Newsweek Story Causes Violence in Afghanistan

[Drew]

I hope Newsweek and other media outlets will learn from this mistake.

[D]

Sadly they won't, cause every media outlet will always be on the look out for an exclusive scoop to sell more magazines or get higher tv ratings.

Cause of this, as long as things seem true enough they will report it just to get a leg up on the competition.

[SLCPUNK]

Yet you claim that the Bush, and his campaign, were the ones that conspired to steal the election in Florida.

The civil rights commission said that what you claimed was crap. What you claimed and what I claimed were two different things. But since you were wrong, you held onto what you were claiming (roadblocks etc) as your argument.

What I claimed was proven (blacks being turned away to vote) by the lawsuit they won, sorry.

I have shown links to this in the past.

This means that Cheney decided to wage a war to make money?? That is ridiculous, and your proof would get thrown out of court in a second.? Yet, you claim to give accusations "innocent until proven guilty."? My gosh you are stubborn.

No, but Chenney certainly stands to make money from the war. As he still holds financial ties to Halliburton. This is a no brainer.

We are not in court.

But it is a FACT that Cheney profits from this war.

You said he waged war to make money, not I.

I said that he makes money from this war, but did not say it was his sole reason.

Pay attention.

Read slower if it helps.

Proof of what?? That we went to war there and sacrificed tons of lives so that we could have a fucking base in Iraq?

Proof that we are in the middle east to establish a presence there. For a reason....OIL.

Clinton didnt take us to war, but he said the information that Bush presented was the same information he had.

Show a link.

But that is the point, he did NOT take us to war.

Always missing points...you.

Plus Clinton would not benefit from arms sales via a war (like the Bush family) and a VP who would stand to make money from rebuilding (and overcharging tax payers including yourself) Iraq.

You left that part out too.
 Therefore, your fucking bomb showing that Bush is a liar is fucking bullshit.


UK Ambassador Christopher Meyer recounting a lunch with Paul Wolfowitz, 18 March 2002

On Iraq I opened by sticking very closely to the script that you used with Condi Rice last week. We backed regime change, but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option. It would be a tough sell for us domestically, and probably tougher elsewhere in Europe. The US could go it alone if it wanted to. But if it wanted to act with partners, there had to be a strategy for building support for military action against Saddam. I then went through the need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN SCRs (Security Council Resolutions) and the critical importance of the MEPP (Middle East Peace Process) as an integral part of the anti-Saddam strategy.

BBC TV, 16th March 2005

Memo from Peter Ricketts, Foreign Office Policy Director, to Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary, March 22nd, 2002:

The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programmes, but our tolerance of them post-11 September. I am relieved that you decided to postpone publication of the unclassified document.
...
But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or chemical weapons/biological weapons fronts: the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.

US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qa'eda is so far frankly unconvincing.

To get public and Parliamentary support for military options we have to be convincing that the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for.


You cant fucking figure this out, you act like Bush made this shit out of thin air in order to attack Iraq.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

"The NSC had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

The memo further discussed the military options under consideration by the United States, along with Britain's possible role.

It quoted Hoon as saying the United States had not finalized a timeline, but that it would likely begin "30 days before the U.S. congressional elections," culminating with the actual attack in January 2003.

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the memo said.

"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

CNN.com

Certainly world affairs are too complicated for you to handle.? If you dont see the difference with Saudi Arabia and Iraq then Im not sure what to say.

You are kidding right?

 The world doesnt believe the Saudis have WMDs,

And the world (except Bush, his crooks, and idiot followers) believed Iraq had WMD either.

and the Saudi Arabia is not a dictatorship that oppresses the rest of the country.? In fact, the Saudi royals are far more moderate than the average Saudi citizen.

You are kidding right? You are in college, going to be a lawyer, and you think that Saudi Arabia is not a dictatorship?

The Saudis are a dictatorship.

If you challenge the regime or its policies you are punished severely. There is no constitution, no political parties and no legislature. The USA allows them to get away with human rights violations because of their oil, lucrative corporate deals with U.S. companies and provides American arms industries with huge weapons purchases.

That he lied or that the intelligence was wrong?

Lied.

The letter, initiated by Rep. John Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the memo "raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration. ...

"While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your administration," the letter said.

Key word: Integrity

CNN.com


Can you post a link to this memo?

See above.

He did wait.? He went to the UN, and had them pass a resolution.

There was no immediate threat from Iraq, that was the point, which you easily ignore.

Give it up, Bush's goose is cooked. Although I doubt the media will do much to call him on it. My liberal media that controls everything......

[Skeba]

How is it that this got sidetracked again...?

On the article. It is really sad to see something like this happen over a 'mistake'. The paper has a source, which is good enough juridically (sp?), and with a story like that, they're bound to sell magazines. If the allegations were 100% true, of course they should be brought out. But in this case, didn't the source take a lot of his statements back. Now this is just dangerous concidering the situation out there. I think that as much as Newsweek should think more about what it prints, the 'sources' should also think very, very carefully what they say at times like this. With the speed of information these days, these kinds of articles could do so much more damage, than moral good, that it's just scary.

Of course the newspapers will never 'learn'. They're not there to learn, they're there to make the story that sells, appearently.

[SLCPUNK]

How is it that this got sidetracked again...?

On the article. It is really sad to see something like this happen over a 'mistake'. The paper has a source, which is good enough juridically (sp?), and with a story like that, they're bound to sell magazines. If the allegations were 100% true, of course they should be brought out. But in this case, didn't the source take a lot of his statements back. Now this is just dangerous concidering the situation out there. I think that as much as Newsweek should think more about what it prints, the 'sources' should also think very, very carefully what they say at times like this. With the speed of information these days, these kinds of articles could do so much more damage, than moral good, that it's just scary.

Of course the newspapers will never 'learn'. They're not there to learn, they're there to make the story that sells, appearently.

They had a source which was a government official. Amazingly this person retracted there story after it went out. It had gone through the Pentagon and was authorized for print before hand.

So personally I think that the government leaned on Newsweek to drop this story and is using them as a scapegoat for the violence over there.

As I have stated in a previous post do not find it hard to believe that this happened in this prison. Right now there are guards being found guilty and sentenced for sexual abuse, physical and other. So I find it very easy to believe that they used ripped a Koran up to get some info out of a prisoner. Plus prisoners have claimed this happened well before this story broke.

I read an interview with a CIA op (on the FOX website) who said that when he interogates that he uses any form necessary to get info out of the detainee. Of course he was cut off quickly after saying this....imagine that.

I agree that the news is competive and people are always trying to break stories first. It can lead to faulty stories.

But this was a government official and the story was approved by the Pentagon first. So, to me, something isn't right.

[D]

interestingly enough as I was driving to my woman's house tonight, I was listening to the radio factor and a guy called in with a similiar argument as SLC.

He asked Bill O Reilly why it was ok for Bush to act on bad info and cause the loss of human lives and that Newsweek did basically the same thing.

O Reilly said that Newsweek had one anonymous source and then he rattled off all the world leaders and Bill Clinton who were sources to Bush, he told that guy that surely he could see the difference in what Newsweek did and what Bush did.

the guy actually agreed with O Reilly and then hung up, O'reilly said it was a closed case.

theres also a guy named Micheal Savage that does the Savage nation radio show, very outspoken and entertaining guy

anyone ever heard him? he's pretty extreme.

[GnRNightrain]

interestingly enough as I was driving to my woman's house tonight, I was listening to the radio factor and a guy called in with a similiar argument as SLC.

He asked Bill O Reilly why it was ok for Bush to act on bad info and cause the loss of human lives and that Newsweek did basically the same thing.

O Reilly said that Newsweek had one anonymous source and then he rattled off all the world leaders and Bill Clinton who were sources to Bush, he told that guy that surely he could see the difference in what Newsweek did and what Bush did.

the guy actually agreed with O Reilly and then hung up, O'reilly said it was a closed case.

Its basically the same discussion we are having here.  However, SLC fails to see the difference.  Until Bush is out of office he will be the one to blame of everything (including my quarter getting stuck in the soda machine yesterday, that son of a bitch).

theres also a guy named Micheal Savage that does the Savage nation radio show, very outspoken and entertaining guy

anyone ever heard him? he's pretty extreme.

Yah, he is on down here about the time when I would get out of work and school.  If you can separate the parts of his show where he is just trying to entertain, there is actually quite a bit of substance to his arguments.  Especially on illegal immigration.

[sandman]

 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

[SLCPUNK]

 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

A threat and a full war are two different things.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

Iraq was never the same after the first gulf war and less of a threat now then it was then. Plenty of people have come foward to say this. Also, war was not waged by this person. It obviously is intelligent to be aware and keep track of what these countries are doing/developing, but this was not enough to initiate a war.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

See above. Clinton did not take us to war.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Again....

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

You miss the point, as usual.

[SLCPUNK]

interestingly enough as I was driving to my woman's house tonight, I was listening to the radio factor and a guy called in with a similiar argument as SLC.

He asked Bill O Reilly why it was ok for Bush to act on bad info and cause the loss of human lives and that Newsweek did basically the same thing.

O Reilly said that Newsweek had one anonymous source and then he rattled off all the world leaders and Bill Clinton who were sources to Bush, he told that guy that surely he could see the difference in what Newsweek did and what Bush did.

the guy actually agreed with O Reilly and then hung up, O'reilly said it was a closed case.

Clinton and other world leaders are not "sources" for Bush. You should do a search for Bill O'reilly fact check online. Everyday, after O'reilly's show they will present fact checks on the crazy shit this man says. He will say anything, and nobody can call it on him right there. If he does, he cuts them off, or cuts there mic. Do a Search on "Bill O'reilly fact check" later on. The fact check is there to expose is lies and exagerations.

Look, there are members of Bush's cabinet that have come foward to say that he planned on invading Iraq before 9-11. (see above)

The new memo out says just this, it is listed above and can be found on CNN. (see above)

This is WELL BEYOND going on "faulty intelligence", this is basically creating a scenerio, a reason, to invade. Lying to the public.

So  if it's "faulty intelligence" (which world leaders and Clinton do not collect for the president-sorry) that Bush claims, or the truth which is: a made up scenerio, it is a hell of a lot worse than what newsweek did or did not do. Period.

Read my clips above and do some searching of your own.

Don't let guys like Nightrain ignore posts and links that are presented and change subjects. You are too smart for that.

Better yet, read outside of the USA for stories, they report much more honestly.

[SLCPUNK]

Flushed With Enthusiasm

Posted on Wednesday, May 18, 2005. From an interview with a twenty-one-year-old Afghan man whose name is withheld for his protection, conducted last summer in Gardez by Daniel Rothenberg, an American human-rights researcher. The interviewee, who was upset when his interrogators placed a copy of the Koran into a latrine, showed a Department of Defense discharge letter stating that he was detained from December 2002 through May 2004. Originally from Harper's Magazine, March 2005.

There were eight of us, and they took us all to Gardez. When we were taken to jail, we were masked, with some type of bag put over our heads. Our hands were tied. They poured cold water over us and then started beating us with their fists and with sticks. Sometimes they picked us up on their shoulders and then threw us down. They were all American soldiers wearing uniforms. They untied dogs and they frightened us with them. The dogs bit us and scratched us with their teeth and nails. They didn?t give us anything to eat or drink. We were held there for seven or eight nights, and each night we were tortured.

Then they took us to Bagram. When we got to Bagram, we were held in a wooden cell. We spent eight days in the small cell, and we were not allowed to talk or to sleep. There were bags on our heads, and our hands were tied. Whenever we sat down they yelled at us to stand up. They would come over and yell and then cut off our beards and our mustaches and even our eyebrows. Some people fell to the ground. When we were unable to stand, they tied our hands to an iron rod on the top of the cell. This kept us from standing normally, and we were forced to stand on our toes.

We were interrogated four times during the first eight days. The interrogations were run by Americans with Afghan translators. They asked us:

?Who is your commander??

?What do you know about the Taliban??

?What do you know about Al Qaeda??

?Who are you fighting for??

Then we were put into a cell made of chain-link fencing. There was only one person in each cell, and we were able to sit. Sometimes they would order us to get on our knees and hold our arms up, and then they would ask us all sorts of questions, some that were so strange you would not have imagined them, even in dreams:

?Have you ever seen cats having sex??

?Have you ever seen donkeys having sex??

We were really surprised by these questions.

People were tortured in Bagram. I saw many old people who couldn?t walk fast, and the Americans pushed and pulled them. They broke prisoners? arms. I saw three dead bodies. One guy came from Khost. He was in a cell next to ours, and he couldn?t stand. His legs couldn?t move. They beat him so much. Then they took him to a room on the second floor. The next morning I saw them take his body down the stairs on a stretcher. The second man was from Tora Bora, and I don?t know where the third man was from, maybe from Kandahar.

We were not so sad when we were tortured. But when they insulted Islam it was really very difficult. They would come into the cell and search our belongings. They would pick up the Holy Koran and go through it page by page like they were looking for something. We didn?t understand what they were saying while they did this. Then they would throw the Holy Koran on the ground or drop it in the latrine. This made us very upset. They searched our cells every day, sometimes many times a day.

The last time I was interrogated in Bagram they told me, ?Tell the truth. If you do not tell the truth we will take you to Guant?namo.?

I said, ?Even if you took me far up into the sky, I couldn?t tell you any more. I told you the truth the first time. I have nothing more to say.? They sent me to Guant?namo the same way I was sent to Bagram, with a bag over my head and my hands shackled.


http://www.harpers.org/TheArmyWeHave.html

[GnRNightrain]

interestingly enough as I was driving to my woman's house tonight, I was listening to the radio factor and a guy called in with a similiar argument as SLC.

He asked Bill O Reilly why it was ok for Bush to act on bad info and cause the loss of human lives and that Newsweek did basically the same thing.

O Reilly said that Newsweek had one anonymous source and then he rattled off all the world leaders and Bill Clinton who were sources to Bush, he told that guy that surely he could see the difference in what Newsweek did and what Bush did.

the guy actually agreed with O Reilly and then hung up, O'reilly said it was a closed case.

Clinton and other world leaders are not "sources" for Bush.

They are sources that he didnt make this stuff up out of thin air as you allege.  They all believe he had them, and so did many other countries.  Yet you stick to your guns that he lied and made the shit up.

There are three different viewpoints against the war, and yours is the most extreme:

Should we have went to war in hindsight?  Probably not.  That is a legit point of view.

Should we have went to war on the facts that were presented?  Maybe, maybe not.  I think either side has good arguments.  I tend to think we should have.

Did Bush lie and make up the evidence to go to war?  Only the extreme left-wing bombthrowers believe this.  The evidence is quite to the contrary.  I think even most that were against the war can see the logic here.

[GnRNightrain]

Don't let guys like Nightrain ignore posts and links that are presented and change subjects. You are too smart for that.

Better yet, read outside of the USA for stories, they report much more honestly.

Yah D, dont listen to me.  You are too smart like SLC.  You should read the foreign sources like Al Jazeera (which SLC said was more credible than everything here).  SLC looks for the source that gives his point of view and that implicates Bush for everything.

Of course, I dont have to say this.  I think even the most anti-war, anti-Bush people on this board see that SLC is far more extreme than any of them.  There are good arguments against the war and Bush (which I disagree with), and there are those that are loopy.  I think most have opinions on where SLC's arguments fall.

[sandman]

 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

A threat and a full war are two different things.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

Iraq was never the same after the first gulf war and less of a threat now then it was then. Plenty of people have come foward to say this. Also, war was not waged by this person. It obviously is intelligent to be aware and keep track of what these countries are doing/developing, but this was not enough to initiate a war.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

See above. Clinton did not take us to war.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Again....

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

You miss the point, as usual.

i didn't say anything. all i did was post a quote from a former vice president. and you say that i miss the point???

and please post a link to that o'reilly site - i'd love to take a look.

didn't know you watched his show. they say there's just as many people that hate him watching his show as there is people who like him. sort of like howard stern. 

[SLCPUNK]

Don't let guys like Nightrain ignore posts and links that are presented and change subjects. You are too smart for that.

Better yet, read outside of the USA for stories, they report much more honestly.

Yah D, dont listen to me.? You are too smart like SLC.? You should read the foreign sources like Al Jazeera (which SLC said was more credible than everything here).? SLC looks for the source that gives his point of view and that implicates Bush for everything.

Of course, I dont have to say this.? I think even the most anti-war, anti-Bush people on this board see that SLC is far more extreme than any of them.? There are good arguments against the war and Bush (which I disagree with), and there are those that are loopy.? I think most have opinions on where SLC's arguments fall.

My opinions are well laid out, posted with links and pretty much lay out the facts. You like to call them nutty, or extreme, or whatever to discredit them. That is what most people do when they lose an argument: they attack personally. Or they point the finger and say "you hate Bush no matter what". Those who are swayed by those types of statements are probably dumb enough to believe Bush is doing the right thing anyway and it does not matter.

I recieve many PMs thanking me for standing up for the truth on this board. Not lately, but plenty in the past, especially during the elections. Many people read these threads, while they do not post.

As time marches on, more unravels and new articles/proof emerges of Bush's lies and the consequences from them.

If you prefer to attack me personally by calling me conspiracy nut, or whatever, that is fine. I will continue to do what I always do, that is, post answers which I believe to be the truth, with sources. People who are intelligent enough and mature enough will read and be enlightened. Those who prefer to always be right and stubborn, will scan quickly through my posts (and links) and attack me all over again, usually off subject.

I know who I am, and I know what right and wrong is. You seem to let right and wrong be clouded by your stubborness to admit fault in something you have been defending for the last 18months or so.

[SLCPUNK]

Murder in our prison camps overseas.

Should this not be printed? Sure is a lot worse than pooping on a Koran now isn't it?

Don't want the lid to blow off the top of the middle east with stuff like this being printed.

Should be silence it? Not print it? In a time of "war", don't wanna aid the enemy do we?

Or was journalism orginally set up to be a watchdog group for those in the government?

Those in charge?

I say a big fuck you to censorship. That is what I say.

*****************

In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths -NYT

Even as the young Afghan man was dying before them, his American jailers continued to torment him.

The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.
...
At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.
...
The story of Mr. Dilawar's brutal death at the Bagram Collection Point - and that of another detainee, Habibullah, who died there six days earlier in December 2002 - emerge from a nearly 2,000-page confidential file of the Army's criminal investigation into the case, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?hp&ex=1116561600&en=8701738ac057aebe&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=login

[SLCPUNK]

Those who wage this war will be taken before the International Criminal Court at The Hague to be tried for war crimes if there are civilian casualties and possibly, crimes against humanity, if the conditions are met. The author of this article will be the proud author of the indictment. More than this, it is hereby proved that the nation in breach of Resolution 1441 is the United States of America, not Iraq.

A war against the sovereign state of Iraq without the express authorization of the UNO is illegal under international law, running against the UN Charter and against the Resolution 1441.

Under international law, Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter is clear:

?All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations?.

Article 51 spells out the right of nations to wage war:
?Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security?.

Since Iraq has neither waged an act of war against the USA or UK and since international peace and security is put at risk not by Iraq but by the USA and United Kingdom, the provisions for self-defence are not met.

Much is said by the warmongers about Resolutions 678 and 687 (1991), claiming that they allow a military attack to be launched against Iraq under the principle that their provisions were not met. However, the UNO does not enact ghost or voodoo resolutions, which are passed, acted upon, forgotten and resurrected twelve years later when the time is deemed right. If the context of the question is different, the Security Council has to deliberate a further resolution.

This was the case with 1441, which under paragraph 3, instructs Iraq to ?provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council?a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and other delivery systems?. Iraq subsequently provided a 12.000 page report.

Evidently, questions were asked about details and naturally, time is needed to reply. 12.000 pages and numerous weapons programmes involve a universe of materials and Iraq has complied consistently with the inspections teams.

Under paragraph 4, ?material breach will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below?. Material breach has not been reported to the Council, rather, the inspections teams have both stated that Iraq is cooperating and that they need more time to carry out their duties determined under Resolution 1441.

The ?immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access? guaranteed under Paragraph 5 of 1441 has been fulfilled by Iraq. Paragraph 10 ?Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates?.

The United States of America has not been forthcoming with this material, despite its many insinuations. There was even a ridiculous report presented to the UN Security Council by Colin Powell, who referred to foreign intelligence reports which turned out to be no more than a 1991 thesis copied from the internet by the British Intelligence Services and vague references, picked up by the biased western media, about links between Saddam Hussein?s Ba?ath regime and Al-Qaeda, never proved because they are untrue.

Under Paragraph 10 of Resolution 1441, the United States of America is hereby challenged to produce the documentation behind these allegations. Should this documentation not be produced, the USA is guilty of lying to the UNSC or is in breach of its provisions.

Under Paragraph 12, should the provisions of Paragraph 4 (failure to comply and cooperate fully with this resolution will constitute material breach, which is not the case) or Paragraph 11 (interference with the inspection process or failure to comply with the disarmament process, also not the case), not be fulfilled, the UNSC ?decides to convene immediately?to consider the situation and the need for full compliance of all of the relevant council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security?.

Fundamentally, Paragraph 13 continues, that ?In that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations?.

Not guilty. This has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and under the fundamental elements of international law, fundamental equality in human rights is a basic, guaranteed principle. What is evident here is that the jury has been tampered with (veiled threats about suspension of aid programmes and economic consequences if members of the UNSC voted against the USA), that the UN Charter and International Law have not been followed and that if there is military action in which any civilian dies, the US and British governments will be liable under international law for prosecution for war crimes.

I personally shall make every effort to this end here on Pravda.Ru to see that international law is adhered to and that the world is ruled on principles of multi-lateralism, equality of rights among nations, diplomacy, discussion and dialogue.

Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY
PRAVDA.Ru

http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/index.html

[GnRNightrain]

I dont see how your article has anything to do with the topic?  I only see it as another anti-american article on your behalf?  Start another Iraq thread if you wish, instead of sucking all of us back into that subject.  That debate is 2 years old.

[GnRNightrain]

http://www.anncoulter.org/

NEWSWEEK DISSEMBLED, MUSLIMS DISMEMBERED!
May 18, 2005


When ace reporter Michael Isikoff had the scoop of the decade, a thoroughly sourced story about the president of the United States having an affair with an intern and then pressuring her to lie about it under oath, Newsweek decided not to run the story. Matt Drudge scooped Newsweek, followed by The Washington Post.

When Isikoff had a detailed account of Kathleen Willey's nasty sexual encounter with the president in the Oval Office, backed up with eyewitness and documentary evidence, Newsweek decided not to run it. Again, Matt Drudge got the story.

When Isikoff was the first with detailed reporting on Paula Jones' accusations against a sitting president, Isikoff's then-employer The Washington Post ? which owns Newsweek ? decided not to run it. The American Spectator got the story, followed by the Los Angeles Times.

So apparently it's possible for Michael Isikoff to have a story that actually is true, but for his editors not to run it.

Why no pause for reflection when Isikoff had a story about American interrogators at Guantanamo flushing the Quran down the toilet? Why not sit on this story for, say, even half as long as NBC News sat on Lisa Meyers' highly credible account of Bill Clinton raping Juanita Broaddrick?

Newsweek seems to have very different responses to the same reporter's scoops. Who's deciding which of Isikoff's stories to run and which to hold? I note that the ones that Matt Drudge runs have turned out to be more accurate ? and interesting! ? than the ones Newsweek runs. Maybe Newsweek should start running everything past Matt Drudge.

Somehow Newsweek missed the story a few weeks ago about Saudi Arabia arresting 40 Christians for "trying to spread their poisonous religious beliefs." But give the American media a story about American interrogators defacing the Quran, and journalists are so appalled there's no time for fact-checking ? before they dash off to see the latest exhibition of "Piss Christ."

Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas justified Newsweek's decision to run the incendiary anti-U.S. story about the Quran, saying that "similar reports from released detainees" had already run in the foreign press ? "and in the Arab news agency al-Jazeera."

Is there an adult on the editorial board of Newsweek? Al-Jazeera also broadcast a TV miniseries last year based on the "Protocols of the Elders Of Zion." (I didn't see it, but I hear James Brolin was great!) Al-Jazeera has run programs on the intriguing question, "Is Zionism worse than Nazism?" (Take a wild guess where the consensus was on this one.) It runs viewer comments about Jews being descended from pigs and apes. How about that for a Newsweek cover story, Evan? You're covered ? al-Jazeera has already run similar reports!

Ironically, among the reasons Newsweek gave for killing Isikoff's Lewinsky bombshell was that Evan Thomas was worried someone might get hurt. It seems that Lewinsky could be heard on tape saying that if the story came out, "I'll (expletive) kill myself."

But Newsweek couldn't wait a moment to run a story that predictably ginned up Islamic savages into murderous riots in Afghanistan, leaving hundreds injured and 16 dead. Who could have seen that coming? These are people who stone rape victims to death because the family "honor" has been violated and who fly planes into American skyscrapers because ? wait, why did they do that again?

Come to think of it, I'm not sure it's entirely fair to hold Newsweek responsible for inciting violence among people who view ancient Buddhist statues as outrageous provocation ? though I was really looking forward to finally agreeing with Islamic loonies about something. (Bumper sticker idea for liberals: News magazines don't kill people, Muslims do.) But then I wouldn't have sat on the story of the decade because of the empty threats of a drama queen gas-bagging with her friend on the telephone between spoonfuls of Haagen-Dazs.

No matter how I look at it, I can't grasp the editorial judgment that kills Isikoff's stories about a sitting president molesting the help and obstructing justice, while running Isikoff's not particularly newsworthy (or well-sourced) story about Americans desecrating a Quran at Guantanamo.

Even if it were true, why not sit on it? There are a lot of reasons the media withhold even true facts from readers. These include:

? A drama queen nitwit exclaimed she'd kill herself. (Evan Thomas' reason for holding the Lewinsky story.)

? The need for "more independent reporting." (Newsweek President Richard Smith explaining why Newsweek sat on the Lewinsky story even though the magazine had Lewinsky on tape describing the affair.)

? "We were in Havana." (ABC president David Westin explaining why "Nightline" held the Lewinsky story.)

? Unavailable for comment. (Michael Oreskes, New York Times Washington bureau chief, in response to why, the day The Washington Post ran the Lewinsky story, the Times ran a staged photo of Clinton meeting with the Israeli president on its front page.)

? Protecting the privacy of an alleged rape victim even when the accusation turns out to be false.

? Protecting an accused rapist even when the accusation turns out to be true if the perp is a Democratic president most journalists voted for.

? Protecting a reporter's source.

How about the media adding to the list of reasons not to run a news item: "Protecting the national interest"? If journalists don't like the ring of that, how about this one: "Protecting ourselves before the American people rise up and lynch us for our relentless anti-American stories."

[SLCPUNK]

Molly Ivins -- Newsweek Gitmo Story

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The straight poop, from one solid ol' gal: Molly Ivins

AUSTIN, Texas -- As Riley used to say on an ancient television sitcom, "This is a revoltin' development." There seems to be a bit of a campaign on the right to blame Newsweek for the anti-American riots in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other Islamic countries.

Uh, people, I hate to tell you this, but the story about Americans abusing the Koran in order to enrage prisoners has been out there for quite some time. The first mention I found of it is March 17, 2004, when the Independent of London interviewed the first British citizen released from Guantanamo Bay. The prisoner said he had been physically beaten but did not consider that as bad as the psychological torture, which he described extensively. Jamal al-Harith, a computer programmer from Manchester, said 70 percent of the inmates had gone on a hunger strike after a guard kicked a copy of the Koran. The strike was ended by force-feeding.

Then came the report, widely covered in American media last December, by the International Red Cross concerning torture at Gitmo. I wrote at the time: "In the name of Jesus Christ Almighty, why are people representing our government, paid by us, writing filth on the Korans of helpless prisoners? Is this American? Is this Christian? What are our moral values? Where are the clergymen on this? Speak up, speak out."

The reports kept coming: Dec. 30, 2004, "Released Moroccan Guantanamo Detainee Tells Islamist Paper of His Ordeal," reported the Financial Times. "They watched you each time you went to the toilet; the American soldiers used to tear up copies of Koran and throw them in the toilet. ..." said the released prisoner.

On Jan. 9, 2005, Andrew Sullivan, writing in The Sunday Times of London, said: "We now know a great deal about what has gone on in U.S. detention facilities under the Bush administration. Several government and Red Cross reports detail the way many detainees have been treated. We know for certain that the United States has tortured five inmates to death. We know that 23 others have died in U.S. custody under suspicious circumstances. We know that torture has been practiced by almost every branch of the U.S. military in sites all over the world -- from Abu Ghraib to Tikrit, Mosul, Basra, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.

"We know that no incidents of abuse have been reported in regular internment facilities and that hundreds have occurred in prisons geared to getting intelligence. We know that thousands of men, women and children were grabbed almost at random from their homes in Baghdad, taken to Saddam's former torture palace and subjected to abuse, murder, beatings, semi-crucifixions and rape.

"All of this is detailed in the official reports. What has been perpetrated in secret prisons to 'ghost detainees' hidden from Red Cross inspection, we do not know. We may never know.

"This is America? While White House lawyers were arguing about what separates torture from legitimate 'coercive interrogation techniques,' the following was taking place: Prisoners were hanged for hours or days from bars or doors in semi-crucifixions; they were repeatedly beaten unconscious, woken and then beaten again for days on end; they were sodomized; they were urinated on, kicked in the head, had their ribs broken, and were subjected to electric shocks.

"Some Muslims had pork or alcohol forced down their throats; they had tape placed over their mouths for reciting the Koran; many Muslims were forced to be naked in front of each other, members of the opposite sex and sometimes their own families. It was routine for the abuses to be photographed in order to threaten the showing of the humiliating footage to family members."

The New York Times reported on May 1 on the same investigation Newsweek was writing about and interviewed a released Kuwaiti, who spoke of three major hunger strikes, one of them touched off by "guards' handling copies of the Koran, which had been tossed into a pile and stomped on. A senior officer delivered an apology over the camp's loudspeaker system, pledging that such abuses would stop. Interpreters, standing outside each prison block, translated the officer's apology. A former interrogator at Guantanamo, in an interview with the Times, confirmed the accounts of the hunger strikes, including the public expression of regret over the treatment of the Korans."

So where does all this leave us? With a story that is not only true, but previously reported numerous times. So let's drop the "Lynch Newsweek" bull. Seventeen people have died in these riots. They didn't die because of anything Newsweek did -- the riots were caused by what our government has done.

Get your minds around it. Our country is guilty of torture. To quote myself once more: "What are you going to do about this? It's your country, your money, your government. You own this country, you run it, you are the board of directors. They are doing this in your name. The people we elected to public office do what you want them to. Perhaps you should get in touch with them."


Originally Published on Tuesday May 17, 2005