Browsed by
Tag: Bush administration

Impeachment and Bush Record Workshops in Atlanta

Impeachment and Bush Record Workshops in Atlanta

Impeachment Workshop, June 28th

This workshop will focus on Bush’s impeachable offenses and bring out the full array of crimes committed by the Bush administration. Speakers will also address the need to build a movement across the country on the grounds of impeachment as the vehicle to force the Bush administration from office.

Thursday, June 28, 3:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.

Inman Park United Methodist Church
DOT-ADA Community Room
Marta Stop- Inman Park
1 block from the station on Edgewood Dr.

Speakers:

Dennis Loo, co-editor of the book “Impeach the President: A Case Against Bush and Cheney”, an Associate Professor of Sociology at Cal Poly Pomona, and member of the World Can’t Wait Steering Committee.

Prachi Noor, member of the World Can’t Wait Steering Committee and involved since its launch in July 2005. She has been at the forefront of the movement to stop the repression of immigrant communities.

David Swanson, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com.

Mathew Cardinale, editor of Atlanta Progressive News

Crimes Against Humanity–The Bush Record, June 29th

You thought you knew. But you can’t really know until you see the full scale and scope of all the crimes brought together. It is far worse than you could even imagine. This is the documentation that activists in all fields need.

Join the session “Crimes Against Humanity–The Bush Record” at the U.S. Social Forum in Atlanta, Friday, June 29, at 10:30 am.

Location: Second Floor meeting room of the Central Library. The Library is at the corner of William St. NW and Forsyth St. NW.

Participants in the Atlanta panel include: Dennis Brutus, South African poet and former prisoner with Nelson Mandela on Robben Island, Ann Wright, former US diplomat and retired US Army Colonel, Larry Everest, author of Oil, Power & Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda, Clark Kissinger, convener of the Commission, together with short video excerpts on the evidence.

The hearings of the International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity, held in the winter of 2005-2006, is where the U.S. public first heard, brought together in one place, the stunning evidence of crimes against committed by the Bush Administration.

These hearings are where we first heard together: * Gen. Janis Karpinski describe how the orders for torture at Abu Ghraib came right from the top. * Journalist Jeremy Scahill expose the deployment of armed mercenaries in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and the ethnic cleansing that followed. * Dr. Alan Berkman detail the genocidal implications of the Bush administration’s “abstinence only” policy as the cure for AIDS in Africa. * Daphne Wysham document the censorship of government scientists trying to warn of global warming. * United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter explain exactly how the Bush administration in fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The printed verdict of the Commission and two different DVD programs based on the hearings will be available at the session.

Our mandate from the beginning has been to change the very terms of debate in society by forcefully raising the proof of crimes against humanity. You can help make this important material available to the thousands coming to the U.S. Social Forum by contributing to the Commission.

Help put the DVDs of the Bush Crimes Commission into the hands of activists from all over the country. Make a tax-deductible contribution to support the work of Bush Crimes Commission. Other contributions can be made out to NION SOC Inc., and mailed to NION, 305 West Broadway, #199, New York, NY 10013.

Presidential Directives

Presidential Directives

I was rereading a bit about Emerson and self-reliance earlier. It affected me, as it always does. Before I wade into current political statements of opinion on the recent Presidential Directives (I’ve seen blog headlines), I’ve decided to treat it like I would treat any document I wanted to interpret. What follows is my initial set of impressions and thoughts. This will change, it always does. It might be interesting to do part 2 sometime later, when these thoughts bounce against those of others and I have to rethink things.

This is for my friend Mary, who asked me to blog on this (thank you, but look what you’ve done!).

HSPD-20 / NSPD-51 (National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20) is a presidential directive (not a law) that was issued by the White House on May 9. As you might have guessed from the numbers, there have been other directives. I’m not sure why this one is so special, or causing such a buzz.

The first time I read it, it really did fill me with alarm. I thought – “Oh, good lord, now all they have to do is drop a bomb here at home, and BOOM – no more elections.” But I’m not so sure that I completely understand its significance. Maybe they all read like that. After all, think of the topic of discussion. In a disaster, we do want some plans in place!

HSPD-20 is a presidential proclamation that declares how the White House plans to deal with a “Catastrophic Emergency” – “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.”

Yeah, that makes me nervous already. It’s the “regardless of location” that bothers me – a lot. Think about possible locations…

Ok, what KIND of plan, and what has changed?

There is the creation of the position of an executive branch “National Continuity Coordinator” who will be in charge of coordinating plans to ensure just the continuity of Federal Government structures and the implementation of Federal continuity policies – it’s about policy coordination for contingency plans?

This is a bit ambiguous. I think you could defend the interpretation that it declares the executive branch itself to be the “National Continuity Coordinator” over “executive departments and agencies” – what unspecified power for executive “guidance” is it claiming over local, state, and private organizations to ensure continuity for national security (as well for emergency response and recovery)? These are very different things. This is perhaps an extension of the powers of commander-in-chief (it’s only supposed to cover the army and navy).

The most ominous part of the document somehow is the revocation of Presidential Decision Directive 67, “Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations.” What is being revoked? Why it is all being revoked? Why not just amend, or supersede?

It appears that the text of PDD67 has never been released to the public. This is going to be a pain.
but it’s unclear what Bush would see as needing to be revoked.

— OK, back. PDD67 was issued by Clinton in October 1998 – it directs all levels of government to plan for full minimum operations in any potential national security situation. Uniform policies were created for developing and implementing plans to ensure the continuation of essential operations during any man-mad, natural, technological, or national security emergency. So it’s about how to plan the plans? Sheesh.

Each federal agency was assigned specific functions based on their capabilities and authority, and each had to publish a contingency plan (“continuity of operations plan”- COOP), maintain the budget to support it, and ensure readiness with training, testing and evaluation (including computer simulations, war games, hazmat training, rehearsals, and the like). This built on and amended previous plans and directives, such as PDD-62 (Clinton, May 22, 1998), which established an integrated program to counter terrorist threats and to manage the consequences of attacks on the US. PPD-63 and the EPA’s Critical Infrastructures Protection Plan made each department and agency maintain plans to protect their own infrastructure (including their “cyber-based systems). In case of catastrophic disaster, the EPA is responsible for protecting the water and air supply against “corruption” (Don’t you feel safe now, knowing that the EPA has it under control? I’m starting to see why it’s so important for cronies to be in these positions… steady, steady – no ranting…).

So, to reword, plans were developed to identify possible requirements for a “Plan B” of chain of command and emergency functions and things like that in the event that the status quo was seriously disrupted. There were different roles for different agencies and departments (some or all of which may still apply?). So now it looks like they have to show metrics for successful performance? Is that new? I’m not sure. The EPA and the Department of Defense will probably still train state and local emergency responders, and so on.

We’re familiar with FEMA. Most of the resources of the National Preparedness Directorate of the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] used to be spent on ensuring the continuation of civilian government in the event of a nuclear war, through what are known as these Enduring Constitutional Government programs.

They called it “coordinating consequence management activities.” Lovely.

I’m thinking sci-fi scenario – the underground bunkers, maybe even the secret blast-off to a satellite – but maybe that’s become a dated chain of thought (or maybe I’ve read too much science fiction).

“Like, dude, what do we do with all these people dying of radiation poisoning? How many towns do we have to quarantine to prevent the epidemic? Where should I put all these bones?”

“Never mind that, get the President and the Speaker and those lobbyists into the capsule.”

Keep laughing. The George W. Bush Administration was the first president ever to put the Continuity of Operations plan into action – right after September 11, 2201. They pulled a rotating staff of 75-150 senior officials and other government workers from every Cabinet department and other parts of the executive branch into two secure bunkers on the East Coast (a government-in-waiting that Congress didn’t even know about, nice).

Still, even if we don’t like to think about it, we do need to have executable contingency plans so that everyone wouldn’t be running around, not knowing what to do, or thinking that they should all sit and wait for the Rapture, or go hysterically violent, or something like that.

So what’s new? Under the previous arrangement (as far as I can glean), there is no ultimate coordinator or boss or czar or whatever. The Head of each Federal agency/department was responsible for ensuring continuity of functions, essential resources, facilities and records, and the delegation of authority for emergency operating capabilities (within applicable laws – and probably without, too).

This directive would take away some authority in planning, and probably impose a new uniform standard of some sort? Would it take away authority or action at the time of disaster too? I can’t tell.

Each branch of government is responsible for its own plans. This would add a functionary to coordinate with the other two branches for “interoperability.”

Would this Coordination be arbitrated by a higher authority? What grievance procedure could there be in this? What happens if the head of one of the federal agencies or departments disagrees with this “coordinator”? Then what? Who has the final word? What about oversight?

This Coordinator person has to come up with a plan for all this within 90 days. Right. So it’s already written, and the person is already chosen? Wolfowitz needs a job, for example? Shouldn’t this be a position that needs to be confirmed? Oh oh… he couldn’t be thinking Gonzales…Rumsfeld… Rove? No, no, couldn’t be. Back to the text.

The White House could be building on its previous successes in expanding the executive role (hence the concern) – in which case state and local governments, territories, other properties (Guantanamo?), and interestingly enough, also private corporations – would be his (and Cheney’s and ?) to command in case of a national emergency. That would be really, really bad – I’m guessing that’s the cause of all the buzz and noise, if people read it that way.

The other interpretation might be that he is trying to do what he’s done in other places, like Homeland Security, which is to centralize power and information. In this case, the executive branch would be (or have?) the ultimate “coordinator”, like a wedding planner. Think the right will steal that metaphor?

Still, even then, the language of “coordinating” might be a screen for more of a “dictating” role. Have you actually dealt with someone whose title was “coordinator”? So you know what I mean. Anyway, the document says it’s not a directive role…and there’s lots of repetitions of “constitutional.” Maybe he’s trying to respond to criticisms about how this government has failed to respond effectively to catastrophes.

There are two different time-frames being discussed – one is the coordination effort for planning, and the other is what kinds of authority would be activated in case the plans went into effect.

If it means that all these agencies and authorities and private interests have to answer to the White House or its representative during an actual disaster, that seems like a very bad idea. I’m not sure if that’s what it means or not, and I don’t think I’d be able to tell without having access to more of the document, which is classified. So I don’t know.

Are there any other “eyes” in the legislative branch who would know what we’re actually talking about here?

You don’t want to be waiting for authorizations at a time like that, and suppose communications systems are disrupted? And “systems are down”?

Decentralized and adaptive power structures are much more effective. There is some concern about communication networks in the document, and a science and technology officer is responsible for ensuring those systems. I guess it all depends on the kind of disaster…

One thing we should have learned from Global Terrorism (and Global Corporations – I wonder who learned from who?) is that “cells” and “units” with multiply-redundant lines of communication and feedback are more adaptive and effective than “headquarters.” Interpenetration is more effective than top-down management. Instead of using methods of intelligence-gathering integration, we blunder in without even knowing a language or culture and whip up hornets nests. We were better when we had some classy spies, and practiced protective camouflage. We’ve forgotten our roots as Revolutionaries. We’re the new “red coats” – sticking out a mile. But back to the matter at hand, already in progress…

There are those who are saying that this is a setup for Bush to become an actual, old-fashioned dictator. No – it’s a bit more subtle. The Enduring Constitutional Government (ECG) refers to all three branches – but the difference it that they would be “coordinated by the President.” I would need to hear more details about what the coordination and implementation would look like in order to start screaming “Dictator.” Bush would like to be a Dictator, I’m sure, but he’s not.

Most of the document that has been released is more about structures and planning than about actual implementation. Read one way, it’s almost a will, since it also provides for the succession to the Presidency. “Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.” Hmmm.

There will be a new threat alert/readiness system – the President will get to issue the COGCON level focused on threats to the National Capital Region.

Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions. COGCON? Are they kidding? It sounds like an inside joke. Cogswell Cogs, cog in the works, brick in the wall, conference, conjob, conning the cogs, the con about continuity of government. Anyway, that level issued (through the super-secret underground lair communication device?) will signal all the agencies and departments of the executive branch to comply with assigned requirements under the program.

“Bible college never prepared me for THIS – are you SURE that’s the required action for this department?” “Yeah, honey, now just stand over there…”

All details of the COGCON program are classified.

This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders. – George W. Bush

The directive does not have the same weight as, say, the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act. There may be aspects of it that are even more dangerous, that go further than “total information awareness” and the other kinds of surveillance on American citizens that this administration seems to crave.

Hermeneutics/deconstruction – deconstruction/hermeneutics.

Nope. Can’t get a fix. I can read it as intending to protect and defend the American people and the Constitution. And I can read it as a very scary document that we’ll think should have given us warning about the destruction of America as we know it. And I can believe it could even, in some sick way, be both.

We could say – “thank goodness we had this.” We could say – “they were planning it all along.” We could say – “he just wanted to one-up Clinton, and somebody wanted a new job.”

I have serious reservations, but I don’t think I have enough information to credibly argue about this document. For all I can tell, they’re just trying to reduce the paperwork.

One thing that I can tell you is that I am happy that I don’t write government documents for a living. I suspect that there are many things that we don’t know about – across the board – at the federal level of government.

After all this, I’ll have to stew some more. Sigh.

Well, at least I’ve got the initial bits that struck me.

Comments are welcome.

No Immunity for Torture, No Legal Whitewash

No Immunity for Torture, No Legal Whitewash

So this is the new America.

President Bush has now defended the cruel and humiliating treatment of detainees on national television.

Instead of accepting constitutional role of the judgment of the Supreme Court, he has proposed legislation that would retroactively legalize the sham military commissions that the Supreme Court has repudiated.

Bush wants legislation passed that would grant immunity from prosecution to administration officials who sanctioned (and possibly encouraged, codified, ordered) the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment – and would keep the Federal courts from intervening!

Are you awake YET America? Does this sound like YOUR America?

My America doesn’t use or try to legitimize torture, and would never hide people in secret prisons.
My America is a beacon to the rest of the world on human rights and liberties.

Torture. Secrecy. Legal Whitewash.

This President wants to see a lot of new laws written, but not everyone is convinced he will succeed in that. After all, he needs Congress to rubberstamp write the laws and vote the laws into being.

Take a good look. The methods and policies of this administration are increasing the power and heft of terrorism. The war metaphor is itself destructive, and we’ve bound our adversaries together more sucessfully than they ever could have done themselves.

We’ve given away more of our own freedoms and rights than terrorists ever could have taken from us.

We have made a terrible mistake by allowing these people to take power.

America is better than this.

Write, call or e-mail your representatives to let them know that you do not approve of the sidestepping of the Supreme court, the use of torture and other violations of the Geneva conventions or the the secret CIA prisons.

Point out their own role in enabling all of this to have happened, and remind them of the upcoming election (we must assume for sanity’s sake that the elections will take place and that majorities will prevail).

Keep an eye out for actions to take, solutions to offer, discussions for participation. Write a letter to the editor. And please – VOTE in November. The republican campaigns budget is being invested in local smear campaigns and the like. Go to events. Ask about the issues. Participate in your democracy. Insist on public debate on issues of concern to you.

Without an informed and active citizenry, things will only get worse.

US Concentration Camps?

US Concentration Camps?

KBR, the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton Co. was awarded a $385 million 1-year contract (with 4 1-year options) from the Department of Homeland Security to establish “temporary detention and processing capabilities to expand existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs.”

“We are especially gratified to be awarded this contract,” an executive vice president, Bruce Stanski, said in a statement, “because it builds on our extremely strong track record in the arena of emergency management support.”

It’s amazing someone can stand up and say something like that, given the historical facts. Sigh.

So, the question is, why do we need concentration camps in the US, and who’s really gonna sit in them??

Terrorists? Immigrants to be deported? Victims of natural (or unnatural) events? Poor people? Old people? Whoever doesn’t sign up for the drug benefit written by the insurance industry? (the last a lame attempt at humor, sorry)

American citizens culled for one of the rapidly-developing “new programs”?

What kind of programs require major expansion of detention centers, each capable of holding 5,000 people?

Let’s ask the Bush administration exactly what it means by the “rapid development of new programs,” which might require the construction of a new network of detention / labor / concentration camps across the United States!

“Almost certainly this is preparation for a roundup after the next 9/11 for Mid-Easterners, Muslims and possibly dissenters,” says Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers, the U.S. military’s account of its activities in Vietnam. “They’ve already done this on a smaller scale, with the ‘special registration’ detentions of immigrant men from Muslim countries, and with Guantanamo.”

Peter Dale Scott, author of Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina, suggests that it could be a preparation for conditions of martial law, and notes that a multimillion program for detention facilities “will greatly increase NORTHCOM’s ability to respond to any domestic disorders.”

…in April 2002, Defense Dept. officials implemented a plan for domestic U.S. military operations by creating a new U.S. Northern Command (CINC-NORTHCOM) for the continental United States. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called this “the most sweeping set of changes since the unified command system was set up in 1946.”

The NORTHCOM commander, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced, is responsible for “homeland defense and also serves as head of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)…. He will command U.S. forces that operate within the United States in support of civil authorities. The command will provide civil support not only in response to attacks, but for natural disasters.”

John Brinkerhoff later commented on PBS that, “The United States itself is now for the first time since the War of 1812 a theater of war. That means that we should apply, in my view, the same kind of command structure in the United States that we apply in other theaters of war.”

…NORTHCOM conducted its highly classified Granite Shadow exercise in Washington. As William Arkin reported in the Washington Post, “Granite Shadow is yet another new Top Secret and compartmented operation related to the military’s extra-legal powers regarding weapons of mass destruction. It allows for emergency military operations in the United States without civilian supervision or control.”

For an excellent, but chilling overview of some of the possibilities here (including labor camps, dissident and “Fifth Columnist” roundups, and so on), take a look at “Bush’s Mysterious ‘New Programs'” by Nat Parry, Consortium News, posted February 23, 2006. at AlterNet.

Aggressive US nuclear policy

Aggressive US nuclear policy

Changes in nuclear weapons policy in the works. Dark times, and darker times coming. Please get involved.

The truth is out: Bush’s new nuclear stance

What the document shows is how the threshold for actually using nuclear weapons has been lowered dramatically. For instance, the document seeks to justify pre-emptive nuclear strikes against nations (even those without nuclear weapons) which the US thinks might use chemical or biological weapons against US forces or allies. It also positions nuclear weapons as just another item in the military’s box of tricks, even underscoring the importance of US troops being able to continue functioning in a highly irradiated battle zone.

In a chilling finale, “Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations” concludes that the United States is legally free to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively if it chooses, “no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict”.

Internal Pentagon document reveals new aggressive US nuclear weapons policy

The editing of the document reveals sharp internal disagreements about the legality of the US’s new posture, specifically its implied endorsement of the use of nuclear weapons against targets whose destruction by a nuclear weapon must inevitably lead to massive civilian casualties. A final version of the document is expected this autumn. The document reveals:

* Plans for the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against non nuclear countries and against countries which the US judged might be intending to use chemical or biological weapons against its forces or allies.
* That the Bush administration’s public claims to be reducing the role of nuclear weapons are false.
* That nuclear weapons might be used in less intense crises than previously considered including in a conventional conflict.
* That the distinction between conventional forces and nuclear weapons is being discarded and nuclear weapons being integrated into conventional weapons planning and missile defenses.
* That the main purpose of missile defenses is to defend military forces not civilians.
* That some commanders do not believe that the threats used to justify the new doctrine actually exist.

The entire document is available at the above links (including edits).

See also

The Role of U.S. Nuclear Weapons: New Doctrine Falls Short of Bush Pledge