Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs! |
Stuff
A very brief look. Some background since Uzbekistan and its torture program has resurfaced in the news lately. If you think the torture described in the articles seems hyperbolic, think again. U.S. Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Abuses. Country of Uzbekistan 1999 Report There were unconfirmed but credible reports of at least 13 other deaths by torture or beating. In one case, a man from Nukus, Azim Khodjaev, allegedly was beaten to death at a then-secret prison in Karakalpakstan in mid-July because he would not reveal the whereabouts of his sons whom the police were seeking. According to witnesses in Nukus, his body was bruised and missing its fingernails. Authorities gave the cause of death as heart failure. Although the law prohibits these practices, police routinely beat and otherwise mistreat detainees to obtain confessions. Police methods included use of electric shocks, near suffocation, and beatings with rubber sticks and plastic bottles filled with water. One of the defendants, noted writer Mamadali Makhmudov, released a separate statement, saying that police threatened to rape his wife and daughters in his presence before killing him. U.S. calls election of Karimov "neither free not fair"2000 Report First chosen president in a 1991 election that most observers considered neither free nor fair, Karimov had his stay in office extended to 2000 by a 1995 plebiscite. Parliament subsequently voted to make the extension part of Karimov's first term, thus making him eligible to run again in 2000. He was elected to a second term in January against token opposition with 92.5 percent of the vote under conditions that were neither free nor fair Kodirov's brother alleged that the body bore 50 small holes and that the genital area was "destroyed." Hazratkul had given an interview to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in November deploring conditions in the resettlement camp. The most common torture techniques are beating, often with blunt weapons, and asphyxiation with a gas mask. There were numerous unverifiable reports of interrogators raping detainees with objects such as bottles, and of threatening to rape both detainees and their family members.According to those attending the trial (international monitors were barred from the courtroom), the defendants alleged that guards and interrogators had used beatings and electricity, and had forced them to sign blank statements. Several alleged that guards had raped them. The defendants were sentenced to between 12 and 16 years each. 2001 Report On February 21, police arrested Emin Usman, a prominent writer and an ethnic Uighur, on charges of possessing illegal religious literature and belonging to the banned Hizb ut-Tahrir Islamic political party. Police returned Usman's body to relatives on March 1. Authorities, who claimed that Usman had committed suicide, ordered the body buried immediately and would not allow family members to view it; however, one family member who did view the body reported that it bore clear signs of having been beaten. Police also used suffocation, electric shock, rape, and other sexual abuse. Neither the severity nor frequency of torture appeared to have decreased during the year.In December 2000, Human Rights Watch released a report on torture in the country that detailed dozens of allegations of torture based on interviews with victims and their families. The report claimed that the number of allegations and the brutality of torture were increasing. The most common torture techniques were beating, often with blunt weapons, and asphyxiation with a gas mask. There were numerous unverifiable reports of interrogators raping detainees with objects such as bottles, and of threatening to rape both detainees and their family members. On June 30, Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan (HRSU) member Elena Urlaeva walked out of a clinic where she had been subject to involuntary psychiatric detention and treatment (see Section 1.d.). On November 6, a final appeals court overturned the order that Urlaeva undergo forced psychiatric treatment. Although it is routine for police to beat confessions out of detainees, anecdotal evidence suggests that those suspected of Islamist political sympathies (sometimes only because of their piety) are treated more harshly than criminals (see Section 2.c.). There also were reports that on at least two occasions police beat members of Jehovah's Witnesses (see Section 2.c.). Defendants in trials often claim that their confessions on which the prosecution based its cases were extracted by torture (see Section 1.e.). For example Imam Abdulvakhid Yuldashev, convicted in April of organizing an underground Islamic movement stated in court that investigators had beaten him and burned his genitals in order to extract confessions during detention Uzbekistan becomes "strategic" partner in the "war on terror" after September 11, 2001.U.S. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to Visit UzbekistanThe United States and the Global Coalition Against Terrorism, September 2001-December 2003The U.S. still referring to its "partner" in the war on terror as: "Uzbekistan is an authoritarian state with limited civil rights" - a country that was a part of the U.S. government's "extraordinary renditions" program. Additional articles mentioning Uzbekistan as a destination for torture.Destination Cairo: human rights fears over CIA flightsExtraordinary Rendition: A Human Rights Analysis"Reports suggest that Russia,<43> Sweden,<44> and the United States have orchestrated extraordinary renditions.<45> Other states reportedly have facilitated extraordinary renditions either by providing intelligence or by conducting the initial seizure. These states include Bosnia,<46> Canada,<47> Croatia,<48> Georgia,<49> Indonesia,<50> Iraq,<51> Macedonia,<52> Malawi,<53> Pakistan,<54> and the United *** Top of Page 129 *** Kingdom.<55> Still other states, including Afghanistan,<56> Egypt,<57> Jordan,<58> Morocco,<59> Saudi Arabia,<60> Syria,<61> and Uzbekistan,<62> have assisted by taking custody of suspects after they are transferred out of the state where they are abducted. In many cases, the receiving states reportedly engage in torture and other forms of ill-treatment of detainees on a systematic basis." Backgrounder on Extraordinary Renditions and Other Extra-judicial TransfersBook: "Ghost Plane": Timeline 2002 Report Officials insisted that the deaths were the result of an altercation between prisoners; however, there were reports that Avazov and Olimov were tortured by other prisoners at the orders of prison authorities.The country's regulations require that every death in custody be investigated by a medical examiner. Examiners' reports routinely misstated the cause of death or covered up abuses. In no case in which a death in custody appeared to be due in whole or in part to torture or other mistreatment was the death attributed to such causes. Medical reports attributed the deaths to purely natural causes, injuries incurred while police were engaged in self-defense, and altercations between prisoners. Although the law prohibits these practices, both police and the NSS (the former KGB) routinely tortured, beat, and otherwise mistreated detainees to obtain confessions or incriminating information. Police and the NSS allegedly used suffocation, electric shock, rape, and other sexual abuse; however, beating was the most commonly reported method of torture. Human rights observers reported that the use of torture abated in some prisons following the January conviction of four policemen. Torture nonetheless continued in prisons, pretrial facilities, and local police and security service precincts; and the severity of torture did not decrease during the year. At the end of his visit in December, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture concluded that the use of torture in the country was systemic. Police insisted that the men died in an altercation with two other inmates and that in the course of the fight hot water from a tea cauldron was spilled on them. On November 10, three intoxicated NSS officers in Surkhandarya province tortured Musurmon Kulmurodov to death with pliers, a screwdriver, and a metal baton in front of his mother, wife, and their two children (see Section 1.a.). He and his family had been stopped at a traffic checkpoint and transferred to NSS custody on suspicion of narcotics trafficking. At year's end, authorities had failed to hold any of the officers criminally liable More State Department reports saying pretty much the exact same thing....if you can stomach it, that is. That Uzbekistan tortures people isn't news. The U.S. government knew it. The torture methods used by Uzbekistan isn't news either. The U.S. government knew that too. The U.S. government knew what would happen when it sent detainees to Uzbekistan for ah, "interrogations." The U.S. government committed war crimes - and it knows that too.
Wheeeeeee!!!
In the safe haven of America, war criminals can find many opportunities to flaunt themselves and earn money. They can teach, hit the lecture circuit, and even sit on the bench! Because in America, crimes against humanity won't land you in jail (but smoking pot will). So torture all you want - just don't fire one up when you do!
ACLU asks Gates to not block release of detainee abuse photos"The American Civil Liberties Union has asked the secretary of defense not to exercise his authority to withhold photos of detainee abuse that was granted to him by Congress -- pending an expected signing by the president -- earlier this week. In a letter to Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the ACLU urged him to "not invoke your new and discretionary authority to suppress images of abuse." Congress passed legislation on Tuesday that exempts from public disclosure images depicting the torture of detainees in U.S. custody. The Supreme Court last week postponed whether it would hear arugments in the ACLU’s Freedom of Information Act suit that sought access to the photos, because if the bill is signed into law it could make the long-fought battle over the torture photos moot. "We are deeply disappointed that Congress has voted to give the Defense Department the authority to hide evidence of its own misconduct,” said the ACLU's Jameel Jaffer in a release. “Secretary Gates should be guided by the importance of transparency to the democratic process, the extraordinary importance of these photos to the ongoing debate about the treatment of prisoners and the likelihood that the suppression of these photos would ultimately be far more damaging to national security than their disclosure.” Letter
by Jameel Jaffer (who) is the director of the ACLU National Security Project " Absent an unexpected groundswell of opposition, Congress this week will pass legislation that gives the Defense Department the authority to suppress evidence of its own misconduct. The amendment is directed at a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union to enforce a Freedom of Information Act request submitted in 2003. After a court ordered the Bush administration to respond to the request, the Defense Department acknowledged the existence of the prisoner-abuse photos but sought to withhold them from the public on the grounds that their disclosure could provoke violence against U.S. troops and others in Afghanistan and Iraq. The legislation would suppress many more photos in government custody than the ones at issue in the ACLU case. It covers images taken between Sept. 11, 2001, and Jan. 22, 2009, that relate to the treatment of individuals "engaged, captured or detained" by the armed forces. It would cover photos depicting the abuse of prisoners, but it could also cover, for example, video footage of aerial attacks that resulted in civilian casualties or photos showing the conditions of confinement at the Bagram detention center in Afghanistan. The legislation establishes a regime of censorship that would extend to many images of the military's activities abroad. Supporters of the legislation have said that the bill is motivated by concerns about security, but no democracy has ever been made stronger by concealing evidence of its wrongdoing. The last administration's decision to endorse torture undermined the United States' moral authority and compromised its security. The failure of the country's current leadership to fully confront the abuses of the last administration -- a failure embodied by the legislation that Congress is preparing to enact -- will only compound these harms."
America won't admit it committed war crimes & crimes against humanity.
America won't admit that it broke the law.
America uses phrases like "enhanced interrogation techniques" to describe torture.
America likes to pretend waterboarding isn't torture.
America likes to pretend there's confusion on what torture is and isn't.
America pretends you can commit war crimes in "good faith" by pretending a war crime isn't a war crime if lawyers that work for a war criminal says war crimes are legal.
America likes to pretend a crime isn't a crime if America does it and America likes to hide their crimes behind bullshit phrases.
America likes to wrap its war crimes in the flag and call it patriotic to torture people.
And that's why thugs implicated in war crimes can go around demanding that no one look into their crimes.
That's why they can go on TV and into universities to teach.
Because America likes to pretend it is something it isn't.
We see it in how people in government discuss the war crimes committed - the media as well & "respected" guest on TV
The language used to hide war crimes behind...the pretending...and the language used shows a concerted effort to mask the crimes. To make it easier for some to pretend torture isn't torture and war crimes aren't really war crimes.
Every year between the end of February and the beginning of March the State Department puts out its yearly report on Human Rights. I often post those reports when they come out. Just some of the human rights violations the U.S. State Department addresses (and condemns) are: • torture and abuse of prisoners and detainees • arbitrary arrest and detention • police impunity • lengthy pretrial and incommunicado detention • infringement of citizens' privacy rights • beatings to the face and legs • dousing with cold water On page 2 of a memo to Jack Goldsmith from Scott Muller, we read about the CIA's "dousing" program.• standing for long periods of time during the night • subjected to loud screams and beatings of other detainees • stripped naked in front of others • burning genitalia • forcing objects into the rectum • hyperextending the spine This past Monday, along with the long awaited 2004 CIA IG Report, there was this - "another document provided to the ACLU is a July 2007 memo from Steven Bradbury, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, to John Rizzo, Acting CIA General Counsel." In the memo from Bradbury to Rizzo the State Department reports on human rights violations are addressed. A comparison is made between the human rights violations the U.S. State Department condemns in other countries and how those (same) violations differ when used in the CIA's "enhanced interrogation" program.  Excerpt: "As an initial matter, the State Department has informed us that these reports are not to be legal conclusions; but instead they are public diplomatic statements designed to encourage foreign governments to alter their policies in a manner that would serve United Stares interests."In other words, the State Department report on human rights violations, such as torture (sleep & food deprivation) isn't meant to be seen as a statement against the CIA using the exact same techniques. Excerpt: "Egypt employed torture to extract information, coerce opposition figures to cease their political activities, and to defer others from similar activities" Which is not to be confused with the CIA's claim of using "enhanced interrogation techniques" torture to extract informationExcerpt: " In these essential respects, it (the CIA program of torture) fundamentally differs from conduct condemned in the State Department reports." ...and why do they say it is different? - Because the CIA tortures to protect America, doncha know!Full document: 2007 OLC opinion on Interrogation TechniquesWhile I have your attention, please look again at the first photo-document. Notice the footnote at the bottom of page 38 and what it says. Now go and read the assessment of how the Army Field Manual - the revised Army Field Manual, that is - was revised with the CIA's "enhanced interrogation techniques" very much benefiting (intentionally) from the revision. You'll find the Army Field Manual Assessment just above the State Department reports assessment in the complete document linked to above. (Pages 36-38 of 79] More from the ACLU Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel Letters and Memos to CIA Regarding Detention and Interrogation Policies - Documents Responsive to 2008 Torture FOIA Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel Letters and Memos to CIA Regarding Detention and Interrogation Policies - Documents Responsive to 2004 Torture FOIA
Adding insult to injury, some of those responsible have been rewarded with lucrative careers in the private sector. Tenet, for example, is making millions of dollars in the intelligence business, including as a board member for defence contractor QinetiQ. And Jose Rodriguez, the former director of the CIA's National Clandestine Service who ordered the destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes, works with former CIA director Mike Hayden at the oddly named National Interest Security Company, an intelligence contractor. It's shameful that people responsible for one of America's darkest chapters are so richly rewarded. The Guardian
Statement of Attorney General Eric Holder Regarding a Preliminary Review into the Interrogation of Certain DetaineesMonday, August 24, 2009 "The Office of Professional Responsibility has now submitted to me its report regarding the Office of Legal Counsel memoranda related to so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. I hope to be able to make as much of that report available as possible after it undergoes a declassification review and other steps. Among other findings, the report recommends that the Department reexamine previous decisions to decline prosecution in several cases related to the interrogation of certain detainees. "I have reviewed the OPR report in depth. Moreover, I have closely examined the full, still-classified version of the 2004 CIA Inspector General’s report, as well as other relevant information available to the Department. As a result of my analysis of all of this material, I have concluded that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations. The Department regularly uses preliminary reviews to gather information to determine whether there is sufficient predication to warrant a full investigation of a matter. I want to emphasize that neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow."Assistant United States Attorney John Durham was appointed in 2008 by then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate the destruction of CIA videotapes of detainee interrogations. During the course of that investigation, Mr. Durham has gained great familiarity with much of the information that is relevant to the matter at hand. Accordingly, I have decided to expand his mandate to encompass this related review. Mr. Durham, who is a career prosecutor with the Department of Justice and who has assembled a strong investigative team of experienced professionals, will recommend to me whether there is sufficient predication for a full investigation into whether the law was violated in connection with the interrogation of certain detainees. "There are those who will use my decision to open a preliminary review as a means of broadly criticizing the work of our nation’s intelligence community. I could not disagree more with that view. The men and women in our intelligence community perform an incredibly important service to our nation, and they often do so under difficult and dangerous circumstances. They deserve our respect and gratitude for the work they do. Further, they need to be protected from legal jeopardy when they act in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance. That is why I have made it clear in the past that the Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees. I want to reiterate that point today, and to underscore the fact that this preliminary review will not focus on those individuals."I share the President’s conviction that as a nation, we must, to the extent possible, look forward and not backward when it comes to issues such as these. While this Department will follow its obligation to take this preliminary step to examine possible violations of lawe will not allow our important work of keeping the American people safe to be sidetracked. "I fully realize that my decision to commence this preliminary review will be controversial. As Attorney General, my duty is to examine the facts and to follow the law. In this case, given all of the information currently available, it is clear to me that this review is the only responsible course of action for me to take." It says absolutely nothing about prosecuting Bush and Cheney, or anyone else for that matter. It does say "preliminary review" on whether or not to actually open a full investigation...which may or may not lead to charges being filed. I'm not saying prosecutions can't happen, just that Holder's statement is being - for whatever reasons - exaggerated.
"...information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations. The Department regularly uses preliminary reviews to gather information to determine whether there is sufficient predication to warrant a full investigation of a matter..." So it's a preliminary review to see if laws were violated, as a means to gather information to determine if there will be a full investigation... http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2009/ag-... Holder goes on to say: "I want to emphasize that neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow." Which doesn't mean there won't eventually be some kind of prosecutions... but if people want to be fair, his statement doesn't say "we will prosecute"...it does say it is a review to determine if there will be a full investigation though If people want to be fair, that is
August 17, 2009 Charity sues government over 'rendition' of two men handed by British to US forcesA legal charity is suing the Government in connection with the extraordinary rendition of two men arrested in Iraq, passed to the US authorities and held at a detention centre in Afghanistan for the past five years. Clive Stafford Smith, director of Reprieve, said in a statement today that at least one of the detainees is suffering from serious mental problems because of alleged mistreatment at Bagram air force base. “These two men have been held in appalling conditions for five years, and for all that time the British Government chose to do nothing,” he said. The Government has admitted its involvement in extraordinary rendition but failed to give the two men their legal rights, according to Mr Stafford Smith. Some background. June 18, 2009 Torture and the UK: 2002-09An interactive guide showing the link between government (UK) and torture. August 15, 2009 Bagram Isn't The New Guantanamo, It's The Old GuantanamoAugust 11, 2009 MoD facing legal action over pair held without charge in Afghan jailReprieve
Ministers' admission links MI5 and MI6 to 'torture victim'
Ministers have admitted the Government sent secret agents to interview a British detainee in Afghanistan, supporting allegations MI5 and MI6 officers were present while he was tortured by his American captors.
The admission is made in documents addressed to lawyers representing Shaker Aamer, 42, who has spent seven years in Guantanamo Bay. His claims are part of a growing body of evidence highlighting Britain's alleged complicity in the rendition and torture of at least 15 other UK citizens and residents.
He says he was sharing a house with Moazzam Begg, the British man released from Guantanamo in 2005, when he was forced to flee the US-led invasion. But he was captured by an Afghan militant group, which passed him to the Northern Alliance, who in turn sold him to the Americans.
TodayAugust 8, 2009 Britain warned on torture complicityAugust 9, 2009 Ministers deny torture collusion
I haven't seen this posted but could have easily missed it over the last several days. " Former Guantánamo detainee Binyam Mohamed has launched an urgent legal attempt to prevent the US courts from destroying crucial evidence that he says proves he was abused while being held at the detention camp, the Guardian has learned. The evidence is said to consist of a photograph of Mohamed, a British resident, taken after he was severely beaten by guards at the US navy base in Cuba. The image, now held by the Pentagon, had been put on his cell door, he says. Mohamed claims he was told later that this was done because he had been beaten so badly that it was difficult for the guards to identify him. Under US law, evidence relating to dismissed cases must be automatically destroyed. The only way to preserve the photograph is to have it accepted as a court document."
|
Profile Information Solly Mack
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
Dr. Seuss Bush: War Criminal & Traitor to America
Blogroll DU Journals
Other Blogs DU Article
The Line of DenialJune 8, 2005 By Solly Mack A question was recently posed asking at what point do American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan cross the line and go "from duty to brutality." It's an excellent question and one that needs to be asked. More importantly, it needs to be answered. Yet Americans can't look to the office of the president for the answer, because the president is too busy denying that there is a problem. The president believes that reports of torture and abuse are "absurd" and that a "few bad apples" are to blame. What he ignores are the horrors of war for both the civilian and the soldier. What he ignores are the crimes being perpetuated in every American's name. What he ignores is the damage caused by his personal quest for glory and a place in history. George Bush's illegal war has brought not just death, but with his lies and denials, George Bush has given America yet another dark stain on her short history as a nation - the consequences of which have yet to be fully realized. George Bush will tell you he is keeping America safe. I will tell you that he is bringing death and destruction to all involved that will be felt for years to come. While Bush is busy ignoring and denying war crimes - and not because such things speak ill of America, but because of his own involvement in those crimes - American troops have been learning, first-hand, what causes a soldier to cross the line between doing their duty and becoming a war criminal. But I can't live in George Bush's denial. I can't embrace his lies. You see, my husband is a soldier. He spent a year in Iraq. The question of soldiers crossing the line and becoming war criminals comes up a lot in our home. We talk about this all the time. My husband was lucky - not just because he survived, though I'm not discounting that in the least, but because when he saw other soldiers crossing that line, he told his command. He kept his humanity. My husband has never killed anyone. Odd statement that. It's not a brag, it's a sigh of relief. I'm not sure how to help others feel the emotion those words can bring. "He never killed anyone." It's like missing the collision but still being on the highway driving at top speed with no brakes. Every close call is punctuated by "this time." So we talk. "Why do some soldiers cross the line?" Because some soldiers are already crazy, and some soldiers go crazy during war. Because some soldiers just don't care and they buy the lies and the hate, and because some soldiers just go along with the crowd. Some soldiers are just so scared, they don't think. "But when it comes to war, you aren't trained to think, you're trained to react." That's not true. The catch is, if you react without thinking you'll endanger everyone (civilian and soldier alike). Those are the worse soldiers - the ones who do not think. They might survive the war but they'll lose the battle - they have become damaged humans. "What makes the difference?" The character you carry within you. That moment of choice - and you choose the right path. You never know really. Different things for different people keep them from crossing the line. Some would never think to cross it and some have to fight that struggle each and every moment. Some are just lucky. "And you?" I don't know. Some things just never cross your mind. I didn't think of why I didn't do something, I just didn't do it. "And what is your lasting memory of Iraq?" The little girl. The little girl had leprosy. He met her early on. Her disease was so advanced she was dying from non-treatment. In her entire short life, she got next to no treatment. My husband carried her dying body, along with her mother and father, through three cities seeking help for her. He couldn't find it. Iraqi doctors too scared or wanting money (to survive with) and American medics not concerned. He finally reached into his wallet, took out all his cash, then gave it to an Iraqi doctor. The doctor helped the child die comfortably because that's all they could do for her by then. That's what my husband brought home. That's what he remembers most about Iraq. He still twitches in his sleep. He still cringes when we drive near a bridge. Narrow roads make him jumpy - but all that's gotten better over time. It used to be way worse. It's the little 7-year-old girl that will haunt him forever. What makes a soldier cross that line? I don't know but some do, and they have gone to a place inside themselves I can't begin to understand. But it's the ones that don't cross that line that live with heartaches that I'll never be able to imagine, and they are the ones you and I will never hear about. Their pain doesn't make the news. Those soldiers come home from George Bush's illegal war, to the lies and the cover-ups and the denials, and will be forgotten and overlooked because our president doesn't just ignore the "bad apples" and deny the torture, he ignores and denies all of the troops. The Line of Denial Other Stuff
United We Stained
By Solly Mack
“Not in our name!” we railed, against an illegal war.
“Not in our name!” we cried, against the senseless slaughter of men, women and children for a crime they didn’t commit.
“Not in our name!” we pleaded, against torture and abuse.
But in our name, George Bush, America’s representative to the world, brought death and destruction.
United we stained.
“Not in our name!” Even still – in our name, these things were done.
In our name, America tortures, maims and kills. In our name, America “renders” people to foreign lands so they can be water-boarded and beaten - in some cases to the death. In our name, America is a war crime nation. In our name, America has been stained, stained with the blood of victims; stained by the refusal of our government to end their policy of torture and their culture of violence.
United we stained.
“Not in our name!” Even still – in our name, these things were done.
In our name, the Bush Regime has made a mockery of everything America is supposed to stand for. In our name, the Bush Regime has brought great shame upon America and her citizens. In our name, the world no longer looks to America as a beacon of hope - they now look at us with disgust and even fear. It is said that the capacity for mercy is greatest in the greatest, but what about the capacity for cruelty? Is this what it means to be “the” Super-Power? That America can break the laws that govern humanity, that America can deny the truth of her heinous crimes and still call herself the “the greatest nation on earth?” Is that what America is to you? Does such criminal hypocrisy represent America to you?
United we stained.
“Not in our name!” Even still – in our name, these things were done.
The world doesn’t see individual Americans. The world doesn’t see the divided nation we know America to truly be. They see a nation who allowed a war criminal back into office. Let me repeat that, “They see a nation who allowed a war criminal back into office.”
United we stained.
“Not in our name!” Even still – in our name, these things were done.
The stain is there and it can’t be washed away. It’s America’s stain and it is our stain. Neither time nor history can ever rewrite the truth of America’s crimes.
But it’s not yet too late to do something about it.
In our name, impeach and remove from office the Bush Regime.
In our name, demand that the guilty, all the guilty, be tried for war crimes.
In our name, deny freedom to those that have denied the freedom of others - by sending the guilty to prison.
In our name – do the right thing.
For America’s sake – do the right thing.
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
My Forums
Democratic Underground forums
and groups from my "My Forums" list.
Discussion Forums
Big Forums
More Forums
Today's Featured Forums
|
