Citizen's Rent 2005

Death to Traitors

The NY TImes reports yet another military tragedy in which four Marines died because their Humvee had no armor. We've heard so many of these stories they're becoming cliche. U.S. soldiers have to buy their own armor, night-vision goggles, GPS gear and radios. There aren't enough bullets for training. Many troops are using Vietnam-era rifles. Troops have no bullet-proof vests and Humvees are armored with scrap tin.

Stop yawning, America. It's time to hold our government accountable. While we slap those cute little "Support Our Troops" magnets on our cars, Bush and his cronies are busy killing teenagers.

What do you call a soldier with an old rifle and no armor? A dead duck.

What do you call the person who knowingly sent him out that way? A traitor.

The U.S. government itself says a traitor is someone who knowingly:

• Aids and abets the enemy
• Creates a grave risk of death to another person
• Betrays national trust

And what happens to traitors? The death penalty.

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are traitors. Forget impeachment - these guys should be strung up. They are aiding and abetting the Iraqi insurgency by turning our troops into easy targets. They are directly responsible for the deaths of over 1,500 American troops, with tens of thousands more at risk. And they have betrayed our trust.

Support Our Troops indeed.

No Child Left Unrecruited

A little-known provision buried in the No Child Left Behind Act requires public high schools to give students' names, addresses, and phone listings to military recruiters, or lose all of their federal money.

According to the U.S. Dept of Education, the four pillars of the NCLB Act are:

• Stronger accountability for results
• More freedom for states and communities
• Proven education methods
• More choices for parents

But, as stated in this "Dear Colleague" letter from Donald Rumsfeld and Ron Paige:

Student directory information will be used specifically for armed services recruiting purposes and for informing young people of scholarship opportunities. For some of our students, this may be the best opportunity they have to get a college education.

Fortunately, we can opt out. Go to Military Free Zone to download a form that says you don't want the military to have your child's private contact information.

I write this as the daughter of a career Navy man who went to Vietnam and also worked as a Navy recruiter. In fact, I don't think the recruiters are to blame. They have to meet quotas, and voluntary enlistments are plunging. No - I'm aiming my fire directly at the Bush administration. They claim to be preparing our children for a strong future. But they're also prepared to use our kids as cannon fodder, and they're using the lure of higher education to do it.

Wave Bye-Bye, Mr. Feith

There's a bit of good news today for the neo-con trackers amongst us - Douglas Feith is on his way out. He's been the undersecretary of defense for policy and played a significant role in making the case for invading Iraq. I tend to agree with Gen. Tommy Franks, former commander of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, who called him "the stupidest guy on the face of the Earth". Stupid? Yeah. But he was dangerous, too. I'm glad he's leaving for personal reasons. Now I expect him to show up in the private sector, just in time to cash in on his neo-con credentials and senior administration contacts.

Surprise! Iraq is Terrorist Central

So the CIA  has announced that Iraq is the new breeding ground for terrorists. Isn't this the logical conclusion to a war that is justified with the rational that we should fight them there so we don't have to fight them here? Given that our real fight is with terrorists, I imagine that it's all part of a greater plan to lure them to Iraq so we've got them where we want them. Except that now we're trying to figure out a way to pull out and declare victory at the same time. Oops.

Isn't this the result that we weak-kneed pansy liberals were derided and dismissed for projecting? I thought so. Now where's my apology?

The New Law of the Land - We Can Do Anything We Want To

Lawyers for detainees at Guantanamo Bay are in court trying to make the case that the military tribunals set up in response to the Supreme Court's judgment that detainees can challenge their status do not meet the requirements of the law.

The government's case seems to be an "all is fair in times of war" argument. They say that they have to be able to detain anyone, anywhere, any time, with any connections to terrorism.

Who might fall into the government's broad sweep? A little old lady in Sweden writing a check to a charity that she doesn't know supports terrorism. A teacher who has students with Taliban connections. A man who doesn't report suspicions that his cousin may be an al Qaeda leader, a reporter who in protecting a source doesn't report the location of a terrorist leader.

We aren't talking about people in the war zone. We're talking about anyone anywhere in the world. "The boundaries of a war on terrorism are unlimited", says the government attorney.

In real terms, this means that if you teach English to non-native speakers in Omaha and one of your students is part of a family with suspected terrorist connections, you could find yourself in prison in Guantanamo Bay. No due process, no need to show that you even knew of your student's family connections.

Or you might have a distant cousin that's weird, loves guns, and rants occassionally about America being the great Satan. You better turn him in now if you don't want to get arrested.

And don't expect any reporters to interview anyone of consequence in the world of terrorists or Iraqi insurgents. They risk going to jail if they don't turn around and report the location of their interview subjects to the government.

Once you're detained, you best be keep quiet. Even if you're abused or tortured. Because our government contends that if you confess something under torture, it's okay to use that against you. It's a valid confession. Of course, the government doesn't condone torture and doesn't admit to using it, but if someone else did or a rogue soldier engaged in torture, why then watch out. Whatever you say will be used against you, but not in a court of law.

This is America? On what basis does our government justify jailing people from here and abroad for guilt by association? For not informing on others - even with the weakest of suspicions? For unknowingly giving to a charity that secretly supports terrorism? For using forced confessions to convict? No arraignment, no indictment, no burden of proof, no probable cause, no speedy trial, no rights at all really.

The lawyer representing the detainees "seized" in Africa, George Brent Mickum IV,  said it best: "To detain anyone, anytime, anywhere in the world, indefinitely, under any rules they devise, that just can't be -- must not be -- the law of the land." He's right. It can't be.

Washington Post, Judge Questions Sweep of Bush's War on Terrorism, Carol D. Leonnig, 12/2/04
NYT - AP Article, US Okays Evidence Gained Through Torture, 12/3/04

Abuse in Afghanistan - the Failure of Military Leaders

So here's the problem with suspending the Geneva Conventions and instituting a policy of "humane treatment consistent with the spirit of the conventions" - no-one knows exactly what that means.

Army Brig. Gen. Charles H. Jacoby Jr., was sent to Afghanistan in May to check out the prisons there. Just before Jacoby was sent, the Army's Criminal Investigation Division completed an investigation into the 2002 deaths of two Afghanis in Bagram. The report implicated more than two dozen military policemen attached to the 377th MP Command. The 377th had initially been deployed in Afghanistan, but were subsequently transferred to Iraq.

The Army CID report also lists a number of routine abuses committed by the 377th and a battalion of military intelligence officers from Ft. Bragg. They include "slamming prisoners into walls, twisting handcuffs to cause pain, kneeing prisoners, forcing a detainee to maintain "painful, contorted body positions," shackling the detainee's arms to the ceiling, and forcing water into the mouth of the detainee "until he could not breathe."  A senior officer with the 377th knew his soldiers were mistreating prisoners but apparently did nothing (the report cites him for dereliction of duty).

The abuse at Abu Ghraib should have been enough to suggest that a review of interrogation practices would be wise. Certainly the fact that the Army CID was investigating deaths would underscore the need for fast action. But I suppose that's either the clarity of hindsight or the simplicity of a civilian's view. Because it wasn't until five months after the Abu Ghraib abuse was revealed and after the completion of the CID report that Jacoby was sent to Afghanistan. 

In his review, Jacoby found that only half of the prisons had "posted written orders spelling out approved interrogation practices". In the field, military commanders had no approved guidance, so they were using their own judgment on what was appropriate - "opening the door to abuse and a loss of valuable intelligence". Jacoby characterized the guidance for interrogators in Afghanistan as "weak or non-existent".

Keep in mind that these were the conditions he found a full five months after the abuse at Abu Ghraib came to the attention of the military leadership. We heard a great deal back then about how the abuse there was due to a few rogue soldiers, that there was no systemic problem, that the military was on top of the situation. Uh huh.

I don't understand why the military didn't take the simple steps of clarifying, posting, and enforcing approved interrogation tactics used in any facilities detaining enemy fighters, whatever their classification. Why our battlefied commanders weren't given clear orders on approved interrogation practices. Certainly, you can assume that if interrogators in Iraq where the Geneva Conventions were in full force were crossing the line in terms of approved practices, then it's pretty likely that things weren't going swimmingly in territory where the Conventions have been suspended.

We've been assured that training on detainee treatment has been tightened up, that standard operating procedures and the means to enforce them are in place. That's good. But what I want to know what happened to the military culture I respected so much - the one that placed so much emphasis on accountability, that had leaders "falling on their swords" in ownership of problems. Was this just an illusion? Did I get sucked into the romance of the idea - the noble officer whose honor and integrity require him to step forward and take ownership? Or is accountability a victim of war - is the military's cultural mandate to take responsibility suspended during war time?

The military leadership's response to Abu Ghraib, the lack of standard interrogation practices in the Afghan prisons, the lack of orders on interrogation practices to battlefield commanders - it's not acceptable. It's not okay to say "well, it's fixed now so move on". It's just not okay.

I have no doubt that the grunts and junior officers are still held to a high standard, that they can't pass the buck, avoid consequences, et al. But the brass? It seems like not getting a promotion is deemed a sufficient consequence for real leadership failures in a time of war. I disagree. This, this war and everything connected to it, this is what they train for, prepare for, focus on. This is what they do. And if an officer can't do it, if he can't lead his men effectively, if he can't lead his men to advance instead of damage the reputation of the United States, then I say it's time to boot his ass. Our service men and women need officers that lead with integrity, who take responsibility, who hold themselves to the highest of standards and are role models in and out of the field. They need leaders they can trust to do the right thing and watch their backs. I know they have those leaders. I'm just not sure they have them at the highest levels.

Source: Washington Post, General Cites Problems in US Jails in Afghanistan, R. Jeffrey Smith, 12/3/04

Increasing Troop Strength

There's an article in WaPo on the likelihood that we'll need to increase the number of troops in Iraq. The article explains that we need to keep the insurgents on the run now that we've ousted them from Fallujah, that security and reconstruction in Fallujah will tie up a lot of troops, that security is critical in the days leading up to the January 30 elections. But what truly caught my attention was this statement.

Some senior officers have worried that any move to bring in more U.S. troops could be perceived as a sign of U.S. vulnerability in the face of the tenacious insurgency or as a vote of no confidence in the ability of Iraq's new security forces to fill the gap. It also could fuel the U.S. political debate over whether the Bush administration has committed enough forces to secure Iraq.

Now I know that we have to be aware of the political implications of increasing troop strength. But please tell me that we aren't going to leave our soldiers without the support they need because of political considerations.

The insurgency will seize on anything to declare the US weak. And wouldn't it be worse to be short handed and unable to battle them than to bring in more soldiers. As for giving the impression that we have no confidence in the Iraqi forces, this might not be an issue if we'd been honest about our ability to train them to a battle-ready state. Besides, I doubt that the Iraqis in the military and government will be all that upset at us sending our soldiers to fight instead of their poorly trained ones. Maybe I'm naive, but I can't imagine we don't have diplomatic skills to make this okay.

Last and worst is the fact that they are paying attention to whether or not an increase in troop strength will generate debate over whether or not Bush put in enough forces in the first place. The answer to that question is simple. Yes. Increasing the size of our military force in Iraq will open debate on this point. And no, it should not be a factor in deciding whether or not we send more troops. Bush can defend his past decisions, that goes with the job. We don't put our troops at risk or risk battles lost or not fought to protect the president's political capital. Period.

I get furious when I read things like this, when I see hints that military decisions are being significantly influenced by pure political factors. It smacks of Vietnam and makes me fear that we didn't learn our lessons from that war. And it makes me afraid for our troops. I hope it's not true.

And Now, A Word from our Soldiers

Through much of the election season, I heard from Bush supporters that the military supported him, that all I had to do was talk to boys back from Iraq to know that I had to vote for Bush. Well, I'd like to direct those folks to At Ease, a blog by a guy currently serving on Mosul. Here we can see that the military isn't a single minded beast but  is instead composed of individuals, each with their own political views and personal beliefs.

I got thinking about this guy last night, when he kindly posted a response to a conservative blogger who didn't like my anti-torture stand here. It made me smile all night. BUT, this morning I read through his blog and this post killed my smile. It's hard enough for me to read, but can you imagine reading it when you're deployed in Iraq?

Like everyone, I so want to see our country living up to its ideals. Certainly our soldiers are working every day to do so. But it seems to me that the political leaders haven't hit the mark. It saddens my heart and makes me cry for the soldiers. A hearty thanks to all of them for staying the course with honor, even when they regret the path not taken.