This is probably exactly what the photos show, because it happened. The same-sex crimes against detainees have been documented.
It is very likely that the Pentagon lying. This is probably exactly what the photos show, because it happened. Precisely these exact sex crimes — these exact images and these very objects – — are familiar and well-documented to those of us who follow closely rights organizations reports of what has already been confirmed.
The Telegraph of London broke the news — because the U.S. press is in a drugged stupor – — that the photos President Barack Obama is refusing to release of detainee abuse depict, among other sexual tortures, an American soldier raping a female detainee and a male translator raping a male prisoner.
The paper claims the photos also show anal rape of prisoners with foreign objects such as wires and lightsticks. Retired Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba calls the images “horrific” and “indecent” (but absurdly agrees that Obama should not release them — proving once again that the definition of hypocrisy is the assertion that the truth is in poor taste).
Predictably, a few hours later, the Pentagon issues a formal denial.
It is very likely that the Pentagon lying. This is probably exactly what the photos show, because it happened. Precisely these exact sex crimes — these exact images and these very objects – — are familiar and well-documented to those of us who follow closely rights organizations reports of what has already been confirmed.
“Washington tends to enforce a foolish consistency. If you are someone of some prominence whose views are known publicly, then everything you have ever said in the past tends to be projected forward and everything you say today is projected backward. Any discrepancy potentially brings charges of flip-flopping or hypocrisy or selling-out or whatever. Certainly, these charges are valid in many cases, but the simple possibility that circumstances have changed or that experience or new evidence has caused one to change one’s mind seems never to be seriously entertained. The result is to force people to stick with positions they know are wrong because they less fear being foolishly consistent than being attacked for flip-flopping.” (Bruce Barlett),
When Americans adopted the notion that acting on principle, standing up and fighting for what one believes in, is virtuous, while changing one’s mind, even on sufficient evidence, is unprincipled flip-flopping and unseemly is not known, but it surely has its foundation in the American addiction to ideology which places greater value on belief than on knowledge. This notion’s absurdity should be obvious, but apparently it isn’t. Acting on erroneous principles leads to disaster, and why anyone should be willing to do that is an enigma. Yet even more sinister consequences follow from this notion. Since no prominent person, especially one holding elective office, wants to be labeled “unprincipled,” people are loath to change their views even when they know those views are wrong. Once they have decided that being “principled” is more important than being right, they have no inclination or desire to question the validity of their views by seeking the truth. The result is that these so-called principles become ossified dogmas, debate degenerates into vituperation, government becomes ineffective, and society disintegrates.
But the adoption of this notion along with the American addiction to ideology does not prevent inconsistency, and Bartlett’s comment reveals another trait of what passes for America’s intelligentsia—the curious inability to think past the first level of consequences.
What Bartlett misses is that people hold “principled” views on numerous issues. Holding a “principled” view on one issue can conflict with the “principled” views held by the same people on other issues, and if the “principled” people have no inclination or desire to validate any of their views, the inconsistencies never become apparent to them.
Two such contradictory views are held by the American political status quo, especially on the political right, but often by those termed moderate and liberal as well. One is the view that the family is the fundamental unit of society. The other is the ideological belief in the capitalist system.
In the wake of Obama’s speech, there are vast numbers of new converts who now support indefinite “preventive detention.” It thus seems constructive to have a dispassionate and fact-based discussion on the implications of “preventive detention” and Obama’s related detention proposals. Here are some points worth noting:
(1) What does “preventive detention” allow?
It’s important to be clear about what “preventive detention” authorizes. It does not merely allow the US Government to imprison people alleged to have committed terrorist acts yet who are unable to be convicted in a civilian court proceeding. That class is merely a subset, perhaps a small subset, of who the Government can detain. Far more significant, “preventive detention” allows indefinite imprisonment not based on proven crimes or past violations of law, but of those deemed generally “dangerous” by the Government for various reasons (such as, as Obama put it, they “expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden” or “otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans”). That’s what “preventive” means: imprisoning people because the Government claims they are likely to engage in violent acts in the future because they are alleged to be “combatants.”
Once known, the details of the proposal could — and likely will — make this even more extreme by extending the “preventive detention” power beyond a handful of Guantanamo detainees to anyone, anywhere in the world, alleged to be a “combatant.” After all, once you accept the rationale on which this proposal is based — namely, that the US Government must, in order to keep us safe, preventively detain “dangerous” people even when they can’t prove they violated any laws — there’s no coherent reason whatsoever to limit that power to people already at Guantanamo, as opposed to indefinitely imprisoning without trials, all allegedly “dangerous” combatants, whether located in Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, Western countries and even the US.
(2) Are defenders of Obama’s proposals being consistent?
During the Bush years, it was common for Democrats to try to convince conservatives to oppose Bush’s executive power expansions by asking them: “Do you really want these powers to be exercised by some liberal President?”
Following that logic, for any Democrat/progressive/liberal/Obama supporter who wants to defend Obama’s proposal of “preventive detention,” you should first ask yourself three simple questions:
• What would I have said if George Bush and Dick Cheney advocated a law vesting them with the power to preventively imprison people indefinitely with no charges?;
• When Bush and Cheney did preventively imprison large numbers of people, was I in favor of that or did I oppose it?; and
• Even if I am comfortable with Obama having this new power because I trust him not to abuse it, am I comfortable with future Presidents — including Republicans — having the power of indefinite “preventive detention”?
President Barack Obama in a May 21 speech outlined a new policy of preventive detention, without trial, for people he suspects might commit crimes in the future. Flanked by copies of the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence in an address at the National Archives, Obama’s speech would have been more appropriately given at the Blu-Ray release of the 2002 Steven Spielberg movie Minority Report.
Starring Tom Cruise, Minority Report is a science fiction film where powerful psychics called “precogs” are able to detect crimes before they happen, and the role of the police is to arrest the perpetrators before the crimes are actually committed. Obama’s new policy proposes the same thing: to imprison people — not for crimes they’ve already been tried for, or even for crimes that have already been committed — but for crimes Obama suspects that these persons might some day commit.
Who would decide such a thing? The same man whose Department of Homeland Security put out a terrorist threat report in April that termed pro-lifers, people who buy a firearm, political conservatives and military veterans as “the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.”
Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano told congressional leaders in a May 12 defense of the memo that DHS was trying to create “situational awareness” but not to target groups with this memo. “What there was,” Napoli-tano told congressional leaders, “was an understanding that veterans are sometimes targeted for recruit-ment — that is an assessment.”
Two days later Napolitano announced the memo had been withdrawn. She had already announced to congressional investigators that the DHS intelligence operatives are working on a new memo that would have the old one “replaced or redone in a much more useful and much more precise fashion.”
“We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat,” Obama told a loyal audience of government employees during the May 21 speech. The proximate reason for the detention of people who haven’t committed crimes but are being imprisoned indefinitely without trial is the backlog of cases at Guantanamo Bay. “There are 240 people there who have now spent years in legal limbo. In dealing with this situation, we don’t have the luxury of starting from scratch,” Obama noted.
That is, he’s going to continue the Bush policy of imprisoning people who haven’t committed any prosecutable crimes by bringing them into U.S. prisons to mix with other U.S. prisoners. “There remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people,” Obama elucidated. “I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people.”
America has lost her soul, and so has her president.
A despairing country elected a president who promised change. Americans arrived from every state to witness in bitter cold Obama’s swearing-in ceremony. The Mall was packed in a way that it has never been for any other president.
The people’s good will toward Obama and the expectations they had for him were sufficient for Obama to end the gratuitous wars and enact major reforms. But Obama has deserted the people for the interests. He is relying on his non-threatening demeanor and rhetoric to convince the people that change is underway.
The change that we are witnessing is in Obama, not in policies. Obama is morphing into Dick Cheney. Obama has not been in office four months and already a book could be written about his broken promises.
Obama said he would close the torture prison, Guantanamo, and abolish the kangaroo courts known as military tribunals. But now he says he is going to reform the tribunals and continue the process, but without confessions obtained with torture.
On May 7th the Senate version of the Ohio Sovereignty Resolution (SCR-13) was introduced with two primary sponsors; Senators Timothy Grendell and Keith Faber, and six co-sponsors; Senators Gibbs, Buehrer, Cates, Hughes, Schuler, and Schuring. The resolution has been assigned to the Senate Reference Committee who will either send it directly to the floor or to a standing committee for consideration.
On May 13th there was a hearing on the House version of the Ohio Sovereignty Resolution (HCR-11) before the State Government Committee. Representatives Kris Jordan and Jarrod Martin gave testimony in favor of the resolution; however, no public testimony was allowed. As of the print deadline, another hearing on the House version has not yet been scheduled.
Ohio joins 35 other states to consider this type of resolution. Thus far eight states: Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota have passed a similar resolution in at least one chamber of their respective legislatures.
On January 20, 2009 President Barrack Obama solemnly swore an oath that he would faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and that he would to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. He is not alone in swearing such an oath to uphold our Constitution. Indeed, millions of soldiers, police officers and other civil servants have likewise taken on such a solemn responsibility. Many of these individuals have joined together to form an organization called the Oath Keepers; a non-partisan association of members of the military forces, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic … and meant it. But what exactly does this responsibility actually mean? To the Oath Keepers this means serving the American people and the Constitution, instead of just following orders and bending their knee to the politicians. It means that there are certain orders which cannot and should not be obeyed. Here are excerpts of those orders — you decide whether they are correct:
Oath Keepers: Below is our declaration of orders we will NOT obey because we will consider them unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral violations of the natural rights of the people.
1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.
The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people nor commit treason by obeying any such order.
2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects — such as warrantless house-to-house searches for weapons or persons.
One of the causes of the American Revolution was the use of “writs of assistance,” which were essentially warrantless searches because there was no requirement of a showing of probable cause to a judge, and the first fiery embers of American resistance were born in opposition to those infamous writs. The Founders considered all warrantless searches to be unreasonable and egregious. It was to prevent a repeat of such violations of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects that the Fourth Amendment was written. We expect that sweeping warrantless searches of homes and vehicles, under some pretext, will be the means used to attempt to disarm the people.
What do you suppose it is like to be elected president of the United States only to find that your power is restricted to the service of powerful interest groups?
A president who does a good job for the ruling interest groups is paid off with remunerative corporate directorships, outrageous speaking fees, and a lucrative book contract. If he is young when he assumes office, like Bill Clinton and Obama, it means a long life of luxurious leisure. Fighting the special interests doesn’t pay and doesn’t succeed.
On April 30 the primacy of special over public interests was demonstrated yet again. The Democrats’ bill to prevent 1.7 million mortgage foreclosures and, thus, preserve $300 billion in home equity by permitting homeowners to renegotiate their mortgages, was defeated in the Senate, despite the 60-vote majority of the Democrats. The banksters were able to defeat the bill 51 to 45.
These are the same financial gangsters whose unbridled greed and utter irresponsibility have wiped out half of Americans’ retirement savings, sent the economy into a deep hole, and threatened the US dollar’s reserve currency role. It is difficult to imagine an interest group with a more damaged reputation. Yet, a majority of “the people’s representatives” voted as the discredited banksters instructed.
Hundreds of billions of public dollars have gone to bail out the banksters, but when some Democrats tried to get the Senate to do a mite for homeowners, the US Senate stuck with the banks. The Senate’s motto is: “Hundreds of billions for the banksters, not a dime for homeowners.”
If Obama was naive about well-intentioned change before the vote, he no longer has this political handicap.
Democratic Majority Whip Dick Durbin acknowledged the voters’ defeat by the discredited banksters. The banks, Durbin said, “frankly own the place”.
It is not difficult to understand why. Among those who defeated the homeowners bill are senators Jon Tester (Mont), Max Baucus (Mont), Blanche Lincoln (Ark), Ben Nelson (Neb), Many Landrieu (La), Tim Johnson (SD), and Arlan Specter (Pa). According to reports, the banksters have poured a half million dollars into Tester’s campaign funds. Baucus has received $3.5 million; Lincoln $1.3 million; Nelson $1.4 million; Landrieu $2 million; Johnson $2.5 million; Specter $4.5 million.
The same Congress that can’t find a dime for homeowners or health care appropriates hundreds of billions of dollars for the military/security complex. The week after the Senate foreclosed on American homeowners, the Obama “change” administration asked Congress for an additional $61 billion dollars for the neoconservatives’ war in Iraq and $65 billion more for the neoconservatives’ war in Afghanistan. Congress greeted this request with a rousing “Yes we can!”
The additional $126 billion comes on top of the $533.7 billion “defense” budget for this year. The $660 billion–probably a low-ball number–is ten times the military spending of China, the second most powerful country in the world.
How is it possible that “the world’s only superpower” is threatened by the likes of Iraq and Afghanistan? How can the US be a superpower if it is threatened by countries that have no military capability other than a guerilla capability to resist invaders?
These “wars” are a hoax designed to enrich the US armaments industry and to infuse the “security forces” with police powers over American citizenry.
Not a dime to prevent millions of Americans from losing their homes, but hundreds of billions of dollars to murder Muslim women and children and to create millions of refugees, many of whom will either sign up with insurgents or end up as the next wave of immigrants into America.
This is the way the American government works. And it thinks it is a “city on the hill, a light unto the world”.
People ask me where I stood politically you know. It’s not that I disagree with Bush’s economic policy or his foreign policy. But that I believe he was a child of Satan here to destroy the planet Earth.
Yeah, I’m a little.. a little to the left there, I was. I was leaning that way.
Yeah you know who else is going, little Quayle boy. Little Damien.
Is that guy Damien? Tell me those blank empty eyes aren’t gonna glow red in the very near future.
[eyes roll back in head]
Stop making jokes about meee. Nrrr. I’ll spell potato any fucking way I want. Nrrrr.
Rioters in LA, let’s nuke them.
Bush was a pussy Nrr.
He held me back.
Frightening people man. Bush tried to buy votes towards the end of the election. Goes around, you know, selling weapons to everyone, getting that military industrial complex vote happening for him. Sold 160 fighter jets to Korea and then 240 tanks to Kuwait and then goes around making speeches why he should be Commander-in-Chief because, “We still live in a dangerous world.”
-
Designed by