KL War Crimes Tribunal pushes for Bush guilty verdict

Former US president George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are on trial in absentia, in Kuala Lumpur. They stand accused by a war crimes tribunal for their role in permitting torture techniques in Bagram, Abu Ghraib and Guantanemo.


The court heard testimony earlier from 54 year old Iraqi widow; Jameela Abbas. In January 2003, the mother of four was snatched from her home by Us troops, along with family members.

Jameela was subjected to 6 months of interrogation at Abu Graib. Her nephew was stripped and tortured in the same cell. Co-prosecutor Francis Boyle says that acts of sexual degradation during interrogations were common place.

Francis Boyle. ‘Rampant sexual abuse actually comes from an Israeli anthropologist who wrote a book saying that Arabs and Muslims are particularly susceptible so that neo conservatives under Bush junior who worked for the Pentagon, Wolfowitz, Fife and the rest of them, and who are Zionists and are close to Israel, and decided to implement it.

Court footage or preferred Nuremberg Trial footage - Nazis in uniform - American soldiers breaking down front doors of homes and conducting searches.

In a dynamic summary of its case- the prosecution drew parallels with the Nuremberg trials; Where Nazis from the high command through the field and legal levels, were found guilty. Bush regime lawyers are also on trial here.

There is a direct comparison in some instances, namely that the Nazis had used the security threat to the German people as a basis for doing what they did. And George Bush had used 9/11 as a threat to the American people.

On Thursday, the defense has the unenviable task of rebutting three days of compelling evidence against the Bush administration. Meanwhile, the victims of American occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan will be hoping a guilty verdict- may finally lead to real convictions in the future.                    >click to hear <

Prozac: The Military's Secret Weapon

U.S. combat troops are taking daily doses of antidepressants to calm nerves strained by repeated and lengthy tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. The medicines are intended not only to help troops keep their cool but also to enable the already strapped Army to preserve its most precious resource: soldiers on the front lines. Data contained in the Army's fifth Mental Health Advisory Team report indicate that, according to an anonymous survey of U.S. troops taken last fall, about 12% of combat troops in Iraq and 17% of those in Afghanistan are taking prescription antidepressants or sleeping pills to help them cope. Escalating violence in Afghanistan and the more isolated mission have driven troops to rely more on medication there than in Iraq, military officials say.                          >click to hear interview<

Conversation with Chris Hedges- Media Roots TV

Media Roots sits down for a short conversation with Chris Hedges, an American journalist, author, and war correspondent.

Hedges gives Media Roots a sobering take on American culture, relaying a grim yet powerful perspective on the current political and societal state of the US.  >click to hear conversation<

Lt. Col. Davis and others have called for public Congressional hearings to expose the truth about Afghanistan.

The Military and Congress don’t want Americans to know the truth about Afghanistan; it appears they are more interested in “saving face” than in saving the lives of those who continue to serve and the innocent civilians who are victims of conflict.
Davis states in his report:

“Senior ranking U.S. military leaders have so distorted the truth when communicating with the US Congress and American people in regards to conditions on the ground in Afghanistan that the truth has become unrecognizable.”

Read Lt. Col. Davis’ full report and watch his interview on Democracy Now.
>click here to listen<                                                                                                                                   We need an alternative to a U.S. military presence in Afghanistan to bring about stability in Afghanistan.  The U.S. mission needs to change.  Here are two steps we endorse:

    Facilitate and mediate a negotiated and comprehensive political solution that includes Afghanistan and its neighbors for regional stability that benefits all.  
    Continue to provide constructive and transparent humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people through the U.N. and other neutral international bodies, providing them with such necessities as clean water, electricity, education and basic healthcare. These steps must be carried out as we remove U.S. troops and bases.

- UFPJ Afghanistan Working Group

United for Peace & Justice

Another 10 years for our military in Afghanistan? You've got to be kidding!

On May 1st President Obama and Afghan President Karzai signed a 10 year Strategic Partnership Agreement paving the way for U.S. military involvement beyond the scheduled 2014 troop withdrawal date.   Presented as a way to end the war, the plan continues to rely on military solutions rather than the peaceful alternatives desperately needed by the Afghan people.

Meanwhile the House of Representatives is poised to vote on a FY 2013 Defense Authorization bill, which contains another $88.4 billion to continue the war in Afghanistan. 

Over the course of more than a decade, almost 2,000 U.S. troops have died and over 15,000 have been injured (many maimed for life) trying to create a stable Afghanistan at the cost of over half a trillion dollars.  In the year since Osama bin Laden was killed, 381 more soldiers have died.  The toll of death and destruction for the people of Afghanistan has been far worse.  With all the loss of blood and treasure the U.S. has not been able to stop the Taliban nor create an effective Afghan government.

The number of U.S. troops being killed or injured by Afghan security forces continues to rise.  There is no trust between members of two militaries that are supposedly allied.  How does anything positive happen under these circumstances?  

Tell President Obama, your Senators and House Representative that Americans want an end to this war and the removal of our troops Now.  Ask your House member to vote in favor of Barbara Lee’s amendment that limits the use war funding for Afghanistan “only for purposes of providing for the safe and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan of all members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense contractor personnel.” We also demand public Congressional hearings take place to investigate Lt. Col. Davis’ Afghanistan report.  Our troops and all Americans deserve the truth.>click here to send a message<

The Afghanistan Report the Pentagon Doesn't Want You to Read

RS Politics Daily
by: Michael Hastings
Courtesy of the United States Military

Earlier this week, the New York Times’ Scott Shane published a bombshell piece about Lt. Colonel Daniel Davis, a 17-year Army veteran recently returned from a second tour in Afghanistan. According to the Times, the 48-year-old Davis had written an 84-page unclassified report, as well as a classified report, offering his assessment of the decade-long war. That assessment is essentially that the war has been a disaster and the military's top brass has not leveled with the American public about just how badly it’s been going. "How many more men must die in support of a mission that is not succeeding?" Davis boldly asks in an article summarizing his views in The Armed Forces Journal.

Davis last month submitted the unclassified report –titled "Dereliction of Duty II: Senior Military Leader’s Loss of Integrity Wounds Afghan War Effort" – for an internal Army review. Such a report could then be released to the public. However, according to U.S. military officials familiar with the situation, the Pentagon is refusing to do so. Rolling Stone has now obtained a full copy of the 84-page unclassified version, which has been making the rounds within the U.S. government, including the White House. We've decided to publish it in full; it's well worth reading for yourself. It is, in my estimation, one of the most significant documents published by an active-duty officer in the past ten years.

Here is the report's damning opening lines: "Senior ranking U.S. military leaders have so distorted the truth when communicating with the U.S. Congress and American people in regards to conditions on the ground in Afghanistan that the truth has become unrecognizable. This deception has damaged America’s credibility among both our allies and enemies, severely limiting our ability to reach a political solution to the war in Afghanistan." Davis goes on to explain that everything in the report is "open source" – i.e., unclassified – information. According to Davis, the classified report, which he legally submitted to Congress, is even more devastating. "If the public had access to these classified reports they would see the dramatic gulf between what is often said in public by our senior leaders and what is actually true behind the scenes," Davis writes. "It would be illegal for me to discuss, use, or cite classified material in an open venue and thus I will not do so; I am no WikiLeaks guy Part II."

According to the Times story, Davis briefed four members of Congress and a dozen staff members and sent his reports to the Defense Department’s inspector general, and of course spoke to a New York Times reporter; only after all that did he inform his chain of command what he'd been up to. Evidently Davis's truth-telling campaign has rattled the Pentagon brass, prompting unnamed officials to retaliate by threatening a bogus investigation for "possible security violations," according to NBC News.

Although Davis's critics have tried to brush off his claims as merely the opinions of a "reservist," – as Max Boot put it – his report is full of insight, analysis, and hard data that back up each one of his claims. He details the gross failure of training the Afghan Army, the military's blurring of the lines between public affairs and "information operations" (meaning, essentially, propaganda), and the Pentagon's manipulation of the U.S. media. (He expertly contrasts senior military officials public statements with the actual reality on the ground.) Davis concludes: "It is my recommendation that the United States Congress – the House and Senate Armed Services Committees in particular – should conduct a bi-partisan investigation into the various charges of deception or dishonesty in this report and hold broad hearings as well," he writes. "These hearings need to include the very senior generals and former generals whom I refer to in this report so they can be given every chance to publicly give their version of events." In other words, put the generals under oath, and then see what story they tell.

Michael Hastings is a contributing editor to Rolling Stone and author of The Operators: The Wild and Terrifying Inside Story of America's War in Afghanistan.

The End of Poverty?

The aphorism "The poor are always with us" dates back to the New Testament, but while the phrase is still sadly apt in the 21st century, few seem to be able to explain why poverty is so widespread. Activist filmmaker Philippe Diaz examines the history and impact of economic inequality in the third world in the documentary The End of Poverty?, and makes the compelling argument that it's not an accident or simple bad luck that has created a growing underclass around the world.

Diaz traces the growth of global poverty back to colonization in the 15th century, and features interviews with a number of economists, sociologists, and historians who explain how poverty is the clear consequence of free-market economic policies that allow powerful nations to exploit poorer countries for their assets and keep money in the hands of the wealthy rather than distributing it more equitably to the people who have helped them gain their fortunes.

Diaz also explores how wealthy nations (especially the United States) seize a disproportionate share of the world's natural resources, and how this imbalance is having a dire impact on the environment as well as the economy. The End of Poverty? was an official selection at the 2008 Cannes Film Festival.                                >click to watch<