United States News Digest
Republican 'WASP' Establishment Abandoning Bush
The "WASP" establishment is voting "no confidence" in George W. Bush, commented a lifelong Republican Party insider about the report in the June 9 Washington Post, that Amb. Winston Lord had blasted the Administration's foreign policy. Lord, a Republican, whose "credentials" include being former Ambassador to China, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific, and president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), told his Yale Class of 1959 reunion that the Bush Administration's foreign policy is "incompetent" and "dishonest," and as a result, "America is less secure." He added that democracy "was given a bad name and our standing in the world was greatly diminished."
The Ambassador's observation was underscored by the appearance of a hard-hitting op-ed in the New York Times the following day, by Donald P. Gregg, one of the closest political associates of George H.W. Bush (see next item).
New York Times Makes Case for War Crimes Trials
On June 10, the New York Times published three carefully crafted op-eds under the heading "After Abu Ghraib," which, taken together, are a virtual indictment of the White House, Defense Dept. and Justice Dept. for war crimes.
First, an article by Donald P. Gregg, a 30-year veteran of the CIA, who was the National Security Advisor to Vice President George H.W. Bush, blasted the top levels of the current Bush Administration for pushing "sanctioned abuses." He writes that the memos of 2003 by "Bush administration lawyers" were "pushing aside longstanding prohibitions on the use of torture by Americans. These memos cleared the way for the horrors that have been revealed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo and make a mockery of administration assertions that a few misguided enlisted personnel perpetrated the vile abuse of prisoners."
He says that there is "nothing that can more devastatingly undercut America's standing in the world or, more important, our view of ourselves, than these decisions. Sanctioned abuse is deeply corrosivejust ask the French, who are still seeking to eradicate the stain on their honor that resulted from the deliberate use of torture in America."
Gregg uncharacteristically discloses that when he was CIA station chief in Seoul, South Korea, he had to make the personal choice to defy his now-deceased boss at the CIA, when he reported that South Korean intelligence had killed a university professor under torture. Gregg's boss told him to shut up, but Gregg said for the only time in his CIA career, "I disobeyed orders .... [It] is one of the things I am proudest of in my agency career. I also urge my listeners to do likewise if they find themselves in a similar position." Gregg writes that he tells this Korea story whenever he lectures to classes of CIA recruits, and that he received a "thank-you" letter for saying this just two months ago, at a CIA seminarthe thank you was from George Tenet, who just stepped down as Director of the CIA.
Article two, called "An American in the Hague," is by a senior editor of the CFR's Foreign Affairs magazine, Jonathan D. Tepperman, who takes apart the charge that "so far," the responsibility for the torture has fallen on "the seven court-martialed soldiers who were directly involved." Quoting the Administration's mantra that it was only a "few bad apples," and the top guys are not liable, Tepperman says, Oh, yes you are, and you might end up in the Hague. "Under the doctrine of command responsibility, officials can be held accountable for war crimes committed by their subordinates even if they did not order themso long as they had control over the perpetrators, had reason to know about the crimes, and did not stop them or punish the criminals...."
This was the standard of the Allied forces at the Nuremberg tribunals, against Nazis who often "did not leave a paper trail"; this is the standard that the U.S. is insisting on in trials of the Serbian leaders in the International Court; and this is even the standard established by a U.S. Federal court in Miami, Fla., in 2002, when two El Salvadoran generals were found guilty of torture, which they did not commit and did not order. These generals were the head of the National Guard and the Defense Minister of the country. Tepperman says that the issuewhether to prosecute these responsible higher ups, which he suggests would be "top members of the current administration"is not a legal decision, but a political one,
The third piece, "Physician, Turn Thyself In," by M. Gregg Bloche, who teaches at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities, urges, "investigate U.S. doctors who treated Abu Ghraib victims." The author cites press reports about how military doctors and nurses "examined prisoners at Abu Ghraib, treated swollen genitals, prescribed painkillers, stitched wounds, and recorded evidence of the abuses...." Instead of reporting these abuses, which they are required to do under international law, "too often they returned the victims of torture to the custody of their victimizers...." The article tells Congress to act "quickly" to obtain the medical records of these prisoners, and put the doctors and nurses on the spotthey know a great deal about what happened.
Dems Turn Up Heat on Cheney and Halliburton
While the Abu Ghraib war crimes scandal may have pushed the name of Halliburton off the front pages, the company's contracting in Iraqand Vice President Dick Cheney's connection to ithas not left the radar screens of prominent Democrats in the House. Their concerns were further piqued by a report in Time magazine of an internal Pentagon e-mail that stated that "action" on the Halliburton oil reconstruction contract was "coordinated" with Cheney's office. The Time report spurred two new demands for investigations.
Rep. Henry Waxman (Calif), the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, wrote to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on June 1, demanding information on who reviewed and signed off on the contract awarded to Halliburton just days before the March 19, 2003 invasion; and all contacts between the Pentagon and the White House regarding that contract. Waxman wrote that the new information in the Time article "raises new questions about the testimony of senior Defense Department officials" before the Government Reform Committee during a hearing on March 11.
At that hearing, committee chairman Tom Davis (R-Va) asked each of the witnesses, one of whom was then-Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim, if any of them had had any contact with Cheney before any contract was awarded, and they all answered "no."
Rep. John Conyers (Mich), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter, June 2, signed by 10 other Democrats, requesting that Attorney General John Ashcroft appoint a special prosecutor, "to investigate whether Cheney violated Federal criminal laws through his involvement in the award of a sole-source, no-bid contract for Iraqi oil recovery to his former employer, Halliburton." Conyers noted that Ashcroft's failure to do so, up to now, creates the appearance that the Justice Dept. "has become politicized and is acting to avoid any independent scrutiny of wrongdoing by the Administration." The law and the facts "dictate" that a special counsel be appointed, said Conyers.
General To Be Dumped from Military Intelligence Probe?
A request from Gen. John Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) is now on the desk of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to replace Army Maj. Gen. George Fay, who is investigating the military intelligence side of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal. As reported previously, the Fay "investigation" is itself a coverup, whose purpose is to insure that responsibility for the torture of prisoners in Iraq falls on a few low-level personnel. The request to replace Fay originated with commander Gen. Richard Sanchez, who used the technicality that Fay did not have a sufficiently high rank to be able to question higher level officers, including Sanchez, himself. One report also said that Sanchez also wants to be taken out of any responsibility for the investigation.
However, none of this addresses two things: There is no investigation of the role of senior Administration officials (see EIW InDepth, National lead this week); nor are the private contractors involved in the interrogations being investigated.
House Panel Nixes White House on Mini-Nuke Funding
In serious blow to the first-use nuclear-weapons policy of Dick Cheney's cabal in the Bush Administration, a House Appropriations Subcommittee on Water and Energy session on June 9 refused to provide funding for development of nuclear bunker-buster bombs. The panel eliminated $27.6 million for the bunker buster, $9 million for mini-nuke research, and $29.8 million for preliminary work on a trigger factory. And, adding insult to the White House's injury, the opposition came from Republicans.
Subcommittee chairman Rep. David Hobson (R-Ohio) said, "We put the brakes on a number of new nuclear weapons initiatives."
Stephen Young, an analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, which has been opposes the new nuclear weapons, commented, "The Bush Administration is laying the groundwork for recurrent nuclear testing and deployment of new nuclear weapons. This is a clear response from Republicans in the House saying we don't need that."
Senate Debates Mini-Nukes and Bunker-Busters
During debate, on June 2, on the fiscal 2005 Defense Authorization bill, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) introduced an amendment that would prohibit funding for programs related to research on low-yield nuclear weapons or on so-called bunker-buster bombs. Kennedy warned that the development of such weapons "weakens our ability to ask other countries to give up their nuclear programs." He also argued that, despite claims to the contrary, the Bush Administration has every intention of developing such weapons. "All we have to do is look at the five-year budget the Administration has submitted," Kennedy said, to prove their intentions. That budget amounts to $484 million for the bunker-buster and $82 million for the low-yield weapon. The Massachusetts Senator said that the Administration's own timelines have these weapons moving towards development in 2007 and testing in 2009.
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz) first countered that language in the fiscal 2004 authorization act prevents the Administration from moving forward with development without the express permission of the Congress. Then he went on to argue for the military necessity of such weapons. He said the bunker-buster study is necessary to determine whether or not an existing nuclear weapon can be modified for use against deeply buried targets. "The current authorization will not result in a new or modified nuclear weapon," he claimed.
Further debate and a vote on the Kennedy amendment is scheduled for June 17.
Rumsfeld Won't Get His Blank Check
On June 2, Senate Appropriations Committee chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) slammed the door shut on the Bush Administration's desire for "complete flexibility" on the $25 billion in supplemental money it is asking for, for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The original request gave the Pentagon discretionary authority to spend the entire $25 billion as it sees fit, although it says that the money "may" be spent on various items, including operations and maintenance expenses incurred by the military services. During the hearing, Stevens expressed the fear that the Democrats would look at the request and label it a "blank check." He told the Administration witnesses that "I don't like the word 'may.' I'm going to change it to 'shall' use these funds for the designated purposes." Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) expressed enthusiastic support.
Later the same day, the Senate adopted unanimously, an amendment sponsored by Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner (R-Va), to the Fiscal Year 2005 Defense Authorization bill, which specifies where the money is to be spent. Only $2.5 billion, or 10%, is available for transfer, as opposed to the entire amount.
|