Pavlov’s Dogs of War Propaganda

It turns out that James “Spider” Marks, retired Army general and military analyst, was peddling the Bush administration’s war propaganda on CNN under the guise of objective journalism for fun and profit.

Say it ain’t so, Spider.

“Shoeless” Barry McCaffrey and “Clueless” Ken Allard were also among the ranks of retired officers who cashed in on their military experience to shill young Mr. Bush’s woebegone war on the major news networks, according to a recent article in the New York Times by David Barstow. Many of the analysts who spoke with Barstow were so contrite they sounded like they were trying to put their hands on a Get Out of Hell Free card. Allard was especially amusing, seeming to want us to think that it took him five years or so to figure out that he was being duped by the Pentagon, but now that he’s on to their little charade, boy he’s hoppin’ mad about it.

It’s difficult to believe Allard could have been that dumb for that long, but keep in mind that he’s a former intelligence officer, and that the average intelligence officer is no more intelligent than the average fighter pilot, so he might have been.

A Few Bad Men

Allard, McCaffrey, Marks and many other network military analysts have been part of an extensive Pentagon information campaign designed “to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance,” according to Barstow. The effort “began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day.” Not surprisingly, “Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.”

Allard told Barstow the campaign amounted to a “sophisticated information operation.” “This was a coherent, active policy,” Allard said. He would know. If Irony were alive and with us, it would adore the fact that Allard has taught information warfare at the National Defense University, yet now wants to portray himself as a hapless victim of Pentagon spin merchants. “Night and day,” Allard said, “I felt we’d been hosed.”

Gee, Ken. Imagine how the rest of us feel.

You Can’t Panhandle the Truth

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told Barstow it is “a bit incredible” to think retired military officers could be “wound up” and turned into “puppets of the Defense Department.” Yet what the retired officers have done is no less unimaginable than the behavior of their still on active duty counterparts.

Air Force General Richard B. Myers was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2001 to 2005, and one of the administration’s most avid and visible echo chamberlains. It was during his tenure that a bitter debate arose within the Department of Defense over the ethic and legal implications of Donald Rumsfeld’s programs for planting disinformation in the news media. In the summer of 2004, then U.S. commander in Iraq General George Casey approved merging his public affairs and combat information operations into a single “strategic communications office.”

Myers issued a memorandum that warned commanders like Casey about the risks of merging public affairs with things like psychological operations and operational deception, but that didn’t forbid them from doing so. Casey and the other commanders promptly ignored the memo. Did Myers really expect his generals to follow an order he didn’t actually give? Well, he is a fighter pilot, after all, which, as we discussed earlier, makes him as dumb as an intelligence officer. Our late friend Irony might wonder, though, if Myers is so dumb, how did he manage to earn graduate degrees and certificates from Auburn University, the Air Force Command and Staff College, the Army War College and (ahem) Harvard?

Now retired, Myers seems desperate to distance himself from another disgrace of his tenure: torture. Myers has gone and gotten himself a ten-dollar lawyer named Philippe Sands who’s apparently smarter than an intelligence officer and a fighter pilot put together. Sands says Myers was “hoodwinked” by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney into allowing waterboarding and other torture techniques to be practiced at the Guantanamo Bay detention center. While JCS chairman, Myers aggressively defended the GITMO camp’s existence and the interrogation techniques practiced there. Lawyer Sands says Harvard graduate Myers was “confused” about the decisions that allowed torture to take place, and that he thought the interrogation techniques Rumsfeld approved came from a U.S. Army field manual.

I’ll bet you cash money that a copy of that field manual was laying around somewhere at the Pentagon back then, and that if Myers had really wanted to know what it said about interrogation techniques, he would have had one of his little helpers read it for him and tell him all about it. I think Myers already had a pretty good idea what it said but he didn’t want to know for sure, because then he would have had to stand up to Donald Rumsfeld, and being an Air Force fighter pilot he didn’t have the body parts it takes to do that.

Irony would be delighted to hear that following his retirement, Myers was named as the Colin Powell Chair of Character, Leadership and Ethics at National Defense University, and it would tickle Irony pink that Myers now serves on the boards of Northrup Grumman, one of America’s largest defense contracting firms, and John Deere, which makes the kind of heavy construction equipment that comes in so handy in countries that are trying to rebuild themselves after being blown to smithereens by the United States.

Where Do We Find Such Men?

A good friend who taught at the scandal plagued U.S. Naval Academy once told me that Annapolis is a place where plebe freshmen spend a summer learning a million senseless rules and then spend the next four years learning to break them without getting caught. That the Academy’s curriculum includes an honor code and a required course on ethics would satisfy Irony to no end.

Given the moral incubation the Academy provides the naval forces’ officer corps, it is little wonder that the semi-official motto of naval aviation’s fighter community is “If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying.” Toward the end of my career, the Navy launched its “Moral Sailor” program, the watchwords of which were, “Moral sailors do the right thing even when nobody’s watching.” On the deck plates, this bromide swiftly morphed into “Smart sailors only do the right thing when nobody’s watching because that’s the only time they can get away with it.”

The naval services hardly have a monopoly on moral hypocrisy. The Air Force has produced its share of generals like Richard Myers. Irony would likely say, though, that the Army broke the mold when it manufactured General David H. Petraeus.

The moment he took over as commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Petraeus began living up to the assessment of his boss, Admiral William Fallon, who reportedly called him “an a**-kissing little chickens***.” One of Petraeus’s first acts in his new billet was to meet with and re-indoctrinate the news channel military analysts like Barry McCaffrey and Spider Marks and Ken Allard.

Petraeus is a master of ends-justify-means media manipulation when it comes to promoting his mission, his agenda and himself. The most atrocious example of his showboating was the Baghdad outdoor market shopping spree he put on for pro-surge Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham in April 2007,a propaganda event made possible by more than 100 U.S. troops who provided security.

The security detail wasn’t just the standard red rump window dressing you deck out whenever VIPs show up. Real danger was involved. The Shorja Market, where Lindsey Graham bought five carpets for a dollar each, had been bombed at least six times since the summer prior to the McCain retinue’s visit. 61 people were killed there the previous February. At least 60 people, mostly women and children, died during a suicide bombing in another Baghdad market the Thursday before McCain’s party arrived. The day after McCain’s shopping excursion, 21 Shiites who worked at the Shorja Market were ambushed, tied up and shot to death.

Any way you want to slice it, Petraeus put the lives of more than 100 soldiers under his command at risk in order to convince the American public his surge was “working,” to promote John McCain’s presidential candidacy, and to grease the rails for his own retirement career in politics.

Lovely guy, huh?

Irony wouldn’t get its hopes up that America’s military can somehow reverse its trend of rewarding self-promoting yes men with its top leadership spots. The man the Army brought in from the field last November to preside over its brigadier (one-star) general selection board was one David H. Petraeus.

This was the same David H. Petraeus, Irony would add, whom young Mr. Bush just nominated to move up and take over Central Command.

Military.com | Jeff Huber | April 29, 2008

NYCLU: City Now World’s ‘Marijuana Arrest Capital’

NEW YORK (CBS/AP) - Police busted nearly 400,000 people for carrying small amounts of pot in the last decade, making New York City the world leader in marijuana arrests, civil rights advocates said Tuesday while unveiling a study criticizing the war on drugs.

Police officials — who have long argued that the low level drug arrests help drive down more serious crime — countered by saying the report’s data was flawed and its findings misleading.

The study by Queens College sociologist Harry G. Levin, titled “Marijuana Arrest Crusade,” accused police of purposely singling out minorities during the 10-year crackdown. It said that data provided by stat Division of Criminal Justice Services showed that between 1997 and 2007, 52 percent of the suspects were black, 31 percent Hispanic and only 15 percent white.

The findings are further proof that “racial profiling is a fact of life on the streets of New York,” Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told a news conference at the group’s Manhattan headquarters.

Laws were revised in the late 1970s to largely decriminalize carrying small, concealed stashes of marijuana, Levin said. But he claimed police routinely “manufacture” arrests for possession in public view — still a misdemeanor — by stopping young black men on the street and goading them into emptying their pockets.

According to the study, arrests for marijuana possession began skyrocketing in the late 1990s during the Giuliani administration — a trend that continued under Mayor Michael Bloomberg at an estimated cost of between $50 and $90 million a year. There were 39,700 arrests last year alone, according to the study.

The 2007 total makes the city “the marijuana arrest capital of the world,” Lieberman said. The study says New York deserves that title because it devotes far more resources to arresting and jailing marijuana offenders than other large cities in Europe and elsewhere. It also cites a previous analysis of FBI data showing that five of the top 10 counties with highest per-capita arrest rate were the five boroughs.

Police disputed the study’s finding that most of the misdemeanor arrests involved suspects carrying only a few grams of marijuana inside “blunts” or small plastic bags. Typically, they said, the suspects were either smoking pot in public or carrying more weight: Between about one and eight ounces.

NYPD spokesman Paul Browne called Levin an “advocate for marijuana legalization,” and accused the NYCLU of using the sociologist “to mislead the public with absurdly inflated numbers and false claims about bias.”

“If the NYCLU is for legalization, it should just say so without resorting to smears,” Browne said.

CBS/AP | Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Wright Says U.S. Government Capable Of Creating AIDS Virus

Barack Obama’s outspoken pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., defended his statements accusing the U.S. government of deliberately engineering the AIDS virus as a means of genocide during a National Press Club appearance yesterday by citing the documented history of the U.S. government’s involvement in biological warfare operations against innocent people.

Asked if he stood behind previous statements about the U.S. government deliberately creating AIDS as a means of genocide against black people, Wright responded, “”Have you read Horowitz’ book - Emerging Viruses - AIDS and Ebola?”

“Have you read Medical Apartheid,” continues Wright as he is heckled from the floor.

But when Wright starts to list documented examples of how the U.S. government had been complicit in biological warfare operations against innocent people, the reaction was noticeably mute.

“Based on the Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything,” Wright continued.

“In fact one of the responses to what Saddam Hussein had in terms of biological warfare was a non-question because all we had to do was check the sales record - we sold him those biological weapons that he was using against his own people, so any time a government can put together biological warfare to kill people and then get angry when those people use what we sold them, yes I believe we are capable,” Wright concluded.

The Tuskegee experiment was a 40-year program run by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) between 1932 and 1972 that studied the effects of syphilis on 399 poor black sharecroppers from Alabama.

The men were simply told that they had “bad blood,” were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness, and were promised free health care and other benefits if they cooperated.

The men were left to suffer as the ravages of the disease took hold and were prevented from obtaining any kind of remedy that would alleviate their pain. “As I see it,” one of the doctors involved explained, “we have no further interest in these patients until they die.”

Most of the men hoodwinked into taking part in the experiment died directly of syphilis or related complications and their wives and children were also infected.

President Bill Clinton had to publicly apologize for the Tuskegee outrage in May 1997 and he was forced to acknowledge that the program was a racist eugenics-based horror that had no scientific merit whatsoever.

As researchers shunned by the media, people like Dr. Len Horowitz and Boyd Ed Graves, have asserted, evidence to suggest that the U.S. military-industrial complex artificially engineered the AIDS virus as a means of population control is compelling.

Graves’ 1971 Special ‘HIV’ Virus Flow Chart (see it here) “provides absolute evidence of the United States’ intent to kill its own citizens and others,” according to Graves.

The flowchart coordinates over 20,000 scientific papers and fifteen years of progress reports of a secret federal virus development program which dovetails almost perfectly with the spread of AIDS from 1971 onwards.

As Jerry Mazza writes, “On July 29, 1969, only days after the Department of Defense (DOD) asked for $10 million from Congress to fund the development of a “synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired . . .” on that day, the chairman of the Republican Task Force on Earth Resources and Population, the Honorable George H. W. Bush, U.S. Representative from Texas, 7th District (1967–71), stressed the pressing need for population control activities to fend off “a growing Third World crisis.”

In the following passage taken from the Dept. of Defense request for Appropriation for 1970, HB 15090, the Pentagon’s Dr. MacArthur tells Robert L.F. Sikes of the need for a “synthetic biological agent”.

There are two things about the biological agent field I would like to mention. One is the possibility of technological surprise. Molecular biology is a field that is advancing very rapidly and eminent biologists believe that within a period of 5 to 10 years it would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired.

Mr. Sikes. Are we doing any work in that field?
Dr. MacArthur. We are not.
Mr. Sikes.. Why not? Lack of money or lack of interest?
Dr. MacArthur. Certainly not lack of interest.
Mr. Sikes. Would you provide for our records information on what would be required, what the advantages of such a program would be. the time and the cost involved?
Dr. MacArthur. We will be very happy to.

The information follows:

The dramatic progress being made in the field of molecular biology led us to investigate the relevance of this field of science to biological warfare. A small group of experts considered this matter and provided the following observations:

All biological agents up to the present time are representatives of naturally occurring disease. and are thus known by scientists throughout the world. They are easily available to qualified scientists for research. either for offensive or defensive purposes.

Within the next 5 to 10 years. it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.

A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be completed in approximately 5 years at the total cost of $10 million.

The evidence for the man-made creation of AIDS is overwhelming and too lengthy to include in one article, but Graves’ website and Mazza’s article are a good start for further research. I also recommend Horowitz’ paper, A New Theory On The Origin of AIDS.

Since Wright’s comments about AIDS and U.S. government complicity in 9/11 were picked up on by the media as an excuse to smear Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate has distanced himself from the pastor.

“Some of the comments that Rev. Wright has made offend me, and I understand why they offend the American people,” Obama told reporters yesterday. “They don’t represent my views and they don’t represent what this campaign’s about, but he’s obviously free to make those statements.”

Prison Planet | Paul Joseph Watson | Tuesday, April 29, 2008

‘Western Leaders Are War Criminals’

Former PM of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamad calls for Western leaders to be charged with war crimes

The former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, has echoed calls for Western leaders to be charged with war crimes over the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Speaking at Imperial College in London Mahathir, who was in office from 1981 to 2003, singled out US President George Bush, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Australia’s former prime minister John Howard as he wants to see them tried “in absence for war crimes committed in Iraq”.

The event was organised by the Ramadhan Foundation which is a leading British Muslim youth organisation working for peaceful co-existence and dialogue between communities.

Mohammed Shafiq, spokesman for the group said: “It was an opportunity for students to put a range of questions about war crimes and the international situation. He said that people have to stop killing each other and use arbitration, negotiation and discussion as an alternative to violence, war and killing.”

Speaking about the Iraq war, Mahathir focused on “the thousands dying, the economic war, the power of oil and how we could utilise some of these tools to have a leverage against the people who commit countries to war”, Shafiq said.

The event was incredibly well attended with over 450 people and 200 more had to be turned away.

Among the mountain of war crimes Western leaders are guilty of include:-

The illegal use of napalm and other chemical weapons

Intentionally torturing and abusing detainees

Blocking aid convoys

Killing unarmed civilians, including shooting into family homes

Western leaders are also guilty of many other violations of the Geneva Convention, the Charter of the United Nations, the Nuremberg Charter, International Law and the Constitution of the United States, including crimes against peace and crimes against humanity.

International law professors have called the attack against Iraq “a fundamental breach of international law (that) would seriously threaten the integrity of the international legal order that has been in place since the end of the Second World War.”

Mahathir Mohamad’s statement appears to be valid as the International Criminal Court defines the following as international crimes:

(a) Crimes against Peace:

Namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing:

(b) War Crimes:

Namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity:

(c) Crimes against Humanity:

Namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Global Research | Mick Meaney | Saturday, April 26, 2008

War Propaganda: Disneyland goes to war-torn Iraq

Disneyland goes to war-torn Iraq, with a multi-million dollar entertainment complex, to be built on a 50 acre lot adjacent to the Green Zone.

The American-style amusement park will feature a skateboard park, rides, a concert theatre and a museum.

Supported by the Pentagon, Los Angeles based company C3 will be developing the “Baghdad Zoo and Entertainment Experience”. The park will be designed by Ride and Show Engineering (RSE),

RSE founders Eduard Feuer and William Watkins pioneered Walt Disney’s “Imagineering”, the design and engineering division of the Walt Disney Company, before setting up RSE as a separate corporate entity.

RSE has developed numerous large scale entertainment complexes around the world including a project at the Anaheim California Disney Complex.

Ride and Show Engineering Projects

Source RSE website

The American Dream

The entertainment park is an integral part of war propaganda.

Establishing an American cultural outpost in an occupied land serves to uphold the legitimacy of the invaders and their Worldwide “cultural values”.

Most of the country’s cultural and educational infrastructure including museums, schools, universities, parks, theaters, cinemas have been destroyed and now the invaders are “helping to rebuild”.

Under this reconstruction effort, America is to donate 200,000 skateboards to Iraqi children.

Through Hollywood imagery, the Baghdad style Disneyland is intended to nurture Iraqi public opinion, to mould a pro-American view of the World.

Designs of the Baghdad Park
Copyright John March

Through the use of motion based simulations and sophisticated entertainment equipment, the harsh daily realities of poverty and military occupation are replaced by a World of fiction and fantasy.

The concept underlying Disney’s Imagineering (developed by RSE) is to “overcome the barriers between reality and dreams”.

The objective is to replace reality by a dream world.

Iraq’s daily realities of death, destruction and torture are replaced by a “Dream World Made in America”.

The imagery and motion simulations intended for Iraqi children and adolescents provide a “human face” to the American invaders.

The project constitutes a despicable form of war propaganda. It is a cover-up of the extensive war crimes committed against the Iraqi people in the name of an illusory “American Dream”.

The project will take possession of the existing Al Zawra park and Baghdad Zoo, which was ransacked when US troops entered Baghdad in April 2003.

Al Zawra park

Also in April 2003, Iraq’s archeological treasures were looted with the support of American invaders. The pillaging of Iraq’s cultural heritage was a premeditated act. The looters were protected by the invaders.

And now the looters return to Baghdad with a new museum

Psychological Warfare

The Baghdad Disneyland-style project has all the essential features of a PsyOp. It is intended to instill American values and destroy Iraqi identity.

“The people [of Iraq] need this kind of positive influence. Its going to have a huge psychological impact,” said Mr. Werner of C3.

In a cruel irony the PsyOp target group are Iraqi Children:

“There are all sorts of investment opportunities all over Iraq. But it’s not just hydrocarbons. Half the Iraqi population is under the age of 15. These kids really need something to do,” (Mr. Brinkley, quoted in The Times, April 24, 2008)

Iraq’s cultural heritage is destroyed.

The historical memory of Mesopotamia is wiped out.

US investors are to “bring badly needed fun” to the war theater.

The sponsor of project Mr. Llewellyn Werner says the time is ripe for a “fun park”:

“I think people will embrace it. They’ll see it as an opportunity for their children regardless if they’re Shia or Sunni. They’ll say their kids deserve a place to play and they’ll leave it alone.”

According to a spokesman for the US installed Iraqi regime:

“There is a shortage of entertainment in the city. Cinemas can’t open. Playgrounds can’t open. The fun park is badly needed for Baghdad. Children don’t have any opportunities to enjoy their childhood.” Mr al-Dabbagh added that entry to the park would be strictly controlled.” (Times, April 23, 2008)

Children don’t have any opportunities to enjoy their childhood?

What childhood in a land where public infrastructure including schools and hospitals have been transformed into rubble.

Imagine the road-blocks and military check points that impoverished Iraqi children will have to go through to see Mickey Mouse…

The US investment company will essentially take possession of municipal lands in an undisclosed deal reached with the Mayor of Baghdad.

At the moment the site is occupied by the Al-Zawra park and zoo, where Baghdad residents gather on weekends. The park is typically Iraqi with ponds, fountains, sculptures, and children’s playgrounds.

Everything Here is for Profit

The site is a functioning national park, which is slated for privatization. It is prime real estate for the US investors. The California company C3 plans to use the land for subsequent lucrative investments in hotels and upscale housing: “I wouldn’t be doing this if I wasn’t making money”:

Mr Werner will retain exclusive rights to housing and hotel developments, which he says will be both culturally sensitive and enormously profitable… I also have this wonderful sense that we’re doing the right thing – we’re going to employ thousands of Iraqis. But mostly everything here is for profit.”

Iraqi youth attend a concert in Al-Zawra amusement park during Eid al-Fitr, a national holiday to celebrate the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, in Baghdad October 14, 2007.

video of Al Zawra Park in 1971

Global Research | Michel Chossudovsky | Monday, April 28, 2008

Cheney lawyer claims Congress lacks power to conduct oversight over vice president

‘I trust you will not turn your back’ on respecting Congress, Democrat says

In what appears yet another effort to strengthen his position in the executive branch, the attorney for Vice President Dick Cheney said in a letter released by Congress Thursday that the Congress “lacks the constitutional power” to conduct oversight over his job.

The letter came in response to requests that Cheney’s chief of staff David Addington testify about the his role in approving harsh interrogation tactics — which some see as torture — at Guantanamo Bay.

Cheney has long battled Congress over oversight. In particular, Congress has sought, and failed, to acquire information from his office regarding his meetings with oil company executives to discuss energy policy in 2001. Cheney was also the subject of a Washington Post series which detailed his attempts to strengthen the position of the vice presidency as a bulwark against inquiry.

“As the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in Barenblatt V. United States, 460 U.S. 109 (1959), the power of Congress under the Constitution to inquire (which Members of Congress and congressional employees often refer to by the term “oversight”) is coextensive with its power to legislate,” Cheney lawyer Kathryn Wheelbarger wrote. “The power of Congress to legislate is not limitless and therefore is neither the power to inquire.

“Congress lacks the constitutional power to regulate by a law what a Vice President communicates in the performance of the Vice President’s official duties, or what a Vice President recommends that a President communicate in the President’s performance of official duties, and therefore those matters are not within the Committee’s power of inquiry,” Wheelbarger added.

Wheelbarger cites Barenblatt V. United States, 460 U.S. 109 (1959), as her justification.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers fired back in a letter Thursday questioning Wheelbarger’s rationale. He quotes a Supreme Court justice’s opinion in the case:

“The power of inquiry has been employed by Congress throughout our history, over the whole range of the national interests concerning which Congress might legislate,” wrote Supreme Court Justice John Harlan in his opinion. “…The scope of the power of inquiry, in short, is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.”

Conyers notes later in his reply that numerous White House officials have testified to committees of Congress, including White House counsels and chiefs of staff and the Chief of Staff to the Vice President.

“On October 17, 1974, I was present when President Ford himself testified before a House Judiciary subcommittee on issues relating to the Nixon pardon,” the Detroit Democrat writes. “The invitation to appear is thus based on a long tradition of comity between the branches… These principles have served our nation well, and I trust you will not turn your back on them now.”

Wheelbarger, however, has more legal weapons in her arsenal.

She says that Cheney’s chief of staff isn’t the most appropriate to ask questions of if Congress is looking to get answers regarding the President’s opinions. She suggests that Congress seek to ask questions of the Attorney General instead.

“With respect to Presidential power in wartime and related issues under U.S. and international law, the Attorney General or his designee would be the appropriate witness,” she writes.

Further, she indicates that even if Cheney’s chief of staff were to testify, little of his testimony would be of any use because he would be limited by executive and attorney client privilege. Prior to being appointed Cheney’s chief of staff, Addington was Cheney’s personal attorney.

Wheelbarger’s letter is transcribed below. It is available in PDF format here.

The letter of April 11, 2008 from the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives (”Committee request”) informed the Office of the Vice President that the Committee plans to hold a hearing on May 6 to explore: (1) “issues regarding the nature and scope of Presidential power in a time of war,” (2) “the Administration’s approach to these questions under US and international law;” and (3) “United States policies regarding interrogation of persons in the custody of the nation’s intelligence services and armed forces.” The letter invited the Chief of Staff to the Vice President to appear at the hearing.

The Committee request seeks authoritative representation on the three subjects identified in the Committee request. The Chief of Staff to the Vice President is an employee of the Vice President, and not the President, and therefore is not in a position to speak on behalf of the President. With respect to Presidential power in wartime and related issues under U.S. and international law, the Attorney General or his designee would be the appropriate witness. Regarding interrogation of persons by US intelligence agencies or the armed forces, the Director of National Intelligence or his designee and Secretary of Defense or his designee, respectively, would be the appropriate witness. You may wish to invite the appropriate subordinates of the President in lieu of your invitation to the Chief of Staff to the Vice President.

As the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in Barenblatt V. United States, 460 U.S. 109 (1959), the power of Congress under the Constitution to inquire (which Members of Congress and congressional employees often refer to by the term “oversight”) is coextensive with its power to legislate. The power of Congress to legislate is not limitless and therefore is neither the power to inquire. For example, Congress lacks the constitutional power to regulate by a law what a Vice President communicates in the performance of the Vice President’s official duties, or what a Vice President recommends that a President communicate in the President’s performance of official duties, and therefore those matters are not within the Committee’s power of inquiry. In addition to a constitutional basis for a House inquiry, a particularly committee of the House also needs jurisdiction assigned by the House for the inquiry. It would be helpful to know from the Committee the scope of the Committee’s inquiry and the legal basis for it.

Finally, even if, separate from any question of immunity from testimony, a case were to arise in which a voluntary appearance might be appropriate under the law, questions of privilege may arise with respect to information sought by questions, such as respect to privileges protecting state secrets, attorney-client communications, deliberations, and communications among Presidents, Vice Presidents, and their advisers. For example, the amount of useful information a Committee of Congress would be likely to receive from a person who served as Counsel to the Vice President and then Chief of Staff to the Vice President concerning official duties is quite limited, given that a principal function of such a person is engaging in privileged communications, such as the giving of privileged advice. Also, inquiry by a House Committee concerning the Senate function of the Vice President would not, in any event, be appropriate.

The Committee may wish to hold the Committee request in abeyance while it exhausts other sources for the kinds of information the Committee seeks, or the Committee may wish to forgo the Committee request altogether. If, however, the Committee wishes to pursue the Committee request, please advise of the time for which you have invited the Chief of Staff to the Vice President, and of the legal basis for the request under the Constitution and the House Rules. We look forward to receiving such information from the Committee to enable us to further evaluate the request and communicate with you…

This letter is provided as a matter of comity, with respect for the constitutional role of the House of Representatives, and reserving all legal authorities and privileges that may apply.

Sincerely,

Kathryn L. Wheelbarger Counsel to the Vice President

Raw Story | John Byrne | Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Officer Fatally Shoots Shoplifting Suspect

Family Tells Different Story Of Man Shot By Office

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Fla. — The family of a shoplifting suspect who was shot and killed by a Miami-Dade police officer said he was never armed and didn’t fight with the officer as police claim.

Police are investigating what led the officer to fatally shoot the man in a southwest Miami-Dade County neighborhood Sunday night. It happened at about 7 p.m. in a yard at 22315 SW 117th Court.

According to police, an officer was investigating a theft from an area mall. Police said a mall security officer directed him to the neighborhood near Southwest 224th Street and 117th Court, where the suspect ran.

When the officer followed and attempted to apprehend the suspect, a struggle ensued and the officer shot the suspect, police said. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

But family of the dead man, whom they identify as Joseph Lumpkin, tells a different story of what occurred.

“He came over this gate and he was trying to get over that gate and the police came and told him to get down, but he was stuck on the gate,” the man’s aunt, Stephanie Pope, said. “So he was telling him, ‘I’m stuck on the gate.’ And they shot him.”

His family said he was unarmed and never fought with the officer.

“They could’ve done anything but shoot to kill,” said another family member. “That’s what they did. Shoot to kill. That’s what they did. Shoot to kill, and that was just dead wrong.”

WPLG | Monday, April 28, 2008

Turn up the tunes and lose your ride

SARASOTA - Sarasota may soon become the only city in Florida to impound vehicles if the driver is cited for playing the stereo too loud.

The City Commission on Monday night approved, on first reading, a law that also would allow police to impound a car if the driver has a suspended license or leaves the scene of a minor crash — also misdemeanors.

If the proposal is approved at a second vote next month, Sarasota would join only a few Florida cities that impound vehicles for misdemeanors and the only city in the state to impound for the loud stereo violation, said Police Capt. Lucius Bonner.

“We are targeting someone who has 20-inch subwoofers you can hear a block away,” Bonner said. “People in the community deserve to not have to listen to someone blaring their stereo.”

About six cities in the Midwest impound for loud stereos. The law proposed by Sarasota Police Chief Peter Abbott is modeled after one Peoria, Ill., enacted in 2005.

Commissioner Fredd Atkins was the only commissioner who did not want to follow Peoria’s strict model.

Now, police impound only the vehicles of people involved in felony drug cases or suspected of soliciting prostitution.

Atkins said widening the scope of the impoundment program to include loud-stereo cases was a “basic invasion of human rights.”

Atkins, who yelled “No” when casting his vote, said he deals with loud music near his Newtown home, but regards the law as “biased, anti-poor and anti-people of color.”

Bonner said the proposed law is the only effective way to go after repeat offenders, drivers who have five or six noise violations stashed in the car.

Loud music, Bonner said, is a top “quality of life issue” in many neighborhoods.

Bonner countered Atkins’ charge that the police would target predominantly-black neighborhoods. “People seem to think this is directed at one area or culture,” Bonner said. “We have written” noise “tickets all over Sarasota, not just the north district.”

The commission backed away from allowing police to impound cars on the first violation. Instead, commissioners approved a version that results in a written warning for the first offense. The second time, violators are required to pay a $25 fine, plus more than $150 in fees, and the vehicle is impounded. The fine jumps to $250 for the second offense and $500 the third time. Now, the fine for a citation is $77.

Lawyer David Haenel, one of two residents to speak, said the law had several flaws. Haenel said it is excessive to impound a car for a nonmoving violation.

Officers can issue citations to drivers if the officer can hear the stereo 25 feet or more from the vehicle.

Some drivers may be unaware they have a suspended license, Haenel said. The state distinguishes between two charges: driving with a suspended license — with knowledge or without knowledge.

Commissioner Kelly Kirschner shared Atkins’ concern that the law is “heavy handed” but said “we need to empower the police and these neighborhoods that have been complaining” about noise.

Three months after the law would take effect, police would report to the City Commission with an update.

In a pamphlet sent to Sarasota’s city manager, Peoria police extol the virtues of that city’s law. The summary says the previous citation-only method was ineffective, with repeat offenders backing up the judicial system. In comparison, after impounding the cars of 217 violators in 2006, police recorded only two repeat offenders.

After Peoria expanded its vehicle impoundment program to include violations such as loud stereos and suspended licenses, the city doubled the amount of revenue collected from drivers paying fines to get their cars back.

Abbott, Sarasota’s police chief, dismissed any notion that the measure is solely intended to raise money.

Sarasota Herald-Tribune | Roger Drouin | Tuesday, April 22, 2008

McCain, Iraq War and the Threat of ‘Al Qaeda’

As he campaigns with the weight of a deeply unpopular war on his shoulders, Senator John McCain of Arizona frequently uses the shorthand “Al Qaeda” to describe the enemy in Iraq in pressing to stay the course in the war there.

“Al Qaeda is on the run, but they’re not defeated” is his standard line on how things are going in Iraq. When chiding the Democrats for wanting to withdraw troops, he has been known to warn that “Al Qaeda will then have won.” In an attack this winter on Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic front-runner, Mr. McCain went further, warning that if American forces withdrew, Al Qaeda would be “taking a country.”

Critics say that in framing the war that way at rallies or in sound bites, Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, is oversimplifying the hydra-headed nature of the insurgency in Iraq in a way that exploits the emotions that have been aroused by the name “Al Qaeda” since the Sept. 11 attacks.

There has been heated debate since the start of the war about the nature of the threat in Iraq. The Bush administration has long portrayed the fight as part of a broader battle against Islamic terrorists. Opponents of the war accuse the administration of deliberately blurring the distinction between the Sept. 11 attackers and anti-American forces in Iraq.

“The fundamental problem we face in Iraq is that there is not a single center of gravity, as in the cold war, but a whole constellation of contending forces,” said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism and counterinsurgency expert at Georgetown University. “This is much more fractionated than most people could imagine, with multiple, independent moving parts, and when you have that universe of networks, you can’t have a one-size-fits-all approach.”

The entity Mr. McCain was referring to - Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, also known as Al Qaeda in Iraq - did not exist until after the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. The most recent National Intelligence Estimates consider it the most potent offshoot of Al Qaeda proper, the group led by Osama bin Laden that is now believed to be based on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

It is a largely homegrown and loosely organized group of Sunni Arabs that, according to the official American military view that Mr. McCain endorses, is led at least in part by foreign operatives and receives fighters, financing and direction from senior Qaeda leaders.

In longer discussions on the subject, Mr. McCain often goes into greater specificity about the entities jockeying for control in Iraq. Some other analysts do not object to Mr. McCain’s portraying the insurgency (or multiple insurgencies) in Iraq as that of Al Qaeda. They say he is using a “perfectly reasonable catchall phrase” that, although it may be out of place in an academic setting, is acceptable on the campaign trail, a place that “does not lend itself to long-winded explanations of what we really are facing,” said Kenneth M. Pollack, research director at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.

But some students of the insurgency say Mr. McCain is making a dangerous generalization. “The U.S. has not been fighting Al Qaeda, it’s been fighting Iraqis,” said Juan Cole, a fierce critic of the war who is the author of “Sacred Space and Holy War: The Politics, Culture and History of Shi’ite Islam” and a professor of history at the University of Michigan. A member of Al Qaeda “is technically defined as someone who pledges fealty to Osama bin Laden and is given a terror operation to carry out. It’s kind of like the Mafia,” Mr. Cole said. “You make your bones, and you’re loyal to a capo. And I don’t know if anyone in Iraq quite fits that technical definition.”

Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is just one group, though a very lethal one, in the stew of competing Sunni insurgents, Shiite militias, Iranian-backed groups, criminal gangs and others that make up the insurgency in Iraq. That was vividly illustrated last month when the Iraqi Army’s unsuccessful effort to wrest control of Basra from the Shiite militia groups that hold sway there led to an explosion of violence.

The current situation in Iraq should properly be described as “a multifactional civil war” in which “the government is composed of rival Shia factions” and “they are embattled with an outside Shia group, the Mahdi Army,” Ira M. Lapidus, a co-author of “Islam, Politics and Social Movements” and a professor of history at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote in an e-mail message. “The Sunni forces are equally hard to assess,” he added, and “it is an open question as to whether Al Qaeda is a unified operating organization at all.”

In recent months, Mr. McCain has also been talking more about the threat posed by Iranian influence in Iraq, bringing him in line with American military officials, who in the wake of the Basra fighting seem increasingly convinced that Iranian support for Shiite groups now constitutes the primary security threat in Iraq.

Mr. McCain acknowledged those concerns on Tuesday night in an interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC when he said that “we now see the Iranians beginning to reassert an age-old Persian ambition, as you know, to increase their influence, particularly in southern Iraq.”

In talking about both threats, Mr. McCain tripped up last month on a visit to the Middle East, when he mistakenly said several times that the Iranians were training Qaeda operatives in Iran and sending them back to Iraq. Prompted by one of his traveling companions, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, Mr. McCain corrected himself, saying that he had misspoken and had meant to say Iran was training “other extremists” in Iraq.

And Mr. McCain went beyond what he usually says and what his foreign policy advisers believe during a back-and-forth with Mr. Obama at the end of February. It began when Mr. Obama said at a Democratic debate that while he intended to withdraw American forces from Iraq as rapidly as possible, he reserved the right to send troops back in “if Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq.”

Mr. McCain seized on the remark. “I have some news,” he said at a town-hall-style meeting in Tyler, Tex. “Al Qaeda is in Iraq. It’s called ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq.’ My friends, if we left, they wouldn’t be establishing a base. They’d be taking a country, and I’m not going to allow that to happen.”

In general, Mr. Obama’s views track with those of many independent analysts. In a speech last August, he criticized President Bush by saying: “The president would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of Al Qaeda’s war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates Al Qaeda in Iraq - which didn’t exist before our invasion - and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan.”

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who wants to begin withdrawing troops, has spoken of leaving some troops behind to fight Al Qaeda, deal with Sunni insurgents, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly help the Iraqi military. She warned last year of the dangers if Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda.”

Few, including Mr. McCain, expect Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a Sunni group, to take control of Shiite-dominated Iraq in the event of an American withdrawal. The situation they fear and which Mr. McCain himself sometimes fleshes out is that an American withdrawal would be celebrated as a triumph by Al Qaeda and create instability that the group could then exploit to become more powerful.

“Al Qaeda in Iraq would proclaim victory and increase its efforts to provoke sectarian tensions, pushing for a full-scale civil war that could descend into genocide and destabilize the Middle East,” Mr. McCain said this month. “Iraq would become a failed state. It could become a haven for terrorists to train and plan their operations.”

Randy Scheunemann, Mr. McCain’s senior foreign policy adviser, said during a recent conference call with reporters that in the event of an American pullout, “you might not necessarily see a single entity taking charge.” But such a withdrawal could empower Shiite militias in the south and Kurds in the north, leaving Al Qaeda “free to try to impose its will” and lead to increased sectarian violence that “would be very likely to draw neighbors into the conflict,” he said.

While “it is absolutely incorrect to describe the Sunni insurgency in Iraq as driven by Al Qaeda, you can’t properly talk about Iraq without talking about Al Qaeda in Iraq” and its importance in the larger war against terror, said Reuel M. Gerecht, a former Middle East specialist at the Central Intelligence Agency who is now a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. “Bin Laden is a pretty good judge of the history of his own organization and its future, and he looks upon Iraq as the great battle, the make-or-break issue that will decide the fate of the ummah,” the global community of Islamic faithful.

When Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior military commander in Iraq, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, Mr. McCain sought an endorsement of his focus on Al Qaeda. But General Petraeus responded with an evaluation more nuanced than the argument Mr. McCain typically offers on the campaign trail. Al Qaeda “is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was, say, 15 months ago,” he said.

In response to another of Mr. McCain’s questions, General Petraeus replied, “The area of operation of Al Qaeda has been greatly reduced in terms of controlling areas that it controlled as little as a year a half ago.”

NYT | MICHAEL COOPER and LARRY ROHTER | Saturday, April 19, 2008

Pump prices lift Shell and BP to record £7.2bn

BP and Royal Dutch Shell have reported massive increases in profits for the first three months of this year on the back of rocketing petrol prices, which are expected to hit £5 a gallon today.

BP’s pre-tax profits rose 48 per cent in the first quarter to $6.6 billion (£3.3 billion) while Shell increased its profits 12 per cent to a record $7.8 billion (£3.9 billion).

The increase has been driven by the rising oil prices, which the companies have passed on to consumers in the form of higher petrol and diesel costs.

The price of oil came close to $120 yesterday but was trading slightly lower at $118 in early trading today. Meanwhile, the price of petrol continues to rise because of supply concerns in Scotland - where the Grangemouth refinery was shut down for two days because of industrial action.

Workers have now returned to Grangemouth but it will take about three weeks to get the refinery, which produces 10 per cent of the UK’s petrol, up to full capacity again.

The Automobile Association said that petrol prices had hit a national average of £1.098, equivalent to £4.99 a gallon. Petrol is expected to pass the £5 mark, possibly as early as today.

Shell’s earnings of $7.776 billion were ahead of market estimates of $6.772 billion as production rose from 3.509 million to 3.522 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. The company raised its quarterly dividend by 11 percent to $0.40 a share.

Jason Kenney, oil analyst at ING, said: “They look like blow-away numbers.”

Shell’s total cash flow was 50 per cent up on the same period last year at $16.9 billion but this was offset by higher capital investment in new production.

Jeroen van der Veer, Shell chief executive, said: “Good operating performance, combined with increased oil and gas prices, offset the impact of downstream conditions in the first quarter.”

BP’s first quarter result of $6.6 billion also beat analyst expectations of $5.31 billion but production was flat at 3.913 million barrels of oil a day.

The company has started a restructuring programme to simplify management and cut costs to close the profitability gap on its rivals.

BP’s operations in the North Sea reported a large increase in profitability in the first quarter because of the high price of oil, rising 27 per cent to $923 million.

The company’s Russian operations also performed well, increasing revenue fourfold. TNK-BP, Russia’s third largest producer, contributed income of $744 million to the British company, up from $162 million in the same period last year.

BP will pay a dividend 31 per cent higher at 13.5 cents per share in the first quarter.

Times | David Robertson | Tuesday, April 29, 2008

« Previous Page — Next Page »