Torturing Democracy - National Security Archive

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Documents By Chronology:

The attacks on September 11, 2001 were the catalyst for the "war on terror"– and for a legal revolution in assertions of broad powers for the Commander-in-Chief. In this chronological library of 34 documents, it is possible to chart the decision-making that led to interrogations of prisoners in U.S. custody that were "at a minimum, cruel and inhuman treatment and, at worst, torture," in the words of the former general counsel of the United States Navy, Alberto Mora.

1. Declaration of National Emergency
DATE: September 14, 2001
SUBJECT: Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks
AUTHOR: President George W. Bush
President Bush signs a military order declaring a national emergency.

2. Memo from John Yoo to Tim Flanigan
DATE: September 25, 2001
SUBJECT: The President's Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations Against Terrorist and Nations Supporting Them
AUTHOR: John Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel
This memo lays out an expansive vision of presidential power, arguing that Congress cannot "place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make."

3. Memorandum from John Yoo to David S. Kris
DATE: September 25, 2001
SUBJECT: Constitutionality of Amending Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to Change the "Purpose" Standard for Searches
AUTHOR: John Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC
In this opinion, Yoo discussed possible changes to the laws governing wiretaps for intelligence gathering, and signaled that the government's interest in keeping the nation safe following the terrorist attacks might justify warrantless searches.

4. Memorandum from John Yoo & Robert J. Delahunty to Alberto Gonzales & William J. Haynes
DATE: October 23, 2001
SUBJECT: Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities within the United States
AUTHOR: John Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC & Robert J. Delahunty, Special Counsel, OLC
The United States, it was argued, was in a “state of armed conflict.” The scale of violence, the authors added, was unprecedented and “legal and constitutional rules” governing law enforcement – such as the Fourth Amendment prohibition on "unreasonable" searches and seizures did not apply. "The President has both constitutional and statutory authority to use the armed forces in military operations, against terrorists, within the United States."

The authors added that, “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully.”

5. Memorandum from Patrick Philbin to Alberto Gonzales
DATE: November 6, 2001
SUBJECT: Legality of the Use of Military Commissions to Try Terrorists
AUTHOR: Patrick Philbin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General
A legal opinion issued just a week before President Bush signed an order establishing military commissions to try prisoners who were deemed enemy combatants. In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled – in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld – that those military commissions were inconsistent with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

6. Military Commissions Order
DATE: November 13, 2001
SUBJECT: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War on Terrorism"
AUTHOR: President George W. Bush
This military order declares the Commander-in-Chief's unilateral authority to hold prisoners in the war on terror indefinitely.

7. Memo from John Yoo to Jim Haynes
DATE: December 28, 2001
SUBJECT: Possible Habeas Jurisdiction over Aliens Held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
AUTHOR: John Yoo & Patrick Philbin, Deputy Assistant Attorneys General, Office of Legal Counsel
This memo concludes that federal district courts would lack jurisdiction to accept habeas petitions from prisoners who were held at Guantanamo.

8. Amnesty International Letter to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld
DATE: January 7, 2002
SUBJECT: N/A
AUTHOR: Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International
The president of Amnesty International writes an urgent letter concerning detainees in U.S. custody, warning against the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," noting hooding and blindfolding detainees is a violation of the Convention Against Torture.

9. Memo from John Yoo to Jim Haynes
DATE: January 9, 2002
SUBJECT: "Application of Treaties and Laws to Al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees"
AUTHOR: John Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel
In this memo, Yoo writes "We conclude that these treaties [including Geneva] do not protect members of the al Qaeda organization. We further conclude that that [sic] these treaties do not apply to the Taliban militia."

10. Memo from William Taft to John Yoo
DATE: January 11, 2002
SUBJECT: "Your Draft Memorandum of January 9th"
AUTHOR: William Taft IV, Legal Adviser to the State Department
Describing Yoo's legal analysis as "seriously flawed," the memorandum also warns that "this raises the risk of future criminal prosecution for U.S. civilian and military leadership and their advisers."

11. Memo from Donald Rumsfeld to Joint Chiefs of Staff
DATE: January 19, 2002
SUBJECT: "Status of Taliban and al Qaeda"
AUTHOR: Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Secretary Rumsfeld declares that "The United States has determined that Al Qaida and Taliban individuals under the control of the Department of Defense are not entitled to prisoner of war status for purposes of the Geneva Conventions of 1949."

12. Memo from Jay Bybee to Jim Haynes
DATE: January 22, 2002
SUBJECT: "Application of Treaties and Laws to Al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees"
AUTHOR: Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel
Jay Bybee signs off on John Yoo's January 9th draft, sending it in its final form to Pentagon General Counsel Jim Haynes and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. The memo explains that "certain deviations from the text of Geneva III may be permissible, as a matter of domestic law, if they fall within certain justifications or legal exceptions, such as those for self defense."

13. Memo from Alberto Gonzales to President Bush
DATE: January 25, 2002
SUBJECT: "Application of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War to the Conflict with al Qaeda and the Taliban"
AUTHOR: Alberto Gonzales, White House Counsel
This memo for the President outlines the benefits of opting out of the Geneva Conventions and lists the benefits of such a finding. Gonzales notes that non-compliance with Geneva "would create a reasonable basis in law that Section 2441 [War Crimes Act] does not apply, which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution."

14. Memo from Colin Powell to Alberto Gonzales
DATE: January 26, 2002
SUBJECT: Draft Decision Memorandum for the President on the Applicability of the Geneva Convention to the Conflict in Afghanistan
AUTHOR: Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Colin Powell warns of the consequences of opting out of the Geneva Convention. "It will reverse over a century of U.S. policy . . . and undermine the prosecutions of the law of war for our troops . . ." He adds, "it may provoke some individual foreign prosecutors to investigate and prosecute our officials and troops."

15. Letter from John Ashcroft to President Bush
DATE: February 1, 2002
SUBJECT: N/A
AUTHOR: John Ashcroft, Attorney General
John Ashcroft concludes that opting out of Geneva "would provide the highest assurance that no court would subsequently entertain charges that American military officers, intelligence officials, or law enforcement officials violated Geneva Convention rules relating to field conduct, detention conduct or interrogation of detainees."

16. Memo from Jay Bybee to Alberto Gonzales
DATE: February 7, 2002
SUBJECT: Status of Taliban Forces Under Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949
AUTHOR: Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel
In this memo, Jay Bybee states that the President has the power to ignore Geneva's requirement that prisoners be given "Article 5" hearings to establish their status as POWs. "The President. may use his constitutional power to interpret treaties and apply them to the facts, to make the determination that the Taliban are unlawful combatants.. We therefore conclude that there is no need to establish tribunals to determine POW status under Article 5."

17. Memo from President Bush to Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, et. al.
DATE: February 7, 2002
SUBJECT: Humane Treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees
AUTHOR: President George W. Bush
President George W. Bush declares that the United States will not be bound by the Geneva Convention's protections for prisoners of war.

18. Memo from Jay Bybee to Jim Haynes
DATE: February 26, 2002
SUBJECT: "Potential Legal Constraints Applicable to Interrogations of Persons Captured by U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan"
AUTHOR: Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel
In the wake of the capture of the "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh, questions about the rights of American citizens captured in the war on terror became a new issue. In conclusion, Bybee notes "even if the Government did in fact violate Rule 4.2 by having military lawyers interrogate represented persons (including Mr. Walker) without consent of counsel, it would not follow that the evidence obtained in that questioning would be inadmissible at trial."

19. Memorandum from Jay Bybee to William J. Haynes
DATE: March 13, 2002
SUBJECT: The President's Power as Commander in Chief to Transfer Captured Terrorists to the Control and Custody of Foreign Nations
AUTHOR: Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC
This memorandum appears to underpin the so-called "extraordinary rendition" program. It argues that the President has an unfettered right to transfer prisoners captured in the war on terror to governments around the world without regard for whether they would be tortured.

It further argues that "so long as the US does not intend for a detainee to be tortured post-transfer…no criminal liability will attach to a transfer, even if the foreign country receiving the detainee does torture him."

20. Memorandum from Patrick F. Philbin to Daniel J. Bryant
DATE: April 8, 2002
SUBJECT: Swift Justice Authorization Act
AUTHOR: Patrick Philbin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC
The author concludes that Congress cannot interfere with the President's exercise of his authority as Commander-in-Chief to control the conduct of operations during war, including his authority to promulgate rules to regulate military commissions.

21. Memorandum from Jay Bybee to John Ashcroft
DATE: June 8, 2002
SUBJECT: Determination of Enemy Belligerency and Military Detention
AUTHOR: Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC
Arguing that “the military has the legal authority to detain (Jose Padilla) as a prisoner captured during an international armed conflict,” this opinion was issued one day before Padilla – an American citizen arrested on American soil – was designated an “enemy combatant.”

The authors further concluded that the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act that had long limited the powers of the government to use the US military for law enforcement within the United States could be suspended; it “presents no statutory bar” to Padilla’s military imprisonment.

22. Memo from Jay Bybee to Alberto Gonzales
DATE: August 1, 2002
SUBJECT: "Standards for Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. 2340 - 2340A"
AUTHOR: Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel
In what has become notorious as the "torture memo," Jay Bybee signs off on an opinion authored by John Yoo. The memorandum systematically dismisses numerous U.S. federal laws, treaties and international law prohibiting the use of torture, essentially defining the term out of existence.

23. Letter from John Yoo to Alberto Gonzales
DATE: August 1, 2002
SUBJECT: N/A
AUTHOR: John Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel
John Yoo writes to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales warning of potential threats of international prosecution regarding the administration's interrogation policies. Yoo notes that "Interrogations of al Qaeda members ... cannot constitute a war crime" because of the Presidential determination that Geneva's protections do not apply.

24. Memo from Jay Bybee to the CIA
DATE: August 1, 2002
SUBJECT: Memorandum for [REDACTED] Interrogation of [REDACTED]
AUTHOR: Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel
Written by the Office of Legal Counsel's Jay Bybee and sent to the Central Intelligence Agency, this heavily redacted document was released to the ACLU in 2008. It details "advising the CIA regarding interrogation methods it may use against al Qaeda members," and in one un-redacted portion, argues that "to violate the statute, an individual must have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering. Based on the information you have provided us, we believe those carrying out these procedures would not have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering."

25. Guantanamo Trip Report
DATE: September 27, 2002
SUBJECT: Trip Report, DOD General Counsel Visit to GTMO
AUTHOR: Office of the Staff Judge Advocate
A one page summary of Pentagon General Counsel Jim Haynes, and Vice President Cheney's legal counsel David Addington's trip to Guantanamo on September 25, 2002. The report notes that their stated purpose was to "receive briefings on Intel successes, Intel challenges, Intel techniques, Intel problems and future plans for facilities."

26. Guantanamo Meeting Minutes
DATE: October 2, 2002
SUBJECT: Counter Resistance Strategy Meeting Minutes
AUTHOR: N/A
A senior CIA lawyer meets with military officials at Guantanamo, and states that laws banning torture are "basically subject to perception. If the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong." The Pentagon's top legal adviser at the camp responds, "We will need documentation to protect us." When the military's top criminal investigator reads the minutes, he forwards them to other senior personnel, noting "This looks like the kind of stuff Congressional hearings are made of." Waterboarding, for example, would "shock the conscience of any legal body looking at the results of the interrogations or possibly even the interrogators. Somebody needs to be considering how history will look back at this."

27. Memo from Major General Michael Dunlavey
DATE: October 11, 2002
SUBJECT: "Counter-Resistance Strategies"
AUTHOR: Major General Michael Dunlavey
General Michael Dunlavey sends a formal request for approval of harsh interrogation techniques based on SERE up the chain of command to General James T. Hill, commander of USSOUTHCOM. The most extreme "Category III" techniques mirror "those used in U.S. military interrogation resistance training or by other US government agencies."

28. Memo from General James T. Hill
DATE: October 25, 2002
SUBJECT: "Counter-Resistance Strategies"
AUTHOR: General James T. Hill
General James Hill, commander of USSOUTHCOM, forwards the request to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, but worries that, "I am particularly troubled by the use of implied or expressed threats of death of the detainee or his family."

29. Action Memo from Jim Haynes to Donald Rumsfeld
DATE: November 27, 2002
SUBJECT: "Counter-Resistance Techniques"
AUTHOR: William J. Haynes, General Counsel, Department of Defense
Secretary Rumfeld's General Counsel Jim Haynes, sends an "action memo" for the Secretary's signature advising Rumsfeld to approve a list of harsh interrogation techniques. On December 2, 2002 Rumsfeld signs off, and authorizes all the Category I & II techniques, including 20 hour interrogations, deprivation of light and auditory stimuli, removal of clothing, the use of phobias such as dogs, and stress positions for up to four hours. Haynes notes that Category III techniques, including waterboarding, "may be legally available" but "as a matter of policy a blanket approval. is not warranted at this time." As Secretary Rumsfeld signs the action memo, he adds a post-script "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"

30. FBI Legal Analysis
DATE: November 27, 2002
SUBJECT: Legal Analysis
AUTHOR: N/A
An FBI agent warns his superiors that several of the techniques being considered "are not permitted by the U.S. constitution" and others are "examples of coercive interrogation techniques that may violate 18 U.S.C. § 2340 (Torture Statute)."

31. Draft Guantanamo SERE SOP
DATE: December 10, 2002
SUBJECT: JTF GTMO "SERE" Interrogation Standard Operating Procedure
AUTHOR: Lt. Col. Ted Moss
This draft memo, never before released in its entirety, directly links the tactics being used at Guantanamo to the U.S. military's torture resistance training: "These tactics and techniques are used in SERE school to 'break' SERE detainees. The same tactics and techniques can be used to break real detainees during interrogation operations."

32. SERE Instructors' Guantanamo Report
DATE: January 15, 2003
SUBJECT: After Action Report Joint Task Force Guantanamo Bay (JTF-GTMO) Training Evolution
AUTHOR: John F. Rankin, SERE Training Specialist & Christopher Ross, SERE Coordinator
Responding to a "high level directive," two SERE instructors travel to Guantanamo, where they lead a class of 24 Guantanamo interrogators on the use of SERE techniques based on "Biderman's Principles." Principles include death threats, degradation, and "induced debilitation."

33. Memo from Donald Rumsfeld
DATE: January 15, 2003
SUBJECT: "Counter Resistance Techniques"
AUTHOR: Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld rescinds his authorization of the Category II and III techniques authorized by his December 2, 2002 order.

34. Memo from Donald Rumsfeld Establishing Working Group
DATE: January 15, 2003
SUBJECT: Detainee Interrogations
AUTHOR: Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Secretary Rumsfeld orders a Working Group comprised of senior military lawyers to study the legality of various interrogation techniques.

35. The JAG Memos
DATE: February 5 - March 13, 2003
SUBJECT: N/A
AUTHORS: Military Judges Advocate General
Top military lawyers in the Working Group issue a series of vigorous dissents to many of the proposed techniques being discussed.

36. Memo from John Yoo to Jim Haynes
DATE: March 14, 2003
SUBJECT: Military Interrogation of Alien Unlawful Combatants Held Outside the United States
AUTHOR: John Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel
Written at the request of DoD General Counsel William Haynes, the memo is an expansion of John Yoo's August, 2002 "torture memo" and lays out in more expansive detail what would be permitted under the administration's interrogation policy. Haynes makes it clear that the memo is the "controlling authority" for the Working Group.

37. Working Group Report
DATE: April 4, 2003
SUBJECT: "Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism"
AUTHOR: N/A
The report of the Working Group on interrogation policy is signed out. In 85-pages, it endorses a series of 35 interrogation techniques including "fear up harsh," "emotional love," "emotional hate," "hooding," and "sleep adjustment." Though it is signed out in their names, members of the Working Group were not informed of its final contents.

38. Memo from Donald Rumsfeld
DATE: April 16, 2003
SUBJECT: "Counter-Resistance Techniques in the War on Terrorism"
AUTHOR: Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Rumsfeld issues a memorandum to the commander of US Southern Command authorizing 24 of the 35 techniques for use at Guantanamo.

39. Interrogation "Wish List" E-mail
DATE: August 14, 2003
SUBJECT: N/A
AUTHOR: N/A
This memo issued by a U.S. Army military intelligence officer requests that interrogators come up with a "wish list" of interrogation techniques for use in Iraq. The memo notes, "The gloves are coming off gentleman regarding these detainees. [REDACTED] has made it clear that we want these individuals broken." Responding, another interrogator suggests, "... a baseline interrogation technique that at a minimum allows for physical contact resembling that used by SERE instructors. Sleep deprivation. Fear of dogs and snakes appear to work nicely. I firmly agree that the gloves need to come off."

40. Memo from General Sanchez
DATE: September 14, 2003
SUBJECT: "CJTF-7 Interrogation and Counter Resistance Policy"
AUTHOR: General Ricardo Sanchez, Commander of US Forces in Iraq
General Ricardo Sanchez issues guidelines for the interrogation of Iraqi detainees. The techniques he authorizes are almost a verbatim copy of those authorized for Guantanamo by Secretary Rumsfeld in April, 2003.

41. Memorandum from Jack Goldsmith to Alberto Gonzales
DATE: March 18, 2004
SUBJECT: “Protected Person” Status in Occupied Iraq under the Fourth Geneva Convention
AUTHOR: Jack L. Goldsmith III, Assistant Attorney General
Written by the new head of the Office of Legal Counsel, the opinion declared that the Geneva Conventions protected “citizens and permanent residents of Iraq,” including those “who commit hostile acts against the occupying power.” This opinion provoked the ire of the Vice President’s general counsel, David Addington, an incident described in detail in “The Terror Presidency” by Goldsmith.

42. Memorandum "for the files"
DATE: October 6, 2008
SUBJECT: John Yoo’s October 23, 2001 OLC Opinion Addressing the Domestic Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities
AUTHOR: Steven G. Bradbury, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC
This memorandum repudiates John Yoo's secret October 23, 2001 opinion asserting that the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution must give way when the President deems it necessary in defense of the nation.

43. Testimony of Spc. Brandon Neely
DATE: December 4, 2008
SUBJECT: Conditions at Guantanamo
AUTHOR: Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas
On December 4, 2008, Specialist Brandon Neely approached CSHRA with testimony he wished to contribute to the Guantánamo Testimonials Project. He believed that insufficient attention had been paid to 'the hell that went on at Camp X-Ray.'"

44. Executive Summary, Senate Armed Services Committee
DATE: December 11, 2008
SUBJECT: Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody
AUTHOR: Senate Armed Services Committee
In December, 2008, the Senate Armed Services Committee completed a classified 250-page report outlining its 18-month investigation into U.S. detention and interrogation policies. The report’s Executive Summary concludes that “(t)he abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of ‘a few bad apples’ acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees."

Senator John McCain, ranking Republican on the Committee, added, “The Committee’s report details the inexcusable link between abusive interrogation techniques used by our enemies who ignored the Geneva Conventions and interrogation policy for detainees in U.S. custody.”

45. Memorandum "for the files"
DATE: January 15, 2009
SUBJECT: Status of Certain OLC Opinions Issued in the Aftermath of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001
AUTHOR: Steven G. Bradbury, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC
Stating that “certain propositions stated in several opinions issued by the Office Legal Counsel from 2001 – 2003 respecting the allocation of authorities between the President and Congress in matters of war and national security do not reflect the current views of this Office,” this memorandum disowns the broad claims of constitutional law reflected in the OLC opinions. It does not comment upon or disown the specific policies regarding surveillance, detention and interrogation.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Editorial: When It Comes to Terror, We Can't Tell You (nytimes.com)
• Mohammed al-Qahtani and Yoo's Attempt to Ignore Torture Statute (emptywheel.firedoglake.com)
• NSA's wiretaps unlawful, judge says; The case centered on Oregon Islamic charity's phone calls (bendbulletin.com)
• Attacks on Detainee Lawyers Split Conservatives (nytimes.com)
• Daphne Eviatar: Lindsey Graham's Third Strike? (huffingtonpost.com)
• President Ford Approved Warrantless Domestic Surveillance ... in 1974 (wired.com)
• Footnote 28 (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• CIA Lawyers Discussed "Issue that Arose" Three Days Before July 13 Fax (emptywheel.firedoglake.com)
• John Yoo: Obama Is A Continuation Of Bush On Executive Powers (huffingtonpost.com)
• How the CIA Avoided Negligent Homicide Charges in the Salt Pit Killing (emptywheel.firedoglake.com)
• Henninger: Liz Cheney's Big Question (online.wsj.com)
• Yoo: President Can Nuke Countries And Congress Can't Stop Him (crooksandliars.com)

WikiLeaks

Image by consumerfriendly via Flickr

Recently released documents

29. Mar. 2010: U.S. Embassy profiles on Icelandic PM, Foreign Minister, Ambassador

Three classified U.S. profiles of key Icelandic figures. (1) Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir; (2) the then Icelandic Ambassador to the U.S., Albert Jonsson; (3) Minister of Foreign Affairs and External Trade, Ossur Skarphedinsson. The profiles form briefing documents for U.S. officials visiting Iceland. While the documents are relatively lowly classified and careful to be diplomatic, the tone and certain facts are notable; for instance, speaking on the (then) Icelandic Ambassador to the U.S: "he protested privately when explanations of alleged use of Icelandic airspace by CIA-operated planes were three weeks late in arriving and, in his view, inadequate, but worked with US diplomats to downplay the issue publicly.". Similarly, views about the figures in relation to NATO and other U.S. issues are explored.

---

26. Mar. 2010: CIA report into shoring up Afghan war support in Western Europe, 11 Mar 2010

This classified CIA analysis from March, outlines possible PR-strategies to shore up public support in Germany and France for a continued war in Afghanistan. After the dutch government fell on the issue of dutch troops in Afghanistan last month, the CIA became worried that similar events could happen in the countries that post the third and fourth largest troop contingents to the ISAF-mission. The proposed PR strategies focus on pressure points that have been identified within these countries. For France it is the sympathy of the public for Afghan refugees and women. For Germany it is the fear of the consequences of defeat (drugs, more refugees, terrorism) as well as for Germany's standing in the NATO. The memo is an recipe for the targeted manipulation of public opinion in two NATO ally countries, written by the CIA. It is classified as Confidential / No Foreign Nationals.

---

17. Mar. 2010: Update to over 40 billion euro in 28167 claims made against the Kaupthing Bank, 3 Mar 2010

This document contains an update to a list of 28167 claims, totaling over 40 billion euro, lodged against the failed Icelandic bank Kaupthing Bank hf. The document is significant because it reveals billions in cash, bonds and other property held with Kaupthing by a vast number of investors and asset hiders, including Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanly, Exista, Barclays, Commerzbank AG, etc. It was confidentially made available to claimants by the Kaupthing Winding-up committee.

---

15. Mar. 2010: U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks, 18 Mar 2008

This document is a classified (SECRET/NOFORN) 32 page U.S. counterintelligence investigation into WikiLeaks. ``The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the U.S. government are providing sensitive or classified information to WikiLeaks.org cannot be ruled out''. It concocts a plan to fatally marginalize the organization. Since WikiLeaks uses ``trust as a center of gravity by protecting the anonymity and identity of the insiders, leakers or whistleblowers'', the report recommends ``The identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could potentially damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the WikiLeaks.org Web site''. [As two years have passed since the date of the report, with no WikiLeaks' source exposed, it appears that this plan was ineffective]. As an odd justification for the plan, the report claims that ``Several foreign countries including China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the WikiLeaks.org website''. The report provides further justification by enumerating embarrassing stories broken by WikiLeaks---U.S. equipment expenditure in Iraq, probable U.S. violations of the Chemical Warfare Convention Treaty in Iraq, the battle over the Iraqi town of Fallujah and human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay.

---

15. Mar. 2010: Turks & Caicos Islands government asks for US$85M credit line from FirstCaribbean, 28 Jan 2010

Quote for a US$85 million line of credit from FirstCaribbean to the government of the Turks & Caicos Islands. The loan is to be used for refinancing existing liabilities held by FirstCaribbean & Citibank ($26M), reduce an overdraft facility ($15M), cash reserves (US$10M), pay creditors $(US$33M) and "transactions costs". The intern TCI Government is controlled by the Consultative Forum. Our source states that forum members demanded access to this document but were denied access to it.

---

15. Mar. 2010: Over 40 billion euro in 28167 claims made against the Kaupthing Bank, 23 Jan 2010

This document contains a list of 28167 claims, totaling over 40 billion euro, lodged against the failed Icelandic bank Kaupthing Bank hf. The document is significant because it reveals billions in cash, bonds and other property held with Kaupthing by a vast number of investors and asset hiders, including Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanly, Exista, Barclays, Commerzbank AG, etc. It was confidentially made available to claimants by the Kaupthing Winding-up committee.

---

15. Mar. 2010: BBC High Court Defence against Trafigura libel suit, 11 Sep 2009

This document was submitted to the UK's High Court by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in September 2009, as a Defence against a libel claim brought against them by the oil company Trafigura. A May 2009 BBC Newsnight feature suggested that 16 deaths and many other injuries were caused by the dumping in the Ivory Coast of a large quantity of toxic waste originating with Trafigura. A September 2009 UN report into the matter stated that 108,000 people were driven to seek medical attention. This Defence, which has never been previously published online, outlines in detail the evidence which the BBC believed justified its coverage. In December 2009 the BBC settled out of court amid reports that fighting the case could have cost as much as 3 million pounds. The BBC removed its original Newsnight footage and associated articles from its on-line archives. The detailed claims contained in this document were never aired publicly, and never had a chance to be tested in court. Commenting on the BBC's climbdown, John Kampfner, CEO of Index on Censorship said: "Sadly, the BBC has once again buckled in the face of authority or wealthy corporate interests. It has cut a secret deal. This is a black day for British journalism and once more strengthens our resolve to reform our unjust libel laws." Jonathan Heawood, Director of English PEN, said: "Forced to choose between a responsible broadcaster and an oil company which shipped hundreds of tons of toxic waste to a developing country, English libel law has once again allowed the wrong side to claim victory. The law is an ass and needs urgent reform." Now that this document is in the public domain, the global public will be able to make their own judgment about the strength of the BBC's case.

---

26. Feb. 2010: Icelandic Icesave offer to UK-NL, 25 Feb 2010

Confidential Feb 25 offer (conveyed around 10AM, GMT) from the Icelandic Icesave negotiation team to their British and Dutch counterparts. Iceland agreed to cover all monies associated with the UK-NL Icesave payouts, but forcefully objects to a 2.75% "profiteering" fee demanded by UK-NL over and above base interest rates.

---

26. Feb. 2010: Final UK-NL offer to the government of Iceland, 19 Feb 2010

Confidential offer from the UK, dutch Icesave negotiation teams to their Icelandic counterparts. Iceland is to cover all monies associated with the UK/NL Icesave payouts, all currency and recovery risks, base interest as well as an effective 2.75% additional fee. The 2009-2010 period is excerpted from interest charges, which the offer values at 450M euro (how the figure is derived is not specified, but it equates to approx. 5.5% PA on 4 Bil EUR). The offer appears to be designed to be leaked, as it contains rhetoric about "tax payers" and similar irrelevancies. Indeed a sentence from the offer appears in a Reuters article filed at 18:04 UTC, February 19, six hours before the confidential offer was sent to the Icelandic government. In the Reuters' article, phrases are quoted from the offer by an anonymous source, clearly a sanctioned British official, although this is not stated by Reuters. Similar "sources" selectively quoted the document to other media outlets including Channel 4 and the Guardian on February 25, 2010.

---

24. Feb. 2010: Cryptome.org takedown: Microsoft Global Criminal Compliance Handbook, 24 Feb 2010

Cryptome.org is a venerable New York based anti-secrecy site that has been publishing since 1999. On Feb 24, 2010, the site was forcibly taken down following its publication Microsoft's "Global Criminal Compliance Handbook", a confidential 22 page booklet designed for police and intelligence services. The guide provides a "menu" of information Microsoft collects on the users of its online services. Microsoft lawyers threatened Cryptome and its "printer", internet hosting provider giant Network Solutions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA was designed to protect the legitimate rights of publishers, not to conceal scandalous internal documents that were never intended for sale. Although the action is a clear abuse of the DMCA, Network Solutions, a company with extensive connections to U.S. intelligence contractors, gagged the site in its entirety. Such actions are a serious problem in the United States, where although in theory the First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, in practice, censorship has been privatized via abuse of the judicial system and corporate patronage networks.

---

24. Feb. 2010: IGES Schlussbericht Private Krankenversicherung, 25 Jan 2010

Abschlussbericht der Studie "Bedeutung von Wettbewerb im Bereich der privaten Krankenversicherungen vor dem Hintergrund der erwarteten demografischen Entwicklung", angefertigt durch das Berliner Institut fuer Gesundheits- und Sozialforschung (IGES) im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums fuer Wirtschaft (BMWI). Die Studie, datiert vom 25. Januar 2010, wurde von BMWI Ressortchef Rainer Bruederle (FDP) in den Giftschrank verbannt. Die ZIP Datei enthaelt Kurz- und Langfassung der Studie.

---

18. Feb 2010: Classified cable from US Embassy Reykjavik on Icesave dated 13 Jan 2010

This document, released by WikiLeaks on February 18th 2010 at 19:00 UTC, describes meetings between embassy chief Sam Watson (CDA) and members of the Icelandic government together with British Ambassador Ian Whiting.

Related articles by Zemanta

• WikiLeaks [del.icio.us] (wikileaks.org)
• WikiLeaks editor: why I'm excited about Iceland's plans for journalism (guardian.co.uk)
• Wikileaks in the crosshairs | Joseph Huff-Hannon (guardian.co.uk)
• Has Wikileaks finally bitten off a secret too big? (inquisitr.com)
• The US government's war on Wikileaks (boingboing.net)

Collateral Murder

Overview

5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.

Short version

Full version

The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.

After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".

Consequently, WikiLeaks has released the classified Rules of Engagement for 2006, 2007 and 2008, revealing these rules before, during, and after the killings.

WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.

WikiLeaks obtained this video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers. WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.

WikiLeaks wants to ensure that all the leaked information it receives gets the attention it deserves. In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Classified Video: US Indiscriminate Killings of Iraqis and 2 Reuters' Journalists (grantlawrence.blogspot.com)
• WikiLeaks posts 'killing' video (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Video shows deaths of two Reuters journalists in Iraq in 2007 (cnn.com)
• WikiLeaks Video Distributor Describes Pilots: 'As If They're Playing A Video Game' (multiplayerblog.mtv.com)
• Whistleblower Report: Leaked Video Shows U.S. 'Coverup' (wired.com)

FOXNews.com - Five Ways to Get More Out of Internet TV

Hulu

Popular Web site Hulu lets you watch television shows over the Internet. But there are a wealth of new alternatives to the site.

TV or PC? That's the question I find myself asking these days when I'm in the mood to watch the tube. There are still plenty of reasons to opt for the HDTV in my living room: It's got the biggest and best picture, the most theater-like audio, and -- overall -- the best selection of stuff to watch. But so many popular programs are now available online that I'm just as likely to catch them on my PC.

TV on a TV may still be the most immersive experience, but TV on a PC feels far more personal. For one thing, most of it is available on demand, on your own schedule. For another, there's an ever-expanding universe of sites, services, and software designed to make it a cinch to find both shows you know you love and ones you haven't discovered yet, and then watch them your way. Such as these five winners, all of which work on both Windows PCs and Macs and are absolutely free.

Explore a site that's half TV Guide, half TiVo. You've got favorite TV shows, old and new. And Clicker is an extremely slick way to find everything from Lost to The Dick Van Dyke Show. It covers both free sources (such as Hulu and the sites of the major networks) and paid ones (like Amazon and Netflix), and lets you search by title or performer, or browse by category. You can add entire series to playlists and get notifications by e-mail when new episodes are available, making the service a sort of virtual DVR that helps you keep on top of your faves and play catch-up when necessary.

Make any computer a media center. Boxee is a hot piece of software that lets you browse and enjoy a bevy of digital content, including paid and free video on the Web, files on your computer or home network, music, photos, and more. It's meant to appeal to folks who have connected their computers to their TV sets: You can breeze through the whole user interface with a remote control, and everything's got a sheen that looks great in high definition. But it's fun to use even if just to watch TV on your laptop or desktop monitor.

Try a better Netflix. Netflix may still be synonymous with DVDs by snail mail in little red envelopes, but its Watch Instantly feature -- which gives every Netflix subscriber unlimited on-demand access to a profusion of movies and TV shows -- is one of the best ways to spend a few bucks a month on Internet content. Oddly enough, though, finding stuff to watch is surprisingly frustrating: when you search on the Netflix site, the Watch Instantly titles are often overwhelmed by the ones that are still only available on DVD.

Enter Instantwatcher.com, an ingenious, ingeniously simple site that does one thing: help you locate items you can Watch Instantly. It shows only films and episodes available for instant viewing, and it tells you what's popular right now. Find something that catches your fancy, and one click loads it up in Netflix's player.

Capture, convert, and move streaming video. Most free TV on the Web streams to your PC, which works just fine for one-time viewing on a broadband-connected computer. But you've got to be online to watch it, and can't save items for offline viewing or move them to gadgets such as your cell phone, media player, or game console.

RealNetworks' RealPlayer SP is a clever application that changes that. Install it, and you can download and save video all over the Web, then convert it and transfer it to your other devices. Other services and software offer similar features, but I don't know of any that make the job as easy as RealPlayer. The downside? It doesn't work with copy-protected content, such as most of the shows that big-name entertainment companies make available on the Web. That still leaves a wealth of stuff to watch, including most of YouTube.

"Google" your cable or satellite box. Did I say this column was about how to get more out of Internet TV? I fibbed a little. LocateTV is a search engine that lets you track down programming that's available via your cable and satellite subscription, complete with episode guides, reminders, and other features that are reminiscent of Clicker. Tell it your zip code and provider, and it'll restrict its results to shows available locally, and will give you the channel numbers you need to tap on your remote.

LocateTV is a vastly more efficient way to navigate through thousands of hours of programming on hundreds of channels than scrolling through a never-ending programming grid on your TV. It's pretty cool when you think about it: The Internet is so powerful a force that it can make TV better even when you aren't watching TV on the Internet.

Harry McCracken blogs at Technologizer, his site about personal technology. He's also the former editor in chief of PC World. Follow him on Twitter as @harrymccracken.

Related articles by Zemanta

• New TiVo Mixes TV and Internet, but Falls Short (ptech.allthingsd.com)
• Netflix Streaming App Coming to iPad (mashable.com)
• Hulu's profitable but direction still uncertain (news.cnet.com)
• Who Cares About Hulu? Netflix Is Coming To The iPad (NFLX) (businessinsider.com)

What changed between 1991 and 2003 Iraq invasions? « Adonis Diaries

Cover via Amazon

Posted by: adonis49 on: April 4, 2010

What changed between 1991 and 2003 Iraq invasions? (Apr. 3, 2010)

The Morocco author Fatema Mernissi wrote in 1991 “Islam and democracy” after the first invasion of Iraq by President Bush the father or senior. In 2002, she wrote an introduction to the English edition. In 2010, the French editor Albin Michel asked Mernissi a fresh introduction to the updated French edition. Mernissi suggested that the English introduction should be fine and Michel replied: “Do you think that nothing happened between 2002 and 2010 that young Europeans might be interested in knowing?”

After a good night sleep Mernissi realized that among the many changes, apart that Islamic/Arabic youth are double the Western rate, one change stands out grandly: In 1991, the Arabs were terrified of Western supremacy in technology (smart bombs for example that CNN kept showing their devastating effects in collateral damages on civilians); in 2003 invasion it was clear that the American and British soldiers were the most scared of Islam virulence. Mainly, Islamic/Arab States had acquired the numeric information technology for disseminating instant news in sound, pictures, and videos and had begun rational communication discussions (jadal) on points and counter points to the benefit of every Arab/Moslems living in European States and the USA.

The unilateral monopoly in the diffusion and dissemination of information and “intelligence” was eroded: Moslems and Arabs could now enjoy 36 satellite channels broadcasting everywhere, including the most popular Al Jazeera channel that even the Western Medias watched for current and impartial news. Moslems in China were able to keep up with the rest of Islamic World events.

This information victory scared the Western civilization after it realized that the new Islamic/Arabic generations are no longer attuned to their local monopoly Medias run by dictators and monarchs: it is internet age and youth want changes and to discourse rationally. In 1991, Arabs had practically the CNN to cover the war in Iraq as direct source of information and it was biased toward showing the effects of “smart bombs” and Iraqi soldiers being shoveled alive under in the dune bunkers. Arab people got familiar with the term “collateral damages” and CNN failed to inform on the casualties. In 2003, Arab/Moslem masses had Al Jazeera channel to cover the war among 32 other satellite channels viewed for free. It is estimated that by 2012, Islamic/Arab States will have over 1,200 free channels as option for the world to watch information and discussion sessions.

For example, since 1948, Israel has devoured all Palestine and waged countless major pre-emptive wars and the Arab masses had to rely on American Medias for totally biased information; the pickiest watchers occasionally selected the BBC. Things have changed in this numeric information age. In 2003, Al Jazeera was offering as bonuses well targeted discussion panels with many foreign figures. For example, in 2001 and before the September attack on the Twin Towers, Al Jazeera ridiculed Taliban for bombing the ancient giant Buddhist idols in Bamyan (Afghanistan) while Richard Keller of the giant oil multinational UNOCAL was proclaiming “Taliban is good thing for us”

Western humanists grabbed the successes of the Islamic/Arabic satellite channels to become regular guest stars. For example, Dany Schechter of “Plunder: Investigating our economic calamity and the subprime scandal”; Adam Hochschild of “Burry the chains: Prophets and rebels in the fight to liberal”; and Chris Hedges of “War is a force that gives us meaning” are regular guests on Arab satellite channels.

Most ironic, it is the USA and a few European States that have been pressuring the obscurantist Arabic State dictators and monarchies to suppressing freedom of opinions and to shut down “controversial” Arabic channels. In France a few city mayors ordered Arabic channels banned for dissemination because the Arabs and Moslems living in these cities were hooked to Arabic channels and their mind being “poisoned” away from France patriotic indoctrination and inclusion programs.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Against Stealing Heritage Crimes (socialactions.net)
• Iraqi Christians under fire (telegraph.co.uk)
• Iraq Election Fallout May Spark New Wave Of Violence (huffingtonpost.com)
• Francis Fukuyama: What Became of the 'Freedom Agenda'? (online.wsj.com)
• Anwar Ibrahim discusses trial, Muslim issues (cnn.com)
• Dan Rather: Baghdad Blood and Baghdad Mud (Or, Whither Iraq) (huffingtonpost.com)
• Gunmen execute 25 in Iraq (msnbc.msn.com)
• A modern tragedy with heroes and villains, but still no name | Jason Burke (guardian.co.uk)

Global Voices Online » Russia: War Reporter Blogs on Trauma and Politics of the Subway Attacks

Posted By Veronica Khokhlova On 2010-04-06

^[1]

Flowers at Park Kultury subway station in Moscow - April 3, 2010 (image by Veronica Khokhlova)

Olga Allenova (LJ user allenova) is a special correspondent for the Kommersant daily, author of Chechnya is Close: War Through the Eyes of a Woman ^[2] (RUS), a collection of the 1999-2007 war reportage from Russia's North Caucasus region. In the blog post ^[3] (RUS) translated below, she writes about the March 29 subway bombings in Moscow ^[4] and the 2004 Beslan school siege ^[5], the subsequent pain and trauma, and the resulting political and media responses.

Today a friend of mine […] suddenly told me that she had been [avoiding subway and taking buses and other means of land public transportation] to work this whole past week. She works at [Kolomenskaya ^[6] subway station], and lives at [Rechnoy Vokzal ^[7]]. It takes her only 40 minutes to get from home to work. But since Tuesday, she's been leaving home two hours earlier - at 6 AM, that is - to be at the office by 9 AM.

I didn't get what she meant right away. That is, I could guess she was stressed out, like many other Muscovites, as a result of [last Monday's subway blasts]. But I didn't know her condition was that serious. And when I asked her why she was so sure something similar couldn't happen on [a bus], she started crying. And I suddenly realized that I had just told her a very cruel thing. The imaginary safety of land transportation was keeping her afloat, allowed her to continue going to work, to somehow plan her life. And now she was sobbing, saying this: “I can't live! I can't live! I can't descend into the subway! I can't look at the people!” And now I could understand her. I was in a similar state in 2004, in and after Beslan. Everything that used to give my life a sense of some universal justice had collapsed then. I couldn't sleep, couldn't eat or go out into the street. In front of my eyes stood black plastic bags, and the black women screaming above them. It's impossible to express this, the words that I'm writing now seem absurd. Even now I have a lump in my throat. I don't even remember how I got out of that. Many hours, weeks, I'd been talking to all kinds of people, friends, a priest, my husband, colleagues. It was then that I decided I wouldn't be seeing psychologists - they aren't of much help. They are just doing their job, staying outside - outside your pain.

Then a year passed, and I went to Beslan again. And again, there was this terrible hurt, and these symbols - white balloons over the school, white birds over the cemetery, an old woman saying tender words to a dove that chose to sit on her granddaughter's grave, children's faces on the cold gravestones, their teddy bears, their chocolates and cola. I'm a strong person, I know that. I've seen a lot in my 33 years. War, dirt, terrorist acts, corpses that no longer looked like people. I know that I've survived all that. But I know that deep inside I still haven't recovered from Beslan. I don't like to talk about it. I try not to think about it. Because when I do, I sob from despair, from fear. I sob because I still haven't understood why it happened. I sob the way my friend did today. She's just scared. There are many people like her now. People are scared to go inside subway. They are scared of women in headscarves, even though many of these women are Moscow natives. They are scared of their own fear. Fear is an enemy that destroys a person from within. If you are scared and you give up, the fear will take full hold of you. When I'm scared to go to the Caucasus, I realize that if I give in to fear and don't go once, I'll stop going there altogether - and I'll end up stuck at home, behind the closed doors, and I'll be scared even to pick up a phone. I know people to whom this happened.

I don't understand why they aren't discussing this problem on TV. Why there are no psychologists who would talk in prime time to people about the problems that are bothering them a lot. Not every person would agree to see a psychologist. Not everyone understands that it's a disease that requires treatment.

They'd tell me - what TV discussions do you expect when on the day of the attacks they didn't even air special newscasts on TV. I live in this country, so I'm not surprised. A year after Beslan, exactly on the anniversary, Moscow was celebrating its birthday. And when I wrote a text about it, outraged readers responded to me: “What, do you want us to forget our own birthdays, anniversaries, weddings?” My friend, by the way, was also celebrating her birthday on that day. And now she is sobbing from fear. It's just that at that time it all seemed too distant. And now it's very close. […] And I'm not surprised by how the federal channels were covering the subway attacks. If you remember Nord-Ost [theater hostage crisis of 2002 ^[8]] and the live broadcasts on [NTV ^[9]] - and what they did to NTV afterwards - it becomes clear that no live broadcasts are possible in this country under this regime. I'm not gonna get hysterical and scream about why the officials aren't showing me the truth - the way Beslan mothers did at one point. I simply despise this regime. I don't see them as authorities. For me, they are a cowardly bunch of people who couldn't even get out of the Beslan airport, but were sitting there, in the hastily set up headquarters (just in case, so that they could get out if the terrorists suddenly besiege the whole city) - at the time when the children were being shot at by tanks and grenade launchers. These same cowardly people were trying to convince the citizens whose relatives were taken hostage in the besieged Nord-Ost [theater]: “Colleagues! Calm down! All the terrorists are waiting for is for you to hold a rally on Red Square! We won't allow this!” A quote from [Valentina Matvienko ^[10]]. They, of course, couldn't allow such a blow to their image. A rally against the war in Chechnya, and right on Red Square. Against the sacred and on the sacred.

I don't expect anything from these people. I even understand why they disliked the publications in the media claiming that the Moscow attacks were acts of revenge for the Caucasus. [Boris Gryzlov] is very displeased with hearing all the time about the regime's cowardliness. And about the mistakes they had committed but wouldn't admit to. […]

But - again - this isn't what I wanted to say. I wanted to say that people need help. Professional psychological help as well as simple moral support from [family and friends]. If you have a friend who is scare to take subway, talk to him about it. Help him. Maybe you'll save him from trouble. We can only rely on ourselves, on our dear ones, on fellow citizens. Because there's no one else in this country that we can rely on.

---

Article printed from Global Voices Online: http://globalvoicesonline.org

URL to article: http://globalvoicesonline.org/2010/04/06/russia-war-reporter-blogs-on-trauma-and-politics-of-the-subway-attacks/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://globalvoicesonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/park-kultury.jpg

[2] Chechnya is Close: War Through the Eyes of a Woman: http://www.kommersant.ru/Library/books-authors.aspx?AuthorID=51

[3] the blog post: http://allenova.livejournal.com/3340.html

[4] the March 29 subway bombings in Moscow: http://globalvoicesonline.org/2010/04/05/russia-reflections-on-the-subway-bombings-and-politics/

[5] the 2004 Beslan school siege: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis

[6] Kolomenskaya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolomenskaya_%28Metro%29

[7] Rechnoy Vokzal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechnoy_Vokzal_%28Moscow_Metro%29

[8] theater hostage crisis of 2002: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis

[9] NTV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTV_%28Russia%29

[10] Valentina Matvienko: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentina_Matviyenko

Stupid Americans? Send Them to China | china/divide

by C. Custer on April 2, 2010

So says President Obama, who is working with Chinese officials to ensure that the US sends 100,000 students to China over the next four years. The number of Americans studying in China has been rising steadily on its own, but what is the point of this? That’s a vast generalization, of course, but take it from someone who spends all day every day with American kids — they know nothing about the world outside the US.

When I say “nothing” I want you to understand exactly what I mean, so here are some examples. I asked my students what language they speak in Australia. Less than half of them knew for sure, several thought “Australian”, and one of them said French. I asked them what continent China was on, and only around half of them got it right. Several of them wrote “China”. I could go on, but you’ve heard these statistics before. That’s because they are true. American students are woefully, woefully ignorant of the world outside their iPods.

As some of you know, I teach Chinese and History at a boarding school in New England, so my students tend to be privileged. They have grown up with more and better access to education than the average American. Many of them have traveled abroad with their parents before. By all accounts, they ought to be performing better than the average American on simple questions like the ones I asked them, which makes their abject failure even more worrisome. Obviously, my “study” was not at all scientific and my sample size far too small, but this is a blog, so I’m going to make the point anyway: Americans don’t know anything about other countries.

More worrisome than that, though (after all, as a teacher, isn’t that kind of my fault) is that at least among my students, I believe there is a complete lack of empathy for those outside the US’s borders, especially those in faraway places like Asia. Students act as though historical events were plot points in a movie, and their writing further betrays that conceptually speaking, they do not perceive the places we are talking about as real.

I probably don’t have to explain why that’s a problem in the long term. Now, maybe kids are all like this, or have always been like this. I wouldn’t know. But I do think I understand why Obama wants to send 100,000 Americans to China. They aren’t all going to come back speaking Chinese fluently, ready to join the CIA’s China analysts pushing desks in Virginia. But they are all going to come back with a real sense that there is a world outside the US. They’re going to come back with friends, business contacts, and experiences — real life experiences, not classroom knowledge — that turn the Sino-American policy debate into something that seems real and important. Say what you will about Obama, but at least when it comes to China, it seems like he’s not planning to throw the whole “mutual understanding” thing under the bus.

But I am extremely tired, and it’s possible this line of reasoning makes no sense, so, what do you think?

Related articles by Zemanta

• U.S. firms report less access in China (bendbulletin.com)
• Bob Dylan Blocked By China, Cancels Tour (huffingtonpost.com)
• Doing Business In China, For Better Or Worse. SFO, April 6. (chinalawblog.com)
• America's 'Mr. China' on Google's Missteps and U.S.-China Relations (dailyfinance.com)
• Mike Elk: Obama's Biggest Giveaway to Wall Street -- Chinese Currency (huffingtonpost.com)
• You: Business: Google, Rio Tinto's Trouble With China (newsweek.com)
• Commentary: China in balancing act between Iran and U.S. (cnn.com)

Weathermen, and other climate change skeptics : The New Yorker

Cover via Amazon

by Elizabeth Kolbert

Joe Bastardi, who goes by the title “expert senior forecaster” at AccuWeather, has a modest proposal. Virtually every major scientific body in the world has concluded that the planet is warming, and that greenhouse-gas emissions are the main cause. Bastardi, who holds a bachelor’s degree in meteorology, disagrees. His theory, which mixes volcanism, sunspots, and a sea-temperature trend known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, is that the earth is actually cooling. Why don’t we just wait twenty or thirty years, he proposes, and see who’s right? This is “the greatest lab experiment ever,” he said recently on Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News show.

Bastardi’s position is ridiculous (which is no doubt why he’s often asked to air it on Fox News). Yet there it was on the front page of the Times last week. Among weathermen, it turns out, views like Bastardi’s are typical. A survey released by researchers at George Mason University found that more than a quarter of television weathercasters agree with the statement “Global warming is a scam,” and nearly two-thirds believe that, if warming is occurring, it is caused “mostly by natural changes.” (The survey also found that more than eighty per cent of weathercasters don’t trust “mainstream news media sources,” though they are presumably included in this category.)

Why, with global warming, is it always one step forward, two, maybe three steps back? A year ago, it looked as if the so-called climate debate might finally be over, and the business of actually addressing the problem about to begin. In April, the Obama Administration designated CO₂ a dangerous pollutant, thus taking the first critical step toward regulating carbon emissions. The following month, the Administration announced new fuel-efficiency standards for cars. (These rules were finalized last week.) In June, the House of Representatives passed a bill, named for its co-sponsors, Edward Markey and Henry Waxman, that called for reducing emissions seventeen per cent by 2020. Speaking in September at the United Nations, the President said that a “new era” had dawned. “We understand the gravity of the climate threat,” he declared. “We are determined to act.”

Then, much like the Arctic ice cap, that “new era” started to fall to pieces. The U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen in December broke up without agreement even on a possible outline for a future treaty. A Senate version of the Markey-Waxman bill failed to materialize and, it’s now clear, won’t be materializing anytime this year. (Indeed, the one thing that seems certain not to be in a Senate energy bill is the economy-wide emissions reduction required by the House bill.) Last week, despite the Senate’s inaction, President Obama announced that he was opening huge swaths of the Atlantic and Alaskan coasts to oil drilling. The White House billed the move as part of a “comprehensive energy strategy,” a characterization that, as many commentators pointed out, made no sense, since comprehensiveness is precisely what the President’s strategy lacks. As Josh Nelson put it on the blog EnviroKnow, “Obama is either an exceptionally bad negotiator, or he actually believes in some truly awful policy ideas. Neither of these possibilities bodes well.”

Image by Oxfam International via Flickr

As lawmakers dither, public support for action melts away. In a Gallup poll taken last month, forty-eight per cent of respondents said that they believe the threat of global warming to be “generally exaggerated.” This figure was up from thirty-five per cent just two years ago. According to the same poll, only fifty-two per cent of Americans believe that “most scientists believe that global warming is occurring,” down from sixty-five per cent in 2008.

The most immediate explanation for this disturbing trend is the mess that’s come to be known as Climategate. Here the situation is the reverse of what’s going on in the troposphere: Climategate really is a hyped-up media phenomenon. Late last year, hackers broke into the computer system at the Climatic Research Unit of Britain’s University of East Anglia and posted online hundreds of private e-mails from scientists. In the e-mails, C.R.U. researchers often express irritation with their critics—the death of one detractor is described as “cheering news”—and discuss ways to dodge a slew of what they consider to be nuisance Freedom of Information requests. The e-mails were widely portrayed in the press and in the blogosphere as evidence of a conspiracy to misrepresent the data. But, as a parliamentary committee appointed to investigate the matter concluded last week, this charge is so off base that it is difficult even to respond to: “Insofar as the committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the committee considers that there is no case to answer.”

The e-mail brouhaha was followed by—and immediately confused with—another overblown controversy, about a mistake in the second volume of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, from 2007. On page 493 of the nine-hundred-and-seventy-six-page document, it is asserted, incorrectly, that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. (The report cites as a source for this erroneous information a report by the World Wildlife Fund.) The screw-up, which was soon acknowledged by the I.P.C.C. and the W.W.F., was somehow transformed by commentators into a reason to doubt everything in the three-volume assessment, including, by implication, the basic laws of thermodynamics. The “new scandal (already awarded the unimaginative name of ‘Glaciergate’) raises further challenges for a scientific theory that is steadily losing credibility,” James Heiser wrote on the Web site of the right-wing magazine New American.

No one has ever offered a plausible account of why thousands of scientists at hundreds of universities in dozens of countries would bother to engineer a climate hoax. Nor has anyone been able to explain why Mother Nature would keep playing along; despite what it might have felt like in the Northeast these past few months, globally it was one of the warmest winters on record.

The message from scientists at this point couldn’t be clearer: the world’s emissions trajectory is extremely dangerous. Goofball weathermen, Climategate, conspiracy theories—these are all a distraction from what’s really happening. Which, apparently, is what we’re looking for.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/04/12/100412taco_talk_kolbert?printable=true#ixzz0kGQIJBqV

Related articles by Zemanta

• Because, Whether an Intentional One or Not,...: (brothersjuddblog.com)
• IPCC still best source of climate change information: Environment Canada (nationalpost.com)
• NYT: 56% Trust Weathercasters More Than Gore On Global Warming (newsbusters.org)
• On Global Warming, Scientists and TV Weathercasters Are at Odds (nytimes.com)
• Unlikely rivals emerging in climate debate (bendbulletin.com)
• Meat-Eating Vs. Driving: Another Climate Change Error? (time.com)
• UK lawmakers take heat off 'Climate-gate' scientist (cnn.com)
• Don't hound the climate scientists | Rajendra Pachauri (guardian.co.uk)