Month: March 2013

A recent news report asking “Where is Dubya?” found the former president totally unengaged, spending his time painting strange portraits of himself in the bath. In what seems to be a weird personal attempt to emulate Winston Churchill (but more reminiscent of Marie Antoinette playing shepherdess in her last days), the former president calmly ignores the sickening truth that slowly but surely emerges about his Administration’s crimes as well as recent UN demands that U.S. leaders be charged with war crimes (i.e. Ben Emmerson, the lead special investigator, recently described to gathered UN dignitaries a setting of self-approved legal immunity among U.S. and UK national leaders. He called the two governments’ standing policy, “A policy of de facto immunity for public officials who engaged in acts of torture, rendition and secret detention, and their superiors and political masters who authorized these acts.”)

So the hard task will clearly fall to George W. Bush’s soon-to-open Presidential Center to re-fashion history and create the legacy of the great “Decider” who, with neo-con help, so longed to be a “war president” that he decided to illegally and recklessly launch a “war of choice” (otherwise known as the illegal and catastrophic war of aggression upon Iraq based on false premises). The new Bush Library will undoubtedly also credit their namesake with the idea of initiating the “global war on a tactic (GWOT)” that, despite a recent bipartisan congressional bill to end it, teeters on the verge of being made permanent. Bush’s successor having cleverly re-named it, then stretched and expanded GWOT to so many new countries that it now has come full circle under rhetoric of “keeping us safe” from foreign enemies that it now targets U.S. citizens for indefinite detention and assassination and includes the U.S. as part of its ever-widening global battlefield.

Whoever said we can’t look back must not have reckoned with the fact and force of such a Presidential Lie-Bury! Luckily some Dallas residents have sprung to the task of putting forward an honest “People’s Response” to the deceptive refashioning of this unethical and illegal history. Here’s an excerpt from their press release:

When the George W. Bush Library and Policy Institute is dedicated on April 25, 2013, at Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas, Texas, protestors will be there to demand the ex-president be held accountable for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and violations of U.S. and international law. President Barack Obama, former U.S. presidents and many heads of state are expected to attend the dedication ceremony.

A coalition of local, state and national peace and justice groups organizing the protest is inviting people from across the country to participate in an event called “The People’s Response.” According to Leslie Harris of CODEPINK Greater Dallas, “The illegal invasion of a sovereign nation was declared a ‘supreme crime’ at the Nuremberg trials. That Bush and his advisors walk free today is unconscionable; there must be accountability so history won’t repeat itself.”

Reverend Bill McElvaney, professor emeritus, Perkins School of Theology at SMU, an early opponent of locating the George W. Bush Institute on campus, said, “The invasion of Iraq, and the approval of torture are violations of the United Methodist Social Principles, thus placing Southern Methodist University in contradiction to its own heritage as an institution of The United Methodist Church.”

I plan to participate for a lot of reasons but most fundamentally, from having spent 24 years as an FBI agent working in the criminal justice system always and inherently focused on looking backward to solve the worst crimes, I understand the true purpose of Obama’s ridiculous “only look forward” cover-up was to continue, make worse and even expand upon Bush’s illegal wars, war crimes and war profiteering. It’s hard to put this into words better than author and researcher, “War Is A Crime” and “Let’s Try Democracy” activist David Swanson as he explains “Why I’m Attending the Dedication of the Bush Lie Bury.”

US support for Honduran security forces has skyrocketed since the military coup took place there in 2009. Washington’s own commando-style troops have been working closely with Honduran police in training and weapons procurement, even as reports of extra-judicial killings, disappearances and other human rights abuses have increased.

Recently, allegations that US-backed security forces are essentially running death squads have reached such a fever pitch that Washington was forced to respond. The State Department this week reassured the public that taxpayer money “only goes to specially vetted and trained units that don’t operate under the direct supervision of a police chief once accused of extrajudicial killings and ‘social cleansing,'” reports The Associated Press.

That police chief is one Juan Carlos Bonilla, who has been accused of, and in one case tried for, extra-judicial killings and disappearances of dozens of people. While US and Honduran officials promise US support doesn’t go to any forces under Bonilla’s command, evidence suggests otherwise.

AP:

Honduran law prohibits any police unit from operating outside the command of the director general, according to a top Honduran government security official, who would only speak on condition of anonymity. He said that is true in practice as well as on paper.

Celso Alvarado, a criminal law professor and consultant to the Honduran Commission for Security and Justice Sector Reform, said the same.

“Every police officer in Honduras, regardless of their specific functions, is under the hierarchy and obedience of the director general [that is, Bonilla],” he said.

Last November, forces that were “trained, vetted and equipped by the US government” chased down and murdered a Honduran teenager. In June, DEA agents and Honduran security forces killed a suspected drug dealer who allegedly reached for his gun when they came after him. And in May before that, DEA agents cooperated with Honduran security forces in the killing of four civilians, including two pregnant women, in an incident US officials later described as a mistake.

“Since early 2010,” writes Dana Frank in a piece at Foreign Affairs, ”there have been more than 10,000 complaints of human rights abuses by [US funded and trained] state security forces,” and “in many ways, Washington is responsible for this dismal turn.”

AP again:

The AP reported on Sunday that two gang-related people detained by police in January have disappeared, fueling long-standing accusations that the Honduran police operate death squads and engage in “social cleansing.” It also found that in the last three years, Honduran prosecutors have received as many as 150 formal complaints about death squad-style killings in the capital of Tegucigalpa, and at least 50 more in the economic hub of San Pedro Sula.

Senator Patrick Leahy has been putting pressure on the State Department to account for this alleged backing of widespread human rights abuses. Indeed, he wrote up what is now called the Leahy Law, enacted in 1997, which prohibits US assistance to foreign military or security forces credibly accused of human rights violations. To meet this law’s restrictions, aid recipients don’t have to be proven human rights abusers – they don’t have to have been found guilty at The Hague – there just has to be credible allegations, a requirement which has clearly been met.

In June, a group of academics from around Latin America plus the US wrote a letter to the State Department protesting against the US military presence in Honduras and demanding that aid to the country’s abusive law enforcement apparatus be halted. They exposed the drug war as the farce it is, charging “we are the ones providing all the corpses in your war” and arguing that “combatting drug trafficking is not a legitimate justification for the US to fund and train security forces that usurp democratic governments and violently repress our people.”

So not only is Washington continuing its long history of supporting war criminals and death squads in Latin America, it is doing so in violation of its own laws. If laws were things that states abided by, instead of tools to subjugate their own populations, this might be a big deal.

Looking perhaps a little smaller, bereft of his familiar chestful of medals or his over-starched ACUs (Army Combat Uniform), (Ret.) Gen. David Petraeus began his road to public redemption this week with a speech designed to make him look contrite over an extra-marital affair with a woman who served as both protege and biographer and had especially close access to his inner leadership circle in Afghanistan, Paula Broadwell.

I say “public redemption” because we are media-jaded enough to know: ever since Bill Clinton was able to dodge and weave and Oprahfy his way out of impeachment and a soiled legacy (albeit with huge help from his wife and the hypocrite Republicans witch-hunting him on the other side), such falls from grace are easily overcome if one follows The Formula. It usually calls for a public apology or self-flagellation of some sort. If the media likes you already and is sad for your demise, all the better.

This week I’ve noticed no less than four (not counting Petraeus) such redemptions on the rise or in already full good standing with the fickle yet forgiving (not to mention dull and attention-deficited) American public. I read in this Atlantic piece that ex-con “Casino Jack” Abramoff, whose swindle of Native Americans was much gentler (but no less diminishing) than dear old Andrew Jackson’s dark dealings, is now getting $15,000 a speech, has his own radio show and is back charming the press — all because he embraces his own smarminess as a learning tool for others.

Then in a typically milquetoast column by Al Kamen at The Washington Post, we hear that prostitute proffering pol, Sen. David Vitter, is “back in the good graces of voters and colleagues alike,” and that former Gov. Mark Sanford, who actually disappeared for six days while having an affair, “has a legitimate shot at becoming the Republican candidate” for a special congressional election.

Then, NC-17 Twitterbug Anthony Weiner, a former (married) congressman from New York who couldn’t keep his underpants and his texting separate, has reportedly “tested the waters with polls” gauging the public’s willingness to give him another try. Not sure what the testing has “revealed,” but just the mention of it suggests he thinks he is on the road to Clintemption, too.

The thing with Petraeus is his journey is going to be a short one, guarantee it. You can see it in the writing accompanying the story of his “apology speech.” He is invariably called “hero of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars,” who “was credited with reshaping the nation’s counterinsurgency strategy,” and “turning the tide in the U.S favor in both Iraq and Afghanistan and making the U.S safer from terrorism.” (That was from the “liberal” AP by the way.

The AP went on:

Another longtime crisis communications expert, Howard Bragman, said Petraeus has handled the situation perfectly so far and he expects he’ll continue to do so. He noted that unlike former President Bill Clinton, former U.S. Sen. John Edwards and other public figures caught in extramarital affairs, Petraeus didn’t try to lie his way out of it, immediately took responsibility and moved on.

“I think the world is open to him now,” said Bragman, vice chairman of the image-building company Reputation.com. “I think he can do whatever he wants. Realistically, he can even run for public office, although I don’t think he’d want to because he can make more money privately.”

Here’s the real rub of it. Like disgraced Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Petraeus in his suit and tie won’t miss the medals (but don’t bet he won’t take them out from time to time), because he is going to be making tens of thousands of dollars tooling around the country, giving speeches, teaching doe-eyed college kids and consulting the hell out of the Beltway. Getting the apology out of the way makes it all happen faster.

This is not about sex. It is about betrayal. This is about consequences. Most importantly, it is about accountability, and the road Petraeus is taking will offer very little of that to us. He’ll leave us and our petty little disagreements over lies and torture and the failed strategy in Afghanistan far behind. Forget Paula Broadwell — that’s already ancient history. He’ll find plenty of new friends for the jump seat and even more VIP perks along the way.

Isn’t that what matters most in our Oprahfied, spoon-fed corn pone world?

This story from Der Speigel laments German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s reverting back to Germany’s post-WWII pacifist doctrine after years of gradual “steps towards normality” – where “normality” is militarism.

On April 2, 1993, the cabinet of then Chancellor Helmut Kohl approved the Bundeswehr’s first international combat mission, allowing German soldiers to participate in monitoring the no-fly zone over Bosnia. It was the first war in which the Bundeswehr was involved in combat operations.

Bosnia marked the beginning of a long path to normalization that Germany has followed since the end of the Cold War. Today the Bundeswehr is involved in 11 missions that have been approved by the parliament. Some 6,540 soldiers are currently deployed on foreign missions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa. “The mentality of Germans has changed when it comes to the use of military force,” says Defense Minister Thomas de Maizière. “We’ve come a long way in this respect.”

Horay! How pedestrian of them to have been so timid in their resumption of militarism.

The author goes on to bemoan Merkel’s cautious tempering of military engagement. The “coalition government consisting of Merkel’s conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP)” the author writes, “is in the process of dismantling the progress Germany has made in this respect.” Again, “progress” meaning shedding its aversion to militarism.

Be it out of conviction or the fear of voters, German foreign policy, under the leadership of Merkel and Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, has returned to its former insecurity and unwillingness to engage. From Berlin’s abstention in the UN Security Council vote on Libya to its minimal involvement in Mali and its passive approach to the conflict in Syria, the country is avoiding military involvement at all costs.

This is doing serious harm to Germany’s international reputation. The concept of a “culture of military restraint,” which the foreign minister mentions at every opportunity, is vexing to Berlin’s allies. Now that the euro crisis has catapulted Germany into the role of Europe’s leading power on economic policy, it also faces heightened expectations in other respects. The contradiction between Germany’s economic strength and its military self-doubt is bigger than ever.

Needless to say, aversion to militarism is not something to lament. I’m not an expert on German foreign policy post-WWII, but – much to the ignorance of this Der Speigel piece – it is no accident that Germany and Japan ended up with explicitly pacifist doctrines after WWII. Both countries experienced the graphic rise of amplified militarism and, more than many other countries, ended up on the receiving end of the utter destruction the war brought. That combination tends to teach a society some lessons.

Some people, however, are resistant to those lessons, believing instead that militarism – not peace – is “progress.”