new professional poll carried out by a British firm in Iraq concludes that excess deaths from violence since March 19, 2003 through summer 2007 came to just over 1 million. Note that excess deaths from violence do not necessarily imply that they are directly war-related. Thus, murders of a criminal sort, tribal feuding, and so forth would be included. Since Bush interfered with the establishment of a strong new government after his invasion, he promoted the sort of insecurity that permitted high rates of violence, whether political, criminal or war-related. This poll tracks with the findings of the studies of Gilbert Burnham and Les Roberts, published in the Lancet and disputes lower numbers found by a recent WHO study (which, however, only ran through June 2006 and was limited solely to civilians--this British study goes to 2007 and seems to include everyone.) The British findings are also consistent with estimates of between 1 million and 2 million widows in Iraq. These widows, many of them young, face extreme poverty without a breadwinner. As the Iraqi street has been captured by religious parties and militias, gender segregation and female seclusion have increased, which prevents single young women from going out to work in mixed-gender settings like stores and workshops. In short, Iraq is being Talibanized by Bush's war. Reuters points out that almost none of the widows are getting any welfare payments from the Iraqi government. It adds: "A report by aid groups found that 43 percent of Iraqis lived in "absolute poverty". Four million people needed food assistance and only one in three children under five had access to safe drinking water."

And who's responsible for this massive death and destruction? You might say George W. Bush. But no, he's only one person. There's 300,000,000 of us, and we all just let it all happen.

"War does not work. It is too destructive. It creates too much blowback, as with Afghanistan and al-Qaeda. It leaves too much of the city destroyed, that it meant to save, as with Falluja. It cannot midwife rights or democracy, it is too gross, too indiscriminate, too brutal for that purpose. It produces Abu Ghraib and Falluja, not Monticello. "The US needs a defensive military, insofar as it can contribute to protecting us from asymmetrical or conventional challenges. But launching a war against a country that did not attack us, that is immoral and stupid." - - - Juan Cole

"New Generation Of Homeless Vets Emerges"

From Erin McClam at Huffington Post. What the "new" homeless Veterans are going through.

LEEDS, Mass. — Peter Mohan traces the path from the Iraqi battlefield to this lifeless conference room, where he sits in a kilt and a Camp Kill Yourself T-shirt and calmly describes how he became a sad cliche: a homeless veteran. There was a happy homecoming, but then an accident _ car crash, broken collarbone. And then a move east, close to his wife's new job but away from his best friends. And then self-destruction: He would gun his motorcycle to 100 mph and try to stand on the seat. He would wait for his wife to leave in the morning, draw the blinds and open up whatever bottle of booze was closest. He would pull out his gun, a .45-caliber, semiautomatic pistol. He would lovingly clean it, or just look at it and put it away. Sometimes place it in his mouth. "I don't know what to do anymore," his wife, Anna, told him one day. "You can't be here anymore." Peter Mohan never did find a steady job after he left Iraq. He lost his wife _ a judge granted their divorce this fall _ and he lost his friends and he lost his home, and now he is here, in a shelter. He is 28 years old. "People come back from war different," he offers by way of a summary. This is not a new story in America: A young veteran back from war whose struggle to rejoin society has failed, at least for the moment, fighting demons and left homeless. But it is happening to a new generation. As the war in Afghanistan plods on in its seventh year, and the war in Iraq in its fifth, a new cadre of homeless veterans is taking shape. And with it come the questions: How is it that a nation that became so familiar with the archetypal homeless, combat-addled Vietnam veteran is now watching as more homeless veterans turn up from new wars? What lessons have we not learned? Who is failing these people? Or is homelessness an unavoidable byproduct of war, of young men and women who devote themselves to serving their country and then see things no man or woman should?

PLEASE READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE AT THE LINK ABOVE.

Why are mentally ill Veterans still being discarded to the trash heap of life? Constanly left to fend for themselves! Yes, they knew what to do in war or in a military environment but being home, after the ordeal they went through, there is no training for that. Invariably, the sick troop is expected to know what's best or where to turn for help... basically, continually told to "buck up"!

I think it's time the military starts a new mandatory program before a soldier gets out, especially a potentially mentally ill soldier, "How to transition back to civilian life!" It would be the last course a soldier takes in their military career. The Pentagon forgets that most young soldiers know nothing else but the military. They were looking at the military as a stepping stone, not being dropped off a cliff.

I know our government has not learned anything from Vietnam with regards to Veteran's care. But some caring individuals have... and it could lead to increased government awareness:

Soldier On is staffed entirely by homeless veterans. A handful who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan, usually six or seven at a time, mix with dozens from Vietnam. Its president, Jack Downing, has spent nearly four decades working with addicts, the homeless and the mentally ill. Next spring, he plans to open a limited-equity cooperative in the western Massachusetts city of Pittsfield. Formerly homeless veterans will live there, with half their rents going into individual deposit accounts. Downing is convinced that ushering homeless veterans back into homeownership is the best way out of the pattern of homelessness that has repeated itself in an endless loop, war after war. "It's a disgrace," Downing says. "You have served your country, you get damaged, and you come back and we don't take care of you. And we make you prove that you need our services." "And how do you prove it?" he continues, voice rising in anger. "You prove it by regularly failing until you end up in a system where you're identified as a person in crisis. That has shocked me." Even as the nation gains a much better understanding of the types of post-traumatic stress disorders suffered by so many thousands of veterans _ even as it learns the lessons of Vietnam and tries to learn the lessons of Iraq _ it is probably impossible to foretell a day when young American men and women come home from wars unscarred. At least as long as there are wars. But Driscoll, at least, sees an opportunity to do much better. He notes that the VA now has more than 200 veteran adjustment centers to help ease the transition back into society, and the existence of more than 900 VA-connected community clinics nationwide. "We're hopeful that five years down the road, you're not going to see the same problems you saw after the Vietnam War," he says. "If we as a nation do the right thing by these guys."