The Gitmo Clusterf***

Detainee abuse at Guantanamo continues to shame America

Lawrence B. Wilkerson, chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, has finally admitted the obvious. Many of the detainees at Guantanamo are innocent:

Wilkerson, who first made the assertions in an Internet posting on Tuesday, told the AP he learned from briefings and by communicating with military commanders that the U.S. soon realized many Guantanamo detainees were innocent but nevertheless held them in hopes they could provide information for a "mosaic" of intelligence.

"It did not matter if a detainee were innocent. Indeed, because he lived in Afghanistan and was captured on or near the battle area, he must know something of importance," Wilkerson wrote in the blog. He said intelligence analysts hoped to gather "sufficient information about a village, a region, or a group of individuals, that dots could be connected and terrorists or their plots could be identified."

In his posting for The Washington Note blog, Wilkerson wrote that "U.S. leadership became aware of this lack of proper vetting very early on and, thus, of the reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value, and should be immediately released."

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney fought efforts to address the situation, Wilkerson said, because "to have admitted this reality would have been a black mark on their leadership."

How could this have happened? Apparently, the incompetence that marked the early stages of our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan extended to the taking of prisoners:

Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel, said vetting on the battlefield during the early stages of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan was incompetent with no meaningful attempt to discriminate "who we were transporting to Cuba for detention and interrogation."

Wilkerson told the AP in a telephone interview that many detainees "clearly had no connection to al-Qaida and the Taliban and were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Pakistanis turned many over for $5,000 a head."

Some 800 men have been held at Guantanamo since the prison opened in January 2002, and 240 remain. Wilkerson said two dozen are terrorists, including confessed Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was transferred to Guantanamo from CIA custody in September 2006.

To summarize, only about 3% of those who have been held at Guantanamo (and only 10% of those still being held) are terrorists. And most of the information that was coerced from the innocent detainees was probably false and counterproductive.

This is no minor crime. Remember that Bush and his cronies wanted to hold these men (and boys) without charge for the duration of the war on terror. In other words, Bush wanted to lock up hundreds of innocent men for life, just to avoid trials that would demonstrate that many had been abused and most were innocent.

As one might expect, many of those in the Department of Defense who are responsible for this sorry state of affairs have been pushing back. The most recent attempt to deflect attention from their crimes came in the form of a report which alleged that 62 former Gitmo detainees later "returned to the battlefield" to fight American troops. Predictably, the report was quickly debunked.

It's time for the Obama administration to release or charge all detainees in American custody. Obama seems to be on the right track so far, announcing plans to release more detainees from Guantanamo and continuing a program, initiated by the Bush administration, to release detainees held in Iraq. But that doesn't go nearly far enough. If the US is to stand once again for justice, then the Obama administration has to initiate an aggressive investigation to find out who was responsible for imprisoning innocent men for years at a time, who gave the orders to torture the detainees, and who tried to cover up these crimes.

***

Just last week, terrorists in Afghanistan assassinated a former detainee who had been released when it was determined that he was not a terrorist. Jawed Ahmad, 23, had worked as a journalist for Canadian media outlets and as a translator for American military forces, which is probably the reason he was killed.

Meanwhile, the glorious democratic government that the US is propping up in Kabul sentenced a journalism student to 20 years in prison for the crime of blasphemy. Parwez Kambakhsh had asked questions about women's rights during class. Earlier, Kambakhsh had been sentenced to death, but Afghanistan's Supreme Court decided that the lesser sentence was more appropriate. Kambakhsh was not represented by a lawyer during his trial.

I wonder whether the Afghan justice system was modeled after Bush's detainee policy, or if Bush modeled his detainee policy after Afghanistan's justice system.

(cross posted at appletree)

Rumsfeld Tried To Blame Generals For His Own Screw-Ups

Overwhelmed by shame, Rumsfeld plucks his own eyes out

After the initial invasion of Iraq, General Ricardo Sanchez was given 30,000 men and put in charge of keeping the peace. Within a year, the country was in chaos, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was looking for someone to blame. Here's how Sanchez describes his last meeting with Rumsfeld:

Secretary Rumsfeld then pulled out a two-page memo and handed it to me. "I wrote this after a promotion interview about two weeks ago," he explained. "The officer told me that one of the biggest mistakes we made after the war was to allow CENTCOM and CFLCC to leave the Iraq theater immediately after the fighting stopped — and that left you and V Corps with the entire mission."

"Yes, that's right," I said.

"Well, how could we have done that?" he said in an agitated, but adamant, tone. "I knew nothing about it. Now, I'd like you to read this memo and give me any corrections."

In the memo, Rumsfeld stated that one of the biggest strategic mistakes of the war was ordering the major redeployment of forces and allowing the departure of the CENTCOM and CFLCC staffs in May�June 2003.

"This left General Sanchez in charge of operations in Iraq with a staff that had been focused at the operational and tactical level, but was not trained to operate at the strategic/operational level." He went on to write that neither he nor anyone higher in the Administration knew these orders had been issued, and that he was dumbfounded when he learned that Gen. McKiernan was out of the country and in Kuwait, and that the forces would be drawn down to a level of about 30,000 by September. "I did not know that Sanchez was in charge," he wrote.

I stopped reading after I read that last statement, because I knew it was total BS.

Take some anti-nausea medication and read the rest here.

(cross posted at Liberal Avenger and appletree)

Ali Hassan al Majid (aka Chemical Ali) Sentenced To Swing ... Sans A Single Shameless US Accomplice, Enabler, Aider and/or Abettor

We see Ali Hassan al Majid - aka - Chemical Ali is shortly set to swing, just as surely as his cretinous cousin, Saddam Hussein swung.

Serves him so & so right - we won't lose a wink of sleep - neither as, nor after, the trap door's tripped beneath the turd's feet.



Incidentally, shown above is the same smug schmuck, in his hay-day.

What a shame that some of the sickening sod's past US enablers, accomplices and aiders & abettors shan't be sharing the slimy sob's fate.

Well, whatever.

Onward, ever onward.

You may remember that we ended our last post with the words "Don't forget." Well, we're reminding you again: Don't forget.

Now, see this snippet from an old 'Counterpunch' piece, penned by ELSON E. BOLES.

You may feel disgusted by the hypocrisy of US plans to make war on Iraq and sickened at the inevitable slaughter of thousands of people. But if you could only vaguely recall the details of how deep the hypocrisy goes, then read on.

The US not only helped arm Iraq with military equipment right up to the time of the Kuwait invasion in 1989, as did Germany, Britain, France, Russia and others, but also sold and helped Iraq to integrate chemical weapons into their US-provided battle plans while fighting Iran between 1985-1988.

(snip)

... while making his case against Saddam, President Bush said "He's used poison gas on his own people." Bush deceives because he hides the fact that US officials, including his father, had no qualms about helping Saddam gas Iranians.

(snip)

US policy makers, financiers, arms-suppliers and makers, made massive profits from sales to Iraq of myriad chemical, biological, conventional weapons, and the equipment to make nuclear weapons.

(snip)

A PBS Frontline episode, "The Arming of Iraq" (1990) detailed much of the conventional and so-called "dual-use" weapons sold to Iraq. The public learned from other sources that at least since mid-1980s the US was selling chemical and biological material for weapons to Iraq and orchestrating private sales.

These sales began soon after current Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad in 1985 and met with Saddam Hussein as a private businessman on behalf of the Reagan administration.

Surprised? Shocked? Stunned?

You certainly should be, as you read the rest of this positively puke-inducing piece.


* (Cross posted at Appletree)

G.W. Bush & Co - Worldwide Warmongers - The Most Popular YouTube Video Ever

Ten thousand thanks to regular reader, commenter, brother Brit and blogger buddy R.J. Adams of Sparrowchat for pointing us toward the most popular 'YouTube' video ever -- anywhere and everywhere.



And still these lying liars get away with it. Even after all this time.

What in the world is the matter with us all?

Our question of course is rhetorical. We wouldn't want any among us standing up, speaking out, being counted and incriminating ourselves, would we?

After all, isn't aiding and abetting criminals to commit crimes a crime in itself?

As we said before - the question posed is purely rhetorical.

So, it's best for all concerned if nobody bothers offering any answers.

Eh?

After all, maybe sometime, somewhere, some of us will stumble upon some sort of soft hearted god who'll forgive us.

Eh?

Btw, don't answer that one either.

Second Top British General (Tim Cross) Blasts US ...

Britain's Major General Tim Cross.

Is it tinfoil hat time?

Again?

Well, we two definitely don't damned well know.

Maybe you can tell us.

Three times, as we've neared completion of this piece - all of our copy has somehow mysteriously been 'disappeared'.

Disappeared completely. Totally. Inexplicably.

We wonder who to blame?

Blogger? AOL?. Sunday Mirror? Someone (or something) else?

So at this fourth attempt we're omitting our personal observations, opinions, sarcastic comments et al, and trying again using clip & pastes only.

General attacks 'flawed' U.S. Iraq policy

EXCLUSIVE Tensions between allies rise to fever pitch

By Rupert Hamer Defence Correspondent 02/09/2007

A second British General has attacked America's "fatally flawed" policy in Iraq, ratcheting up the tension between the two allies on the issue.

Major General Tim Cross - the most senior British officer involved in planning post-war Iraq - said he raised serious concerns with former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld BEFORE the invasion.

(snip)

General Cross, 56, said: "Right from the very beginning we were all very concerned about the lack of detail that had gone into the postwar plan - and there is no doubt that Rumsfeld was at the heart of that process.

" I had lunch with Rumsfeld in Washington before the invasion in 2003 and raised concerns about the need to internationalise the reconstruction of Iraq and work closely with the United Nations.

"I also raised concerns over the numbers of troops available to maintain security and aid reconstruction. He didn't want to hear that message. The US had already convinced themselves that Iraq would emerge reasonably quickly as a stable democracy.

"Anybody who tried to tell them anything that challenged that idea - they simply shut it out."

(snip)

Read the rest of the Sunday Mirror interview report.

There's also an AOL related item.

British Army Boss Of Bosses, General Sir Mike Jackson, Attacks US ...

General Sir Michael (Mike) Jackson has never been known as a man who takes any prisoners. He was until recently the numero uno - bar none - head honcho of the British Army as well as all Britain's Military Services. In other words, brass-wise, they don't come any bigger. Make no mistake, this man is heavyweight.

Here are a few other things General Jackson is and was.

General Sir Michael "Mike" Jackson, GCB, CBE, DSO, (born 21 March 1944) is a British army officer, formerly Chief of the General Staff.

He was formerly commander of KFor in Kosovo as well as UNPROFOR (see Timeline of UN peacekeeping missions) commander in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

He's also the man who once (basically), told US General Wesley Clark to go f*ck himself.

Check out General Jackson for yourself, at this link.

Anyways - to get back on tack, and down to the business of the day.

Gen Sir Mike Jackson attacks US over Iraq

By Con Coughlin and Neil Tweedie
Daily Telegraph - 11:56am BST - 01/09/2007

General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the British Army during the invasion of Iraq, has launched a scathing attack on the United States for the way it handled the post-war administration of the country.

The former chief of the general staff said the approach taken by Donald Rumsfeld, the then US defence secretary, was "intellectually bankrupt", describing his claim that US forces "don't do nation-building" as "nonsensical".

Sir Mike's comments - made in his forthcoming autobiography Soldier, serialised exclusively in The Daily Telegraph - represent the most outspoken criticism of American military policy in Iraq to come from a senior British officer.

His attack - the first time he has revealed the depth of his anger towards the US administration - highlights the deep-seated tension between the British command and the Pentagon during the build-up to and the aftermath of the Iraq campaign in 2003.

Sir Mike, who took command of the British Army one month before US-led forces invaded Iraq, said Mr Rumsfeld was "one of those most responsible for the current situation in Iraq".

Ouch! Eh?

Read on.

Sir Mike says the failure of the US-led coalition to suppress the Iraqi insurgency four years after Saddam's overthrow was down to the Pentagon's refusal to deploy enough troops. A combined force of 400,000 would be needed to control a country the size of Iraq, but even with the extra troops recently deployed for the US military's "surge" the coalition has struggled to reach half that figure.

Sir Mike is particularly critical of President Bush's decision to hand control of the post-invasion running of Iraq to the Pentagon, when all the post-war planning had been done by the State Department.



"All the planning carried out by the State Department went to waste," he writes. For Mr Rumsfeld and his neo-conservative supporters "it was an ideological article of faith that the coalition forces would be accepted as a liberating army.

And there's much more where that came from.

Read the rest of today's Telegraph's report.