At that point, Taguba recalled, “I described a naked detainee lying on the wet floor, handcuffed, with an interrogator shoving things up his rectum, and said, ‘That’s not abuse. That’s torture.’ There was quiet.”And there is evidence of abuse that has never been made public:
. . . the first wave of materials included descriptions of the sexual humiliation of a father with his son, who were both detainees. Several of these images, including one of an Iraqi woman detainee baring her breasts, have since surfaced; others have not. (Taguba’s report noted that photographs and videos were being held by the C.I.D. because of ongoing criminal investigations and their “extremely sensitive nature.”) Taguba said that he saw “a video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomizing a female detainee.” The video was not made public in any of the subsequent court proceedings, nor has there been any public government mention of it. Such images would have added an even more inflammatory element to the outcry over Abu Ghraib. “It’s bad enough that there were photographs of Arab men wearing women’s panties,” Taguba said.Another new element in this story is that Taguba was actually prevented from investigating any one other than the privates and corporals who were guarding the prisoners -- the orders given by CIA and higher-level military, and their actions, were out-of-bounds:
Taguba eventually concluded that there was a reason for the evasions and stonewalling by Rumsfeld and his aides. At the time he filed his report, in March of 2004, Taguba said, “I knew there was C.I.A. involvement, but I was oblivious of what else was happening” in terms of covert military-intelligence operations. Later that summer, however, he learned that the C.I.A. had serious concerns about the abusive interrogation techniques that military-intelligence operatives were using on high-value detainees.And what did Bush know? Hersh says:
. . .
Abu Ghraib had opened the door on the issue of the treatment of detainees, and from the beginning the Administration feared that the publicity would expose more secret operations and practices. Shortly after September 11th, Rumsfeld, with the support of President Bush, had set up military task forces whose main target was the senior leadership of Al Qaeda. Their essential tactic was seizing and interrogating terrorists and suspected terrorists; they also had authority from the President to kill certain high-value targets on sight. The most secret task-force operations were categorized as Special Access Programs, or S.A.P.s.
. . .
The former senior intelligence official said that when the images of Abu Ghraib were published, there were some in the Pentagon and the White House who “didn’t think the photographs were that bad”—in that they put the focus on enlisted soldiers, rather than on secret task-force operations. Referring to the task-force members, he said, “Guys on the inside ask me, ‘What’s the difference between shooting a guy on the street, or in his bed, or in a prison?’ ” A Pentagon consultant on the war on terror also said that the “basic strategy was ‘prosecute the kids in the photographs but protect the big picture.’ ”
. . .
A recently retired C.I.A. officer, who served more than fifteen years in the clandestine service, told me that the task-force teams “had full authority to whack—to go in and conduct ‘executive action,’ ” the phrase for political assassination. “It was surrealistic what these guys were doing”
. . . Bush made no known effort to forcefully address the treatment of prisoners before the scandal became public, or to reëvaluate the training of military police and interrogators, or the practices of the task forces that he had authorized. Instead, Bush acquiesced in the prosecution of a few lower-level soldiers. The President’s failure to act decisively resonated through the military chain of command.But Bush wasn't just failing to deal with the abuse, he was actively cheering it on. Maybe Hersh forgot the creepiest line in the 2003 State of the Union speech, when Bush said:
All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies.Because they're dead. Sounds sorta familiar, doesn't it?
Walton: With all due respect, these are intelligent people, but I would not accept this brief from a first year law student. I believe this was put out to put pressure on this court in the public sphere to rule as you wish. [Reggie pissed]Ouch!
Robbins: These 12 scholars believe this is a close question.
Walton: If I had gotten something more of substance from them, maybe.
"the long, tiring, unproductive era of bickering between the provincial and federal governments is over"Then Scott reviews all the recent bickering:
I wonder if Flaherty really believed what he was saying when he said that now infamous line in his Budget speech. Harper still has not held a First Ministers meeting with the provinces 18 months into his “new government” mandate. Besides the aforementioned Budget squabbles, you also have several provinces objecting to Harper’s proposed piecemeal Senate “reform”. Relations between provinces and the feds were never this bad under any recent Prime Minister that I can think of - not Chretien or Martin, and not even Trudeau or Mulroney in the midst of their constitutional crises.Emphasis mine.
You’d almost think Harper and the Conservatives were doing this on purpose to try and prove that Canada is ungovernable. They’re doing a fine job of showing that right now, and most of it is of their own doing.
The finale would be at least two hours.Well, yeah, when you put it that way...
There would be a one hour clip show hosted by Bob Costas preceding it.
There would be live coverage of the cast party on the network’s local 11:00 news. It would be the lead story even if Hurricane Katrina hit that day.
There would be a little animated promo swooshing across the bottom of the screen after every commercial break of every other prime time show on that network for two weeks. A little gun would shoot a little mobster. The blood would spell out SOPRANOS.
Also, on the bottom of the screen there would be a little countdown clock for a month leading up to the finale.
The cast would be on that network’s late night talk show. If the network didn’t have a late night talk show they would create one just for this purpose.
An online contest would offer prizes if you guessed who would be whacked and when. That way you could watch the final episode and play along at home.
They would spin off Janice. Coming in September: WIDOW WITH CHILDREN.
They would insist that Tony’s mother return despite the fact that the actress who played her has died.
They would NEVER EVER EVER allow an ambiguous ending.
They would want the following changes in the last scene. Meadow should drive a Ford because that’s who is sponsoring. She should have no trouble parallel parking because Fords are easy to parallel park. The restaurant must be TGI Fridays – also a sponsor and much more colorful. The threat should come from a singing waiter wearing a straw hat, suspenders, and hundreds of fun buttons. A secondary threat should be an Arab terrorist with a scar. The Arab should pull his gun. The waiter should point his banjo (which is also a semi-automatic rifle). It looks like Tony, Carmela, and A.J. are done for it. Final commercial break. We come back just as Meadow bursts in the door with an Uzi and blows the bad guys away. Meadow, it seems, has just come from dance class and is wearing nothing but a hot leotards. Tony says, “That’s what I get for going to Fridays on Tuesday.” The family shares a laugh. Meadow sits down. Everyone hugs and declares their love for each other. Carmelo calls out, “Can we get ANOTHER waiter?” They laugh. One more hug. Long fade out, as music swells – Dino’s “Ain’t That a Kick in the Head”. Fade out. Your local news is next.
So if you’re still pissed at David Chase for the way he really ended the series just think of the alternative.
• Work to achieve with the provinces permanent changes to the equalization formula which would ensure that non-renewable natural resource revenue is removed from the equalization formula to encourage economic growth. We will ensure that no province is adversely affected from changes to the equalization formula.Here's what Harper is saying now:
Calvert said he is taking legal action against Ottawa because he feels his province is being singled out and treated unfairly under equalization . . . [because the federal government] capped the amount of funding a province can receive under the program . . . In the House of Commons question period on Wednesday, Harper seemed to mock Calvert's action.As I have said before, politicians break promises all the time, for good reasons or bad. And then it's up to the voters at the next election to decide how important it was.
"I think this debate is getting a bit to the level of the absurd. We're being accused of breaking the contract of the Atlantic Accord. Now the premier of Saskatchewan, who has no accord, is going to sue us for breaking his accord. Mr. Speaker, I don't even understand what they are saying anymore," he said.
Calvert responded angrily on CTV's Mike Duffy Live, saying the prime minister "fully understands what I'm saying -- you can be sure of that."
"Here's a prime minister who came from the West. Here's a prime minister who came directly out of that non-renewable resource sector -- the oil patch. Here's a prime minister who made a promise to the people of Saskatchewan, in fact the people across Canada, including our good friends in Atlantic Canada ... knowing full well what this promise means. He knows full well that he has betrayed the promise. He also knows we don't have an accord -- he wouldn't offer us one."
Calvert earlier said the province isn't treating its case as a broken contract. "Our approach will be constitutional," he said.
The Constitution recognizes that resources belong to the province and that equalization is a constitutional provision. Fairness must be a part of any equalization policy change, and Saskatchewan has clearly been singled out, he said.
For all his self-sacrifice, Peter MacKay has been treated by Stephen Harper like a dog. He is allowed to speak when called on in Question Period. He is allowed the treats of foreign travel. But always, always he is at the beck and call of the Prime Minister. This most recent shock of the collar - this one more request to put principle aside - should surely be the final straw. For what good is the "greater good" when it can only lead to the destruction of the Conservative Party in Atlantic Canada and an end to all for which MacKay has worked these long years? . . . It is time for Peter MacKay to make a decision. Is he a man or is he a dog?Linda McQuaig says Harper is Bush's new 'poddle'
Perhaps the most notable thing Stephen Harper did at the G-8 gathering last week was signal his intention to take over retiring British Prime Minister Tony Blair's role as George W. Bush's most helpful foreign ally.Personally, I always thought dogs had more dignity than Conservative politicians, but I could be wrong.
The implications of this go far beyond whatever embarrassment Canadians may come to feel about our Prime Minister assuming the role of what has sometimes been referred to as Bush's “poodle.”
Members of our corporate and academic elite have long pushed for Canada's Prime Minister to adopt the “poodle” role (without, of course, calling it that), arguing that closer ties with the White House will bring us more influence in U.S. corridors of power.
But as Tony Blair's experience illustrated, the influence tends to go the other way — with the lesser power helping to advance Washington's agenda, rather than Washington advancing the agenda of its finely-furred friend.
. . . the proposal from the Air Force's Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio . . . suggested, "One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior."Oohhh, getting a bunch of 19-year-old guys to want to have sex, what a breakthrough weapon that would be!.
The documents show the Air Force lab asked for $7.5 million to develop such a chemical weapon.
"The Ohio Air Force lab proposed that a bomb be developed that contained a chemical that would cause enemy soldiers to become gay, and to have their units break down because all their soldiers became irresistibly attractive to one another. . . The notion was that a chemical that would probably be pleasant in the human body in low quantities could be identified, and by virtue of either breathing or having their skin exposed to this chemical, the notion was that soldiers would become gay," explained Hammond.
They believe abortion and hormonal contraception is murder . . . banning the most effective forms of contraception will lead to more unwanted pregnancies than ever—and thus to more back alley abortions, if they get their wish and abortion is banned. Women’s lives are at stake here, and there is no more room for compromise with the majority of anti-choicers.Or these people?
Can you believe we are actually reading stuff like this?Or this guy?Although many scientists accept evolution as the best theoretical explanation for diversity in forms of life on Earth, the issue of its validity has risen again as an important issue in the current 2008 presidential campaign.It's enough to make you hang your head in despair.
With a "strike plan in place," according to U.S. military officers, and 'a neo-conservative international' targeting Iran, Sen. Joe Lieberman lets out "centrist war cries" militating for "aggressive military action" against Iran.And these guys?
“This is a very serious undertaking,” Mr. Bar-Tur said. “This is not some hokey park that we’re talking about.” . . . The park, described in promotional material as “edutainment,” would cost $150 million to $200 million. With a Galilean village as its centerpiece, one side of the park would present Old Testament stories like the Exodus; the other side would have New Testament stories like Jesus’ birth and crucifixion. The only displays in writing would be excerpts from Scripture, and parts of the park would be reserved for Bible study.Boy, doesn't that sound like fun, kids?
