NEW YORK – The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is subjecting innocent Americans to unreasonable searches and detentions that violate the Constitution, according to a lawsuit filed today by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU filed the complaint on behalf of a traveler who was illegally detained and harassed by TSA agents at the airport for carrying approximately $4,700 in cash.

“Airport searches are the most common encounters between Americans and law enforcement agents. That’s why it is so important for TSA agents to do the job they were trained to do and not engage in fishing expeditions that do nothing to promote flight safety,” said Ben Wizner, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. “It is, of course, very important to ensure the safety of flights and keep illegal weapons and explosives off planes. But allowing TSA screeners to conduct general purpose law enforcement searches violates the Constitution while diverting limited resources from TSA’s core mission of protecting safety. For the sake of public safety and constitutional values, these unlawful searches should stop.”

A TSA checkpoint

On March 29, 2009, Steven Bierfeldt was detained in a small room at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport and interrogated by TSA officials for nearly half an hour after he passed a metal box containing cash through a security checkpoint X-ray machine. Bierfeldt was carrying the cash in connection with his duties as the Director of Development for the Campaign for Liberty, a political organization that grew out of Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential campaign.

Bierfeldt was detained and questioned as he returned home from a Campaign for Liberty event transporting proceeds from the sale of tickets, t-shirts, stickers and campaign material. Bierfeldt repeatedly asked the agents to explain the scope of their authority to detain and interrogate him and received no explanation. Instead, the agents escalated the threatening tone of their questions and ultimately told Bierfeldt that he was being placed under arrest. Bierfeldt recorded the audio of the entire incident with his iPhone.

Listen to the audio recording of Bierfeldt’s detention here:

“I do not believe I should give up my constitutional rights each time I choose to travel by plane. I was doing nothing illegal or suspicious, yet I was treated like a potential criminal and harassed for no reason,” said Bierfeldt. “Most Americans would be surprised to learn that TSA considers simply carrying cash to be a basis for detention and questioning. I hope the court makes clear that my detention by TSA agents was unconstitutional and stops TSA from engaging in these unlawful searches and arrests. I do not want another innocent American to have to endure what I went through.”

“Mr. Bierfeldt’s experience represents a troubling pattern of TSA attempting to transform its valid but limited search authority into a license to invade people’s privacy in a manner that would never be accepted outside the airport context,” said Larry Schwartztol, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. “Just as the Constitution prevents the police on the street from conducting freewheeling searches in the hopes of uncovering wrongdoing, it protects travelers from the kind of treatment Mr. Bierfeldt suffered.”

TSA officials have the authority to conduct safety-related searches for weapons and explosives. According to the ACLU’s lawsuit, TSA agents are using heightened security measures after 9/11 as an excuse to exceed their search authority and engage in unlawful searches that violate the privacy rights of passengers. The lawsuit also charges that unconstitutional searches and detention by TSA agents have become the norm.

The ACLU’s lawsuit was filed against Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, which has authority over TSA. It was filed in federal court in Washington, D.C.

Attorneys on the case are Wizner, Scott Michelman and Allen Hopper of the ACLU, Art Spitzer of the ACLU National Capital Area and cooperating attorney Alan Gura of Gura and Possessky, P.L.L.C.

More information about the case, including the ACLU’s complaint is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/39922res20090618.html

Not so, it seems. With McCain himself now saying he’ll kick Obama’s “you-know-what” in the upcoming debate (of course, it’s been the opposite at all of the debates so far), Palin has gotten the blessing to keep on blathering about things she clearly does not understand.

ABC News says that Palin “tones it down a notch,” but a “notch” down from the fever pitch of accusing the Democratic nominee of “pallin’ around with terrorists” and insinuating that he’s a terrorist himself, is, well, not much of a notch at all.

The ABC article reflects much of what’s been reported in the Associated Press, so the quotes that follow are pretty universal. With each passing statement, she proves just how out-of-touch with reality she really is. Take, for example, her asinine interpretation of just what all the “anger” their campaign has seen is all about:

While Palin cited the anger felt by many of her supporters — as expressed verbally at two separate town meetings earlier in the week — Palin attempted to turn it into a positive message on Republican nominee John McCain reforming Washington.  She did not turn it into anger at the Democratic nominee, who is leading the race in most national and battleground state polls.

“All across America, I know that there’s a lot of anger right now,” Palin said. “There’s anger about the insider dealing of lobbyists and anger at the greed of Wall Street, and anger about the arrogance of the Washington elite. And with serious reforms to change Washington, John McCain is going to turn your anger into action.”

Okay, Governor, let me see if I can explain it in small words so that you can understand. The anger you’ve seen isn’t about “insider dealing” or “lobbyists.” It’s all because you and your running mate (that’s the old guy who calls Obama “that one”) have whipped your base into a frenzy of vile hate. You’ve accused your opponents of “pallin’ around with terrorists,” and have created a state of fear across the country.

You, like many Americans, don’t even know the difference between a lobbyist and a lobby, which is made evident by all of these preachers who violated their 501(c)3 code last month with their “freedom Sunday” garbage. They clearly don’t understand the difference between an educational organization (which is what they’re supposed to be) and a lobbying group, which is a 501(c)4 organization.

Apparently, a “Christian-based” group of attorneys, the Alliance Defense Fund, encouraged pastors all across the country to do exactly what the 501(c)3 charter says they can’t do: attempt to influence an election from official positions within their organizations. Those many thousands of pastors violated the agreement they signed, and should be given the appropriate fines. Their goal, apparently, is to file a suit to have the tax laws rewritten or struck down by the Supreme Court.

Good luck with that.

So, Governor, since you have no clue what lobbying is for, and you have even less of a clue as to why there’s so much anger in your rallies, maybe you need to seriously consider the possibility that you just need you shut your mouth and learn something about how your government really works.

Clearly, this is a person who doesn’t need to be anywhere near the White House, let alone a heartbeat away from occupying it.

The ABC article further discusses her usage of the phrase “bad guys.” Apparently, she’s replaced “terrorist” with “bad guys” in order to continue to rile that low-level base of supporters for whom “terrorist” is probably too big of a word. No, wait. Maybe it’s too big of a word for Governor Palin. After all, she’s “one of us,” right? As Newsweek’s cover said recently, maybe that’s the problem:

While Palin made no mention of William Ayers, who just days ago she charged was “a terrorist” with closer ties to Obama than he will acknowledge, she did speak about “terrorists” in general as the “bad guys,” and then went on to describe the “bad guys” in the current economic crisis. It was unclear if Palin was attempting to allude to Ayers when speaking about “terrorists.”

“Help me Ohio to help put John McCain in the White House,” Palin said. “He understands… For one thing, we know who the bad guys are, OK? We know, we know that in the war, it’s terrorists, terrorists who hate America and her allies and would seek to destroy us, and the bad guys are those who would support and sympathize with the terrorists. They do not like America because of what we stand for: liberty, freedom, equal rights. Those who sympathize and support those terrorists who would seek to destroy all that it is that we value, those are the bad guys, ok?”

Really, Governor? Those are the bad guys? You mean that those who have completely shredded our constitution, diluted the right to free speech and the right to assemble peacefully, supported rampant wire taps, and have even put gay rights groups on list of “domestic terrorist” groups in recent years aren’t the bad guys?

There’s one phrase we need to look out for: “destroy all that it is that we value.” You see, dear friends and neighbors, her “values” have been clearly demonstrated in this past week as she continues to spread the lies and insinuations that Senator Obama is “pallin’ around with terrorists who would strike at their own country” and that she has abused her power in the firing of her ex brother-in-law.

Her “values” even questioned the local librarian as to whether or not certain books would be removed from the shelves of the Wasila public library if the then-mayor asked them to be. The librarian said no. She was later fired. More here and here.

Her “values” have said that she believes that homosexuality can be “prayed away” despite the fact that every single major medical, psychiatric, and professional group that works within the gay and lesbian community says otherwise.

Do us all a favor, Governor. You’ve said that you can see Russia from the front door of your home. Great. Go home. Better yet, we’ll help send you back there on November 4th.

I have spent hours skimming interviews and news stories about Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin. It is not outside the realm of possibility, given Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain’s age and medical history, and the potential pressures of a presidency, that Palin could find herself in the Oval office, and not as a “visitor.” It’s is something American voters must consider as they prepare to cast ballots in the November election.

I question her experience and her agenda, particularly on the global scale; her lack of visible experience on a broader beyond-Alaska governance, is slim; on the world stage it is nil. Her recent foreign travels found the press pool (CNN) being allowed 30 seconds or less of filming as met with foreign leaders.

Then I heard defensive words and a hint of national policy from Palin in an interview with ABC’s Charles Gibson (whom I greatly admire). Palin’s answers (the questions are evident in the answers):

• “We are on a holy war … we are on God’s side … there is a plan and it is God’s plan…”
• “I have the experience to be vice-president … I am ready …”
• “I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.”
• “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.”
• “I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words. But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.”

Sounds lot like the extremist and terrorist “Holy War” “Jihad” mentality, which, when vented against us, is said to be wrong and perpetuated by “evil-doers.”

Gibson, in questioning Palin on “the Bush Doctrine,” had to first explain the 2002 statement to Palin to incite a semblance of intelligent response.

The Bush “Doctrine” ~~ his National Security Strategy (9.02):

“While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country.”

Palin to Gibson:

“I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent in destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.”

As September 11th memorial services unfurled, Palin said that should Georgia join NATO, the U.S. may find itself waging war on Russia, if Russia invades Georgia. She also warned of the threat posed by a nuclear armed Iran and from Islamic terrorists. She subscribes to the Bush-like principle that “the United States has the right to preemptively strike another country the U.S. thinks will attack first.” She defended the Iraq War as a task from God, which makes her sound as fanatical as the Islamic terrorists. I couldn’t help wonder where all the soldiers will come from to fight these wars … oh yes, it would have to be the “D” word: Draft. She hasn’t suggested that, but hey folks, read between the lines. Our troops can barely withstand the repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, much less consider battles on new fronts. And then there is the matter of equipping them … and nowhere does she speak of diplomacy, or of alternatives to war.

More recently, it has come to light that Palin as Wassila mayor likely knew, and appears to have supported, her city’s billing of rape victims for the rape kit/medical exam that constitutes evidence for the prosecution. The rape kits cost approximately $1,000. That’s akin to asking a murder victim’s family to pay for the bullet before they prosecute a killer.

Palin may find support for her views in some corners of the country, but voters need to ask to how much experience, understanding, and ability does she really have on a national and a global scale before opting to have her second in line to determine America’s future. What happens if she is left to step into the Oval office?

The Power of Nightmares (Part 1) is being shown this Friday, August 1, at 7 p.m. at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, 3053 Highway 41A South. The screening is a continuation of the UU First Friday Film program.

Adam Curtis showed us in Century of Self a key way of controlling the masses is by making people good consumers. Make people want things they do not need by appealing to their secret desires. Come to present time in The Power of Nightmares, where terror and torture and the fear of such has become the new tools of control by governments.

About the movie: For a time politicians promised to create a better world. When this dream lost its promise, politicians were simply seen as managers. Their power to control has returned as their job became rescuing us from dreadful dangers. Much of the terrorism threat is a fantasy that is an exaggerated and distorted dark illusion spread by governments, security services, and the international media.

This is a series of films about how and why a fantasy about terror was created and who it benefits. This story starts with two groups, American Neo-conservatives and the radical Islams. These idealists, born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world, have similar explanations for what caused that failure.

This screening is free and open to the public and the film is a appropriate for mature, adult audiences. Bring snacks to share if you wish. To reach the UU Church, head south on Madison, 1.9 miles past the Wal-Mart.

http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares

The issues are on the Bill of Rights and implicate university free speech zones, university speech codes, and the USA Patriot Act powers and students’ rights of free assembly.

Students in the class are either on the prosecution, the defense, or the court. This semester’s Lead Counsels are Elizabeth Borsavage and Jeremy Smith for the prosecution, and Valerie Cerda and Chris Lowe for the defense. The Chief Justice is Enderson Miranda. Amber Gaulden and Beth Anne Warhurst from the Dramatic Arts Department are playing the role of the accused. Several other students from outside the class are portraying the FBI Agent (DJ Luciano) the Police Officer (Bethany McCaslin) with other students including Leslie Crouch, Julia Dittrich and Adam Haynes providing testimony.

The premise is that on or about March 7, 2008, several students were engaged in a campus protest within the “Free Speech Zone” here on campus. The protesters appeared to be chanting anti-war slogans and were heard to also chant “Death to Non-Believers.” Shortly into the protest/demonstration, an undercover FBI Agent along with a local uniformed police officer attempted to break-up the protest, asserting that it had not been approved by the university and they were violating free speech zone and speech codes.

What ensued was a confrontation between at least two of the student-protesters, alleged to be the leaders of a group called “Holy Land Avengers” and the authorities, which resulted in the arrests of both students on several charges including assault and battery and civil rights intimidation. Subsequent search warrants executed at the apartment of the two students resulted in evidence being seized including; weaponry, materials on terrorism and Dirty Bomb-Making as well as a weapon alleged to have been at the scene of the protest.

Amber Gaulden, a Dramatic Arts major, aka Alice O’Hare, leader of the protest group and one of the accused and DJ Luciano, aka, FBI Agent DiSalvo.

To the right, Beth Warhurst (dramatic arts student), aka, Bethany Christianson and Policewoman Bethany McCaslin, aka, Heather Brooke.

A plea arraignment was held recently where pleas Not Guilty to all charges were entered by the Defendant Alice O’Hare on behalf of her co-Defendant Bethany Christianson. Motions by both prosecution and defense have been heard by the court and a special tribunal of five judges.

If you have any questions or would like to take part in this trial please contact Dr. Rabidoux at , or Kelly Maddox at .edu.

In the Name of God delves into an Eastern world and a culture relatively alien to me, yet it is a culture with probing fingers touching and testing and tasting the culture of a freedom that is uniquely Western.

In this book, 17-year-old Nadia lives in Damascus, Syria, locked into a straight and narrow path of traditional Islam. She has enough exposure to Western ideas to tempt her and rouse her curiosity, and is also bitterly aware of the politics, economy and culture that envelops her own country and neighboring Iraq.

Nadia is religious, holding deep and living true to the opening phrase that graces every chapter of the Qur’an: In the Name of God. But this is not a story told with a western insight or desire; it is a story about a struggle to be the best and most faithful within one’s own religious beliefs, a personal journey toward what becomes, in Western eyes, a potentially tragic destiny. For Nadia is religious, and that the depth of her spiritual commitment in tangled with her curiosity and political ideology. For Nadia is a teenager, with all the turbulence of emotion that accompanies those volatile, questioning years.

Nadia is intrigued by the “resistance,” by the underground of political thought, rebellions, ideology and spiritual consequence.

Jolin weaves this story with an abundance of dialogue and a complex mix of characters that move through a world unfamiliar to Westerners: the odd mix of the donning of traditional burkas and a desire to wear high heels, of living life with the constant of religion as its driving force, of existing under the scrutiny of a dominating political eye.
As Nadia tests the waters and pushes her boundaries, pieces of family life unfold with a solemn horror.

In one such discussion, Samira, her sister, says:

“The Qur’an needs to be re-interpreted by modern scholars, men and women. And for the record, nothing in it says women have to cover their heads…
“It’s the best way to say ‘fuck you’ to a government that could be killing my brothers as we speak.”

The government hates the scarf on a woman’s head, proof that allegiance to God is more important than allegiance tot he ruling party. A vivid reminder, however silent, that Islamic resentment throbs in every corner of the city.”

It’s a belief that rests on a precipice of old ways and new thought, of tradition at war with change. Nadia has a hand in each in a game of tug of war, and war is slowly winning with incremental shards of shrapnel.

The strongest image and insight in this novel, though, is the highly personal conversation between Nadia and her mother about marriage, her mother’s arranged marriage at the age of 12.

“…my parents … didn’t even sleep in the same room. My mother said nothing to me the night before.
“He was older than me, of course, much older, but he was religious, and he had no experience either. I remember looking at him, standing there, in the light of a candle, and listening to explain he was going to stick…stick it in my most private place. I was so scared. That big thing in this tiny space? He’s going to break me in two, I thought, he’s going to break me in two.
“…well, after you can imagine things were very different…”

Nadia is stunned by the stark and unusual revelation, by her mother’s verbal validation of the control men in her society hold. She retreats to her room, lost in thought.
The urge to rebel surges, and manifests it in response to a strange note she holds that reads “meet me at midnight.” It is the first step toward terror.

Much of Jolin’s novel is written in simple language, it drops these little bombs of conversation that offer insight and understanding even as they raise more questions about this culture. Why have women ceded so much control to men? What makes that belief in this religious-based society so strong?

The text is rooted in conversations (dialogue) and the ramblings in Nadia’s mind, the twists and turns of her thoughts as the modern world, the world outside Syria, reaches in slowly, with elongated fingers, to tempt one to further dissatisfaction. Nadia’s balancing act, her wavering between rebellion and training is in many ways “typical teenager” behavior, a time to challenge, explore and determine an individual path. Hard to do, especially in a country rooted in religious and paternal control.

The only visible rebellions are grounded in home-grown terrorism and that becomes attractive to Nadia.

At 208 pages, In the Name of God is a fairly quick read and the story itself moves quickly, perhaps too quickly. Told in the first person, Jolin (at left) moves forward through the extensive use of all-revealing dialogue, but it tells us too quickly and simplistically: we are left wanting more, wanting a deeper probe beneath the surface. It was almost too busy on the surface. We as readers don’t quite understand the depth of Nadia’s passion, hate or love. We have an idea, but it is not enough.

Too, I prefer more description in the stories I read and do not like to have that come solely through dialogue. I wanted to feel the heat of the dessert sun, the starkness of the cityscape, the vibrancy of the market places, the pulse of fear as this young girl navigates the fringes of a subculture, the warning goosebumps that accompany the dark unknown. I wanted to feel it leap from the page and envelop me, and that didn’t quite happen here.
My own style of storytelling has been called lyrical and poetic, and I prefer that in my own choices of reading. Stark, raw edges and simplistic movement of plot lose me along the way.

I read the entire book, drawn to the story and seeking a bit more understanding of a culture that is alien to me. Given the author’s research and background (she has lived in the Middle East for a decade and has a master’s degree in Islamic Studies), I knew I would get a hefty dose of Islamic culture in this book. I did. I still found myself wanting more.

In the Name of God by Paula Jolin
New Milford CT: Roaring Book Press 2007

By probing the homicide of an innocent taxi driver at the Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, the film exposes a worldwide policy of detention and interrogation that condones torture and the abrogation of human rights. This disturbing and often brutal film is the most incisive examination to date of the Bush Administration’s willingness, in its prosecution of the “war on terror,” to undermine the essence of the rule of law. The film asks and answers a key question: what happens when a few men expand the wartime powers of the executive to undermine the very principles on which the United States was founded.

Incorporating rare and never-before-seen images from inside the Bagram, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay prisons, and interviews with former government officials such as John Yoo, Alberto Mora and Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, interrogators, prison guards, New York Times reporters Tim Golden and Carlotta Gall (who wrote the first stories about the homicides in Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan) and the families of tortured prisoners, the film dissects the progression of the Administration’s policy on torture from the secret role of key administration figures, such as Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales and others to the soldiers in the field.

Click here to view the embedded video.

In the face of thousands of prisoners passing through the system, an astonishing number of admitted homicides, and a hastily drafted law – the Military Commissions Act – that retroactively grants immunity to government officials for crimes against humanity while denying the fundamental right of habeas corpus to others, forces us to ask why, in the face of so much evidence of the ineffectiveness of cruelty as a means of obtaining information, we sought to insist on its use? Have we, by pursuing such ruthless means, lost the moral high ground in the war on terror and made ourselves less safe? Even more important, have we compromised our own sense of humanity, our democratic values and our effectiveness as a world leader?

MPAA Controversy

The MPAA unleashed a storm of controversy due to it’s refusal to allow the use a a movie poster showing a hooded detainee being lead off into the distance by two soldiers. They described it as being “not suitable for all audiences.”

According to ThinkFilm, which produced the documentary, the MPAA objected to the “image of the hood.” Last year, the MPAA also censored the poster for the documentary The Road to Guantanamo, because it showed a detainee “hanging by his handcuffed wrists, with a burlap sack over his head and a blindfold tied around the hood.” – Think Progress

A spokesman for the MPAA said: “We treat all films the same. Ads will be seen by all audiences, including children. If the advertising is not suitable for all audiences it will not be approved by the advertising administration.” But with the following posters having been approved for all audiences…

It leads me to believe that the actual reason might be more political. Take a look at the following movies posters which were rejected, compare the posters below with the posters above. Which do you think should have been rejected?

The only reason seems to be is, that the movies they are for are critical of the Bush Administration.

About the Production

“We also have to work through…the dark side…it’s going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective.” - Vice President Dick Cheney to Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” (2001)

Taxi to the Dark Side, The latest prize-winning documentary from Oscar-nominee Alex Gibney, confirms his standing as one of the foremost non-fiction filmmakers working today. A stunning inquiry into the suspicious death of an Afghani taxi driver at Bagram air base in 2002, the film is a fastidiously assembled, uncommonly well-researched examination of how an innocent civilian was apprehended, imprisoned, tortured, and ultimately murdered by the greatest democracy on earth. By using documents and records of the incident with candid testimony from eyewitnesses and participants, the film uncovers an inescapable link between the tragic incidents that unfolded in Bagram and the policies made at the very highest level of the United States government in Washington, D.C. Combining the cool detachment of a forensic expert with the heated indignation of a proud American who holds his country to a high standard, Gibney’s stunning film reveals how the Bush administration has systematically betrayed the very ideals it professes to uphold.

Gibney first got the idea for Taxi to the Dark Side from the men who would eventually go on to serve as the executive producers of the project. “The idea of doing a film on torture was brought to me – separately – by Don Glascoff, Sid Blumenthal, and Rob Johnson,” he says. “Once I took on the assignment, with the urging of my father, I went looking for a story that could carry the burden of the subject.” He first came upon the story of Dilawar, the Afghan cab driver who died while in custody at Bagram prison, in a New York Times article by Tim Golden and, before long, he realized that this was the central story he had been searching for.

“I think that the subject of corruption unites my films,” says Gibney. “‘Enron’ was about economic corruption, and TAXI is about the corruption of the rule of law. Both are about the corruption of character—how good people can end up doing very bad things. ‘The Trial of Henry Kissinger’ fits into this model as well. I also tend to make films about perps rather than victims. It is true that Dilawar – a true innocent victim – is at the heart of the story of TAXI. But the thematic subject of the film is an investigation into how a small number of Americans took our nation to the ‘dark side.’”

Having found his subject, Gibney wisely chose not to approach it journalistically but, rather, to give it the more classically cinematic structure of a whodunit. “I think of every one of my films as a kind of detective story,” he says. “Detectives – or private eyes – are truth seekers who often discover things they didn’t expect. Putting that process at the heart of the narrative gives my films a kind of momentum, I think. ‘Enron’ was a ‘heist film;’ TAXI is a murder mystery.” And, Gibney observes, once the murder is solved, as in all true murder mysteries, you understand who was responsible. “But,” he continues, “like the best murder mysteries of, say, Raymond Chandler, TAXI is not merely a whodunit. The movie is really about the mood, the atmosphere surrounding the murder, and ‘how and why’ the murder was committed.” Obviously, in TAXI, the mystery as to who killed Dilawar is important, but far more important says Gibney, “is understanding the ‘dark side’ and how this Administration took us there with the ease of a late night taxicab ride across Constitution Avenue in Washington, D.C.”

Like a latter-day Sam Spade, Gibney hunted down dozens of potential witnesses in order to figure out all of the “who’s,” “how’s,” and “why’s” of the Dilawar case. “For films like this,” he stresses, “it is critical to get ‘inside’ the story. You don’t want experts; you want participants. I went in search of anyone who was at Bagram during the time Dilawar was imprisoned there –prisoners, guards, and interrogators. I also went in search of lawyers for detainees, the architects of the Administration policy, dissidents in the Administration, military officers, etc. In the end we did obtain interviews with some interrogators who questioned Dilawar, and some MPs who were directly responsible for his homicide. This was particularly difficult, but I think our quest was aided by the fact that these men really wanted to talk about what had happened, and they were bitter that they were being prosecuted when the men and women who ordered them to commit crimes were barely even investigated, much less prosecuted.”

While some of these people surprised Gibney with their willingness to talk, others whose testimony might have been very helpful to the “case” would not. “Carolyn Wood has consistently refused to be interviewed by anyone,” he says. “She’s not a high-ranking officer, but her testimony would reveal much about the way the Bush Administration conducted its interrogation and detention policies.” He continues, “I also tried to talk to other Administration officials who declined to be interviewed. The more that is revealed about this story, the more it makes sense why most Administration officials didn’t want to speak: they are concerned that they may be prosecuted for what they have done. A few dissident voices – like Jack Goldsmith, who declined to talk to me – have come forward more recently. One of the things that struck me was that many of the fiercest critics of the Administration (including those like Alberto Mora and Lawrence Wilkerson, who did speak to me) were conservative republicans. This story was not about left and right,” Gibney learned, “it was about right and wrong.”

In addition to interviews, Gibney unearthed photographs, videotapes and documents – particularly from the mysterious Bagram prison – that have never been seen before. And the videotape of the senior JAG officer in Afghanistan acknowledging a defacto policy of knee strikes that, according to the Army coroner, “pulpified” Dilawar’s legs, is a cathode ray vision of the banality of evil.

When a director plays detective in this fashion, there will not only be discoveries, digressions, and disappointments, there will also be difficulties. “The problem with this approach in a documentary,” observes Gibney, “is that the story has to be rewritten constantly in the cutting room. I find that the best documentaries end up being structured like good fiction films. But, this is very hard to do in practice, because the ‘script’ of a documentary is written during and after shooting.” Gibney also finds that the story he is trying to tell is often at odds with his key thematic concerns. “I always want to include key ideas,” he notes, “and am frustrated when they seem to get in the way of the story. So, there’s a tension in the cutting room. At some point, on every film, the evolving story seems to raise its head and demands to be given its due. When I don’t listen to that insistent voice, I usually do so at my peril.”

Gibney’s persistence in finding the perfect form for his material, and his desire to match the structure and narrative drive of a fiction feature to non-fiction material, makes Taxi to the Dark Side stand apart from other documentaries covering similar subject matter. It is interesting to note that, though Gibney served as executive producer on Charles Ferguson’s “No End in Sight,” providing guidance on key production and story issues, TAXI has a look that is very different from that and all of the so-called ‘Iraq films.’ Gibney cites as his unexpected chief stylistic influences a number of filmmakers who worked in dramatic films. “I love Sergio Leone,” he says, adding that “Once Upon a Time in the West” is a favorite film – for stylistic reasons – and that “the title sequence in TAXI – with its middle eastern ‘western’ look – is my doc nod to Sergio.” Other favorites are Luis Bunuel, Scorsese, Wim Wenders, Kurosawa (“High and Low” makes me think of “Enron,” he notes), and Jacques Tourneur’s intricately strucured noir thriller, “Out of the Past.” Even his non-fiction preferences are as notable for their groundbreaking form as for their significant subject matter: The Maysles’ “Gimme Shelter,” Marcel Ophuls’ “The Sorrow and the Pity,” and Alain Resnais’ “Night and Fog” (“Anyone who thinks narration doesn’t belong in docs,” he says, “should watch ‘Night and Fog!”).

Many politically-urgent documentaries are being made these days, but Alex Gibney is one of few practitioners of the genre who values timelessness as much as timeliness. He notes that “TAXI is not an ‘Iraq film.’ It’s not really about the war in Iraq, though we do include some materials and stories about it. Rather, the film is about GWOT, the acronym the Bush Administration uses to describe its ‘Global War on Terror.’ But, in a more fundamental sense, it’s not really about that either; it’s really about the American character and whether we have become something rather different from what we imagine ourselves to be.”

Acknowledging that for Taxi to the Dark Side to be of lasting quality, it must speak to audiences both now and decades from now, Gibney concludes, “In the here and now, I want viewers to get mad and make our leaders accountable for the damage they have done. Over the long haul, I hope TAXI will stand as cautionary tale of how people and their society can be corrupted by fear and rage. While I hope it will be seen as utterly irrelevant twenty years from now, I don’t think it will be.”

Here are some of the interviewees:

PFC. Willie Brand

Willie Brand was a MP Guard at Bagram Air Force Base, a detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan. Brand faced court martial for his role in the deaths of detainees Dilawar and Habibullah at Bagram. In his trial, Brand and his attorney spoke out about what they considered a lack of necessary training and clear rules for MP’s. Brand was convicted by a military jury of assault, maltreatment, maiming and making a false official statement. He was given a reduction in rank and pay to private.

Special Agent Jack Cloonan, Ret.

An FBI special agent from 1977 to 2002, Cloonan started working Al Qaeda cases in the mid-1990s. Cloonan, an advocate of the FBI’s humane methods of interrogation, cultivated former Al Qaeda operatives Jamal al-Fadl and Ali Mohammed as cooperative sources in the years before 9/11. Cloonan also interrogated Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who ran an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan and who was one of the highest-ranking Al Qaeda operatives captured in the first months of the war in Afghanistan.

Now in the private sector, Cloonan is President of Clayton Consultants. Since retiring from the FBI, Cloonan has also served as a counter-terrorism consultant and commentator for ABC News.

SPC. Damien Corsetti

Corsetti, a Military Intelligence soldier in Bagram and Abu Ghraib, was given the nickname “Monster,” and “King of Torture” by soldiers in his unit, and was allegedly called upon by other interrogators to frighten prisoners using the interrogation technique known as “Fear up, harsh.” Other detainees, such as Moazzam Begg, describe Corsetti as a sympathetic interrogator who never engaged in abuse, and was helpful in enduring detention. As part of the Army’s investigation into prisoner abuse at Bagram, Corsetti was charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, assault and performing an indecent act with another person. Corsetti was later found not guilty of all charges.

Carlotta Gall

Carlotta Gall is a New York Times correspondent based in Kabul, assigned to cover Afghanistan and Western Pakistan. She has been covering the Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgency from the start, and led a journalistic investigation into the cause and culpability of the death of the 22-year-old Afghan detainee Dilawar.

Tim Golden

Tim Golden is an investigative reporter for the New York Times and a writer for the New York Times Magazine. Prior to joining the Times’ staff he worked for the Miami Herald and United Press International. He was a member of the Times team that won the 1998 Pulitzer Prize for international reporting for articles about drug corruption in Mexico. While working at the Miami Herald, he shared a 1987 Pulitzer Prize for national reporting for stories on the Iran-Contra affair. Golden, along with Carlotta Gall, reported on the prisoner abuse of Dilawar and other detainees in Bagram, Afghanistan.

Scott Horton

Scott Horton a New York based attorney working international law, human rights law and the law of armed conflict, Horton lectures at Columbia Law School, and is a life-long human rights advocate. He is a co-founder of the American University in Central Asia, and has been involved in some of the most significant foreign investment projects in the Central Eurasian region. Scott recently led a number of studies of abuse issues associated with the conduct of the war on
terror for the New York City Bar Association, where he has chaired several committees, including, most recently, the Committee on International Law. He is also a member of the board of the National Institute of Military Justice, the Andrei Sakharov Foundation, the EurasiaGroup and the American Branch of the International Law Association.

SPC. Tony Lagouranis

Spc. Lagouranis was a U.S. Army interrogator from 2001 to 2005, and served a tour of duty in Iraq from January 2004 to January 2005. He was first stationed at Abu Ghraib; in that spring he joined a special intelligence gathering task force that moved among detention facilities around the country. There, he learned first hand about the “culture of abuse” permeating interrogations throughout Iraq. Lagouranis is one of a number of Iraq War veterans who have provided first hand accounts of torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. military. Other U. S. military personnel have described torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners while shielding their identities. His book, “Fear Up Harsh: An Army Interrogator’s Dark Journey through Iraq” will be published in June 2007.

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI)

Carl Levin is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he was an early and consistent advocate of efforts to prepare the American military to combat terrorism and other emerging threats of the post-Cold War world. The National Guard Association of the United States presented Senator Levin with its 2004 Harry S. Truman Award for distinguished service in support of national defense. The award cited Levin’s “long-standing, diligent and impassioned commitment on the readiness, morale and welfare of our military forces, their families and the modernization of our armed forces.” To ensure accountability in the intelligence community, Senator Levin has continued to press the Bush administration to clarify which intelligence entity is responsible for specific intelligence objectives.

Alberto Mora

In December 2002, Alberto J. Mora, then general counsel of the United States Navy, was alerted by Navy investigators to reports that detainees held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay were being subjected to cruel and unlawful interrogation practices. Mora, whose civilian position accorded him a rank equal to that of a four-star general, soon came to learn that the cruel and abusive practices of United States military interrogators at Guantanamo were the result of significant policy shifts at the highest levels of the U.S. government. Over the next three years, Mora waged a campaign inside the Bush Administration to prevent military and civilian leaders from codifying any policy that might implicitly or explicitly sanction the mistreatment of Guantanamo detainees as part of the war on terror. For his moral courage and his commitment to upholding American values, Alberto Mora was honored with the 2006 John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award.

Tom Wilner

Wilner, once a schoolmate of Al Gore’s at Washington’s prestigious St. Albans School and a fraternity brother of George W. Bush’s at Yale, is now a managing partner at Shearman & Sterling, LLP. He heads their International Trade and Global Relations Practice. Wilner has represented the human rights cases of a several Kuwaiti citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba since May 2002.

John Yoo

Yoo joined the Boalt Hall faculty at Berkeley in 1993, then clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court. He served as general counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee from 1995-96. From 2001 to 2003, he served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he helped author a series of memos that have come to be known informally as “The Torture Memos.”

Professor Yoo has received the Paul M. Bator Award for excellence in legal scholarship and teaching from the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy. He has testified before the judiciary committees of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, and has advised the State of California on constitutional issues.

Director Alex Gibney’s Statement

“Man torturing man is a fiend beyond description. You turn a corner in the dark and there he is. You congeal into a bundle of inanimate fear. You become the very soul of anesthesia. But there is no escaping him. It is your turn now… “ – Henry Miller

Only six weeks before he died last year, my father, a journalist and author named Frank Gibney, asked me to get my video camera. He wanted me to unhook him from the oxygen machine so that he could speak to me about the film that I was trying to make about torture and the war on terror. My father had been a Naval interrogator in World War II. He questioned Japanese prisoners on Okinawa, one of the bloodiest battles of the war and had risked his life trying to persuade some of those soldiers to leave the caves from which they were launching futile last-ditch suicide missions. (Years later, bathed in the rippling neon lights of downtown Tokyo, he would introduce me to some of those former prisoners over bottles of sake in a neighborhood sushi bar.)

But on this day in Santa Barbara, overlooking the ocean on which he had sailed into battle 60 years earlier, my father was very angry at the ongoing revelations of how, in the so-called “Global War on Terror (GWOT)” American soldiers had tortured prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo and in various secret sites around the world. His fury was directed at some of the top officials in the Bush Administration – George W. Bush himself, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld (whom he knew slightly) and Alberto Gonzales – who had invented and rationalized a new policy of “coercive interrogation techniques” as the only way to combat a unique, new terrorist threat from enemies brutal enough to turn commercial airliners into suicide planes.

But my father had been there before. In the waning days of the Pacific War, the Japanese had shown us the “kamikaze” – literally “wind of God” – a wave of pilots who, like the Islamic terrorists many years later, turned their airplanes into suicide bombs. Yet, in interrogating these supposedly fanatical Japanese prisoners, my father and his fellow interrogators – all of whom had extensive language training, unlike most of the interrogators in the GWOT – discovered that most of the prisoners were not so different from their interrogators. They had wives, children and dreams of a better future for themselves and their families. More important to the military mission, they were rather free with information and provided important intelligence once they had established a rapport with their interrogators. It never occurred to my father to ask for permission to employ some of the brutal techniques that the Japanese had used against our soldiers.

“Why,” I asked. “Well,” he said, “because we didn’t need to and because we thought our principles gave us a strength that our enemy didn’t have.” He was furious at the Bush Administration because he felt that, in condoning techniques like water-boarding that had once been employed by the Spanish Inquisition, they had sacrificed the very principles we were supposed to be defending. The rule of law, he told me, is what we thought we were fighting for. “It’s what made us different,” he said. He despaired that, to wage a war on terror, we were taking on the values of the terrorists. “It’s got to stop,” he said.

This film is dedicated to my father – his righteous anger and his sense of possibility. Through him, I discovered that the issue of “torture” is not really about interrogation techniques. It is about a pandemic of corruption that ensues when the rule of law is weakened. He taught me that torture is like a virulent virus – spreading, mutating, building resistance to attempts to stop it – that infects everything in its path. It haunts the psyche of the soldier who administers it; it corrupts the officials who look the other way; it discredits the information obtained from it; it weakens the evidence in a search for justice, and it strengthens a despotic strain that takes hold in men and women who run hot with a peculiar patriotic fever: believing that, because they are “pure of heart,” they are entitled to be above the law.

- Alex Gibney, filmmaker

TIMELINE

1955

• Jul. 6, 1955 – Senate unanimously gave its advice and consent to the ratification of the Geneva Conventions

1990

• Oct. 27, 1990 – Senate unanimously gave its advice and consent to the ratification of the Convention Against Torture, article 2(1) of which obligated the United States to “take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.”

1994

• US ratifies UN Convention Against Torture.

• While the U.S. Senate ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) on October 27, 1990, President Clinton did not deposit the United States instrument of ratification of the Convention with the United Nations Secretary General until October 21, 1994. The United States’ obligations under the Convention Against Torture took effect 30 days later, on November 20, 1994.

1996

• The US Congress passes the War Crimes Act. The law defines a war crime to include a “grave breach of the Geneva Conventions.” The law applies if either the victim or the perpetrator is a national of the United States or a member of the U.S. armed forces. The penalty may be life imprisonment or death.

Ten years later, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention applied to the War on Terrorism, with the unstated implication that any interrogation techniques that violated Common Article 3 constituted War Crimes.

The text of Common Article Three: “…the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever…”

• Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

• Taking of hostages;

• Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

• The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”

2001

• Aug. 4, 2001 – US refuses entry to Mohamed al-Qahtani at Orlando Airport by an immigration official and deports al-Qahtani back to Dubai

• Sept. 25, 2001 – John Yoo writes memo stating President has “broad constitutional powers” for waging war.

• Oct. 7, 2001 – U.S. invades Afghanistan

• Oct., 2001 – Dick Cheney visits CIA to try to get legal opinion allowing greater latitude for coercive interrogation. CIA Gen. Counsel does not give Cheney the decision he wants.

• Nov. 6, 2001 – Office of Legal Counsel’s Patrick Philbin sends 35-page confidential memo to Alberto Gonzales saying the president has “inherent authority” to establish military commissions. It also says that trying terrorists under the laws of war “does not mean that terrorists will receive the protections of the Geneva Conventions or the rights that laws accord to lawful combatants.”

• Nov. 10, 2001 – While senior military JAGs are preparing a response to the draft military order, at the White House, Cheney, Ashcroft, Haynes and White House lawyers have their own meeting (according to the NY Times, Cheney advocated withholding the draft from Rice and Powell).

• November 11, 2001 – Capture of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi in Pakistan.

• Nov. 13, 2001 – Bush signs an Executive Order authorizing the Defense Secretary to hold non U.S. citizens in indefinite detention. The Military Order: “Detention, Treatment and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in War Against Terror” authorizes detention and trial by military commissions that should not be subject to principles of law and rules of evidence recognized by US courts or the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

• Dec., 2001 – Capture of Mohamed al-Qahtani in Afghanistan

• Dec. 16, 2001 – Rumsfeld visits Afghanistan.

• Dec. 19, 2001 – Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi transferred to US control at Bagram Air Force base. FBI agents begin questioning him. But the FBI refuses to use any “coercive interrogation techniques.” According to FBI Agent Jack Cloonan, the interrogation produces information regarding Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui. Despite this progress, at the request of George Tenet, the Bush Administration decides to transfer al-Libi to the custody of the CIA. (see January 2002 below.)

• Dec. 28, 2001 – Patrick Philbin (Deputy Asst. Attorney General) and John Yoo write memo on habeas corpus and Guantanamo (federal district court could not properly exercise habeas jurisdiction over an aliens detained at GBC).

• Late 2001 – Pres. Bush signs top-secret finding authorizing DOD to set up Special Access Program (SAP) known to only a few high-level folks to kidnap or assassinate terror suspects or rendition them to sympathetic nations for more “coercive” interrogation.

2002

• January 2002 – US sends Mohamed al-Qahtani to Guantanamo.

• January 2002 – In Bagram, CIA agents wrap Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi up in duct tape and put him in a plywood box “for his own protection,” according to FBI agent Jack Cloonan. Al-Libi is sent to Cairo. After being “waterboarded,” al-Libi “confesses” that Iraq had given al-Qaeda training in bomb-making and poison gas. This supposed link between al-Qaeda and Iraq will become part of Colin Powell’s speech to the UN that laid the groundwork for the invasion of Iraq. Al-Libi will later claim that this link was part of a “false confession” obtained through torture. The CIA will confirm that al-Libi’s testimony about the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda was false.

• Jan. 9, 2002 – John Yoo writes memo stating Geneva Conventions (as well as all international and US laws) do not apply to Al Qaeda and Taliban.

• Jan. 11, 2002 – William H. Taft responds to Yoo memo, calling Yoo’s opinions “seriously flawed.”

• Jan. 11, 2002 – First group of 20 detainees arrive at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo.

• Jan. 18, 2002 – Bush decides that detainees who are classified as terrorists (soon to be classified as “unlawful combatants”) are disqualified from prisoner of war protection under the Geneva conventions.

• Jan. 19, 2002 – Rumsfeld memo declares Al Qaeda and Taliban not prisoners of war under Geneva Conventions.

• Jan. 22, 2002 – Jay Bybee authors memo stating Geneva doesn’t apply to al Qaeda and Bush has constitutional authority to “suspend our treaty obligations toward Afghanistan.”

• Jan. 22, 2002 – At the request of Alberto Gonzales, Pentagon lawyers direct INTEL officers at Gitmo to fill out a one-page form for each prisoner certifying the president’s “reason to believe” their involvement with terrorism. Within weeks, INTEL officers say that they don’t even have enough evidence on most prisoners to complete the forms.

• Jan. 25, 2002 – In memo to Bush, Gonzales refers to aspects of Geneva Conventions as “quaint.” He acknowledged that scrapping GC could cause “widespread condemnation” from other countries and increase the likelihood that U.S. servicemen would be mistreated. Mr. Gonzales calls the campaign against terrorism “a new kind of war” that makes certain provisions of the Geneva Convention “obsolete.”

• Jan. 26, 2002 – Colin Powell writes a memo to Gonzales that asks the administration to reconsider its decision that Al Qaeda and Taliban members are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status, saying that doing so would “reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice … and undermine the protections of the laws of war for our troops, both in this specific conflict and in general.”

• Jan. 27, 2002 – Four U.S. senators accompany Rumsfeld to Guantanamo: Hawaii Sen. Daniel Inouye, Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

• Early 2002 – Don Guter (Navy Judge Advocate General) has meeting with Haynes and says, according to NY Times’s Tim Golden: “we need more information.” “No you don’t,” says Haynes.

• Early 2002 – Documents and interviews reveal that, regarding “enemy combatants,” Gonzales, David Addington and Tim Flanigan argued against presumption of innocence and participation of civilian lawyers.

• Feb. 1, 2002 – Ashcroft writes memo to Pres. Bush stating Geneva Conventions do not apply to Taliban or al Qaeda.

• Feb. 2, 2002 – In memo to White House Counsel Gonzales, Taft argues that Geneva Conventions do apply.

• Feb. 7, 2002 – Bush issues a directive defining Taliban and al Qaeda captives as “unlawful combatants,” not prisoners of war and states the “war against terror ushers in a new paradigm”

• Feb. 21, 2002 – Federal judge dismisses a challenge to the detentions.

• Feb. 27, 2002 – 1st hunger strike at Guantanamo (to protest a rule against turbans, U.S. officials decide to allow turbans).

• Mar., 2002 – Gen. Dunlavey (in charge of Guantanamo) flies to Afghanistan and Kuwait

• Mar. 21, 2002 – Guantanamo Administrators still don’t have evidence on Guantanamo detainees, so DOD indicates that they will hold them indefinitely as “enemy combatants.”

• May 2002 – FBI agents begin to complain about treatment of detainees at Guantanamo. Complaints put in writing and relayed to Haynes at DOD.

• Jul., 2002 – 519th MI company is sent to Bagram. Capt. Carolyn Wood is the officer in charge. According to Emily Bazelon, Wood rewrote interrogation policy to include more “aggressive” techniques.

• Jul., 2002 – Gitmo officials realize that al-Qahtani – now in custody at Guantanamo – may be the man intended to be the 20th highjacker. More intensive interrogation begins.

• Late summer 2002 – CIA analyst travels to Guanatnamo to find out why so little useful intelligence is being obtained. After interviewing 30 prisoners, “he came back convinced that they were committing war crimes in Guantanamo.” (Hersh Chain of Command) His report – Highly Classified – showed how badly prisoners were treated and how recklessly they had been captured, without regard to real intelligence value.

• Aug., 2002 – 377th MP Unit sent to Bagram.

• Aug. 1, 2002 – The “torture memo”, authored by Jay Bybee and John Yoo, declares that “certain acts may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity to fall within Section 2340” [of convention against torture, which bans cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment]

• Fall 2002 – General John Gordon reads the report and is very “troubled,” believing that “it was totally out of character with the American value system” and that it posed dangers for US soldiers if captured. (Hersh, COC)

• Oct. 11, 2002 – Memo from Guantanamo Administrators requesting expanded interrogation techniques travels up chain of command to Rumsfeld.

• Oct. 25, 2002 – Commander General James Hill sends memo to Gen. Myers. Hill says he is “uncertain whether all the techniques in the third category [there are three categories of techniques in the request to Rumsfeld] are legal under US law…”

• Nov., 2002 – Gen. Miller given command of Joint Task Force Guantanamo Bay.

• Nov. 23, 2002 – An approved “special interrogation plan” for Detainee 063 (Mohammed al-Qahtani) begins. The beginning of the interrogation log is 10 days prior to the official approval of expanded techniques by Donald Rumsfeld (see below).

• Nov. 27, 2002 – In response to a request for expanded interrogation techniques at Guantanamo, Haynes advises Rumsfeld to apply only Category I & II and “non-injurious physical conduct” of III.

• Nov. 30, 2002 – Detainee Habibullah arrives at Bagram

• Late 2002 – General John Gordon gets meeting with Rice and Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld said he would “look into” the issue of detainee abuse.

• Dec. 2, 2002 – Rumsfeld approves techniques in Haynes’ 11/27 memo (these techniques include: stress positions, isolation, use of hoods, removal of clothing, use of detainees’ individual phobias).

• Dec. 3, 2002 – Detainee Habibullah dies at Bagram

• Dec. 5, 2002 – Detainee Dilawar arrives at Bagram

• Dec. 10, 2002 – Detainee Dilawar dies at Bagram

• Dec. 17, 2002 – Navy General Counsel General Alberto Mora learns of abuse at Guantanamo

2003

• Jan. 11, 2003 – Aggressive interrogation of al-Qahtani stops

• Jan. 15, 2003 – After opposition to interrogation techniques by military lawyers – particularly Alberto Mora – Rumsfeld rescinds permission to use previously approved II & III techniques during Guantanamo interrogations, and approves them only on a case by case basis. Rumsfeld also convenes working group to assess legal policy and operational issues related to detainees.

• Mar. 6, 2003 – Working Group Report recommends taking Geneva Conventions into account but determines that Taliban detainees do not qualify as prisoners of war and that Geneva Conventions do not apply to anyone at Guantanamo. However, the working group also says that the US is bound to Torture Convention the of 1994 (as long as it is in accord with constitutional amendments 5, 8 &14).

• Mar. 20, 2003 – U.S. invades Iraq

• Apr. 4, 2003 – The working group argues that it may be necessary to interrogate detainees “in a manner beyond that which may be applied to a prisoner of war who is subject to Geneva Conventions.” Report details defenses for use of torture and legal technicalities that can be used to “create a good faith defense against prosecution.”

• June 2003 – Army Reserve Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski is named commander of all military prisons in Iraq

• Jul. 6, 2003 – Joseph Wilson reveals that the central reason for going to war – WMD – was false.

• July, 2003 – 519th MI Co. – with Carolyn Wood still in charge – is sent to Abu Ghraib.

• Aug. 31 – Sep. 9, 2003 – General Miller visits Abu Ghraib to “gitmoize” Iraq detention and interrogation operations.

• Sep. 10, 2003 – Chaplain James Yee is arrested.

• Dec. 3, 2003 – Australian detainee David Hicks is first prisoner Guantanamo to be given a lawyer.

• Dec. 4, 2003 – Rumsfeld visits Afghanistan.

• Dec. 6, 2003 – Rumsfeld makes a surprise visit to troops in Iraq.

2004

• Jan. 13, 2004 – MP Joseph Darby, gives army investigators a disk containing photos showing Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. The Pentagon is informed.

• Jan. 2004 – Rumsfeld learns of Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, tells Bush shortly after.

• Jan.16, 2004 – US Central Command issues five-sentence press release about investigation into mistreatment of prisoners. Rumsfeld claims this is when he first learned of abuses.

• Jan. 19, 2004 – Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski is formally admonished and quietly suspended.

• Jan. 19, 2004 – Gen. Sanchez orders investigation into Abu Ghraib.

• Feb. 23, 2004 – Rumsfeld visits Iraq.

• Feb.26, 2004 – Taguba report completed. It notes that, from Oct. to Dec. 2003, there were “sadistic, blatant and wanton crimnal abuses” at Abu Ghraib.

• Mar. 22, 2004 – Miller is appointed Deputy Commander for Detainee Operations, Combined Joint Task Force – 7/Multinational Force – Iraq.

• Apr. 9, 2004 – Article 32 Hearing (military equivalent of a Grand jury) for Sergeant Frederick.

• Apr. 20, 2004 – Supreme Court hears arguments on the Guantanamo detentions.

• May 13, 2004 – Rumsfeld visits Abu Ghraib prison.

• Jun. 22, 2004 – Haynes assures press that no prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan or Cuba had been tortured.

• Jun. 28, 2004 – In Rasul v Bush decision, the Supreme Court rules that Guantanamo detainees can challenge their captivity in federal courts.

• Jul. 7, 2004 – Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora sends memo to Vice Admiral Church that details his attempts to halt administration policy on detainees.

• Jul. 30, 2004 – The first hearings begin for the Pentagon created Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs), a non-judicial process to assess value and danger of detainees.

• Aug. 30, 2004 – Pentagon permits lawyer Gitanjali Guiterrez to meet detainees Begg, and Abassi for habeas corpus suits

• Nov. 10, 2004 – Bush administration nominates Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General.

• Dec. 30, 2004 – Deputy Attorney General James Comey disavows Bybee torture memo

2005

• Jan. 6, 2005 – Gonzales confirmation hearings begin.

• Feb. 3, 2005 – Gonzales is sworn in as Attorney General

• May 16, 2005 – Sgt. Anthony Morden is charged with 1 count assault and 2 counts of dereliction of duty. Later Morden is sentenced to 75 days in prison, reduced in rank to private, and given a bad conduct discharge.

• May 16, 2005 – Sgt. Selena Salcedo is charged with dereliction of duty and assault. Later reduced in rank, fined $1000 and given letter of reprimand.

• Aug. 17, 2005 – Pfc. Willie Brand is convicted of assault, maiming, maltreatment, and making a false official statement. He is reduced in rank to private.

• Aug. 24, 2005 – Spc. Glendale Walls pleads guilty to dereliction of duty and assault. He is later sentenced to 2 months in prison, reduced in rank to private and a given bad-conduct discharge.

• Sep. 27, 2005 – Lynndie England is sentenced to 3 yrs in jail.

• Sep. 29, 2005 – Sgt. Duane Grubb pleads not guilty to charges of assault, maltreatment and making false official statement. Grubb is later acquitted.

2006

• Jan. 6, 2006 – Charged of dereliction of duty and making a false official statement against Capt. Christopher Beiring are dropped. He is given a written reprimand for dereliction of duty.

• Jun. 1, 2006 – Pfc. Damien Corsetti is acquitted of dereliction of duty, maltreatment, assault, wrongful use of hashish, and performing an indecent act with another person.

End of timeline.

Editor’s Note: Much of the information contained in this article is taken from the press packet distributed by Think Films and their publicity team.

Thank you, Mr Valiulis, for that kind introduction.

I’m sure I don’t need to tell any of you that the world has changed significantly in the past 20 years. But the truth is, we’re going to see even greater changes in the next 20 or 30 years. To avoid irrelevancy, businesses, nonprofit entities, and federal agencies will all need to adapt to this accelerating pace of change. Stated differently, we can’t just be concerned with today; we need to focus on the future.

To capitalize on our opportunities and minimize related risks, all organizations must be mindful of the big picture and the long view. Organizations that endure tend to periodically rethink their missions and operations. World-class organizations understand that innovation requires change. One must change in order to continuously improve. The simple truth is an organization that stands still today is going to get passed by and, ultimately, it may not survive.

It’s useful to remember at the end of the 19th century, the original Dow Jones Industrial Average consisted of 12 stocks. These were all powerful companies, the leaders in their fields. Names like National Lead, U.S. Rubber, and Tennessee Coal and Iron were the Microsofts and Wal-Marts of their day. It’s sobering to realize only 1 of the original 12 Dow Jones companies survives today, and that’s GE. The rest couldn’t adapt to changing conditions and either merged with competitors or went out of business.

Throughout history, many great nations have also failed to survive. I should point out that the longest-standing republic and the major superpower of its day no longer exists, and that’s the Roman Republic. More on the Roman Republic later.

This morning, I’m going to focus on the long-term challenges facing our nation and the federal government, though many of these issues are relevant to other sectors of society. I’m going to talk about the need for federal agencies to adopt a long-term perspective and transform their organizations and operations to better meet the needs of today and tomorrow.

The Federal Executive Boards (FEB) could be an important part of that transformation effort. As GAO’s own work has shown, FEBs are uniquely positioned to bring government agencies together to work on common challenges. Increasingly, government is being called upon to address issues that require federal agencies to work closely together-responding to natural or manmade disasters, for example. And increasingly, the federal government has to work closely with states and communities, and with the private and not-for-profit sectors to meet these challenges. Because FEBs bring together all these players in your communities, you can provide linkages that the rest of government is going to have to work hard to create.

I’m also going to talk about the transformation efforts at my agency, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). GAO is in the vanguard of adapting innovative approaches and best practices. And many of our efforts are, in fact, transferable to other organizations inside and outside of government.

At the start of the 21st century, our country faces a range of sustainability challenges: fiscal, health care, energy, education, the environment, Iraq, aging infrastructure, and immigration policy, to name a few. These challenges are complex and of critical importance.

Some younger people here today may have no first-hand memory of the Cold War or the Iron Curtain. Your world has been defined by more recent developments, such as the invention of the microcomputer, the spread of the AIDS virus, and the mapping of the human genome. The challenge before us is to maintain a government that is effective and relevant to your generation and to future generations.

Unfortunately, our government’s track record in adapting to new conditions and meeting new challenges isn’t very good. Much of the federal government remains overly bureaucratic, myopic, narrowly focused, and based on the past. There’s a tendency to cling to outmoded organizational structures and strategies.

Many agencies have been slow to adopt best practices. While a few agencies have begun to rethink their missions and operations, many federal policies, programs, processes, and procedures are hopelessly out of date. Furthermore, all too often, it takes an immediate crisis for government to act. After all, history has shown that Washington is a lag indicator!

Efficient and effective government matters. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita brought that point home in a painful way. The damage these storms inflicted on the Gulf Coast put all levels of government to the test. While a few agencies, like the Coast Guard, did a great job, many agencies, particularly the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), fell far short of expectations. Public confidence in the ability of government to meet basic needs was severely shaken-and understandably so. If our government can’t handle known threats like natural disasters, it’s only fair to wonder what other public services may be at risk.

Transforming government and aligning it with modern needs is even more urgent because of our nation’s large and growing fiscal imbalance. Simply stated, America is on a path toward an explosion of debt. And that indebtedness threatens our country’s, our children’s, and our grandchildren’s futures. With the looming retirement of the baby boomers, spiraling health care costs, plummeting savings rates, and increasing reliance on foreign lenders, we face unprecedented fiscal risks.

Long-range simulations from my agency are chilling. If we continue as we have, policy makers will eventually have to raise taxes dramatically and/or slash government services the American people depend on and take for granted. Just pick a program-student loans, the interstate highway system, national parks, federal law enforcement, and even our armed forces.

Lately, I’ve been speaking out publicly about our nation’s worsening financial condition. Beginning in 2005, I started going on the road with a broad-based coalition that includes representatives from the Concord Coalition, the Brookings Institution, and the Heritage Foundation. We’re called the “Fiscal Wake-Up Tour” and so far we’ve made appearances in 25 cities and 21 states across the country.

Perhaps you saw the profile that 60 Minutes did of us back in the spring, which was repeated this summer. Or perhaps you saw me on The Colbert Report or heard me on The Diane Rehm Show.

Importantly, our nation’s financial problems are undermining our flexibility to address a range of emerging challenges. For example, America’s population is aging. Tens of millions of baby boomers, and I’m one of them, are on the brink of retirement. Many of these retirees will live far longer than their parents and grandparents. The problem is that in the coming decades, there simply aren’t going to be enough full-time workers to promote strong economic growth or to sustain existing entitlement programs. Like most industrialized nations, the United States will have fewer full-time workers paying taxes and contributing to federal social insurance programs. At the same time, growing numbers of retirees will be claiming their Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits.

Another ominous trend: American companies are cutting back the retirement benefits they’re offering to workers. This means all of us are going to have to plan better, save more, invest more wisely, and resist the temptation to spend those funds before we retire.

Beyond fiscal imbalances, the United States confronts a range of other challenges. Globalization is at the top of that list. Markets, technologies, and businesses in various countries and in various parts of the world are increasingly linked, and communication across continents and oceans is now instantaneous. This new reality was made clear by the recent drop in stock markets around the world.

Clearly, U.S. consumers have reaped many benefits from globalization. From clothing to computers, you and I can buy a range of foreign-made goods that are cheaper than ever. But there’s a catch. In many cases, lower prices have been accompanied by losses in U.S. jobs.

Globalization is also having an impact in areas like the environment and public health. The truth is that air and water pollution don’t stop at the border. And with today’s international air travel, infectious diseases can spread from one continent to another literally overnight.

With the end of the Cold War, we face new security threats, including transnational terrorist networks and rogue nations armed with weapons of mass destruction. September 11 brought this reality home in a painful way. Stronger multinational partnerships will be essential to counter these diverse and diffuse threats.

Challenges also come from technology. In the past 100 years, but especially the last 25 years, spectacular advances in technology have transformed everything from how we do business to how we communicate, to how we treat and cure diseases. Our society has moved from the industrial age to the knowledge age, where specialized knowledge and skills are two keys to success. Unfortunately, the United States-which gave the world Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, and Bill Gates-now lags behind many other developed nations on high school math and science test scores.

In many respects, our quality of life has never been better. We’re living longer, we’re better educated, and we’re more likely to own our own homes. But as many of you already know from your own families, we also face a range of quality-of-life concerns. These include poor public schools, gridlocked city streets, inadequate health care coverage, and the stresses of caring for aging parents and possibly our own children at the same time.

We also face a range of serious challenges when it comes to health care, education, energy, the environment, foreign policy, immigration, infrastructure, Iraq, and other issues. Current U.S. policy in all these key areas is on an unsustainable path over the long term. Tough choices must be made, and the sooner the better.

Our very prosperity is placing greater demands on our physical infrastructure. Billions of dollars will be needed to modernize everything from highways and airports to water and sewage systems. The recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis was a sobering wake-up call. The demands for such new investment will increasingly compete with other national priorities.

To preserve its ability to address these and other emerging trends, America needs to return to fiscal discipline and focus on the future. At both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and on both sides of the political aisle, we need leaders who will face these facts, speak the truth, partner for progress, and make tough choices. We also need leadership from our state capitols and city halls and from businesses, colleges and universities, charities, think tanks, the military, and the media. So far, there have been too few calls for fundamental change and shared sacrifice.

A Way Forward

By now, you’re probably wondering how we can turn things around. By nature, I’m an optimist and a person of action. I don’t believe in simply stating a problem. I also think it’s important to state a possible way forward.

Obviously, a return to fiscal discipline is essential. We need to impose meaningful budget controls on both the tax and the spending sides of the ledger. Members of Congress also need more explicit information on the long-term costs of spending and tax bills-before they vote on them. For example, the Medicare prescription drug bill came with an $8 trillion price tag. But that fact wasn’t disclosed until after the bill had been passed and signed into law.

But if our government is to successfully address the range of challenges I mentioned earlier, government transformation is also essential. Every federal agency and every federal program is going to have to rethink its missions and operations.

The problem is that much of government today is on autopilot, based on social conditions and spending priorities that date back decades. I’m talking about when Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and John Kennedy were in the White House. The fact is, the Cold War is over, the baby boomers are about to retire, and globalization is affecting everything from foreign policy to international trade to public health.

Unfortunately, once federal programs or agencies are created, the tendency is to fund them in perpetuity. This is what I mean when I say our government is on autopilot. Washington rarely seems to question the wisdom of its existing commitments. Instead, it simply adds new programs and initiatives on top of the old ones. As President Ronald Reagan once quipped, a government program is “the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” This is a key reason our government has grown so large and so expensive.

American families regularly clean out their closets and attics. Surplus items are either sold at yard sales or given to charity. Unfortunately, when it comes to federal programs and policies, our government has never undertaken an equivalent spring cleaning.

We need nothing less than a top-to-bottom review of federal programs, policies, and operations. Congress and the President need to decide which of these activities remain priorities, which should be overhauled, and which have simply outlived their usefulness.

Entitlement reform is especially urgent. Unless we reform Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, these programs will eventually crowd out all other federal spending. Otherwise, by 2040 our government could be doing little more than sending out Social Security checks and paying interest on our massive national debt.

GAO has been doing its best to bring attention to the problem. To get policy makers thinking, we published an unprecedented report that asks more than 200 probing questions about mandatory and discretionary spending, federal regulations, tax policy, and agency operations. The report was published in February 2005 and is called “21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government.” I recommend it to everyone here today. The report is available free on GAO’s Web site at www.gao.gov .

Last November, I sent a letter to congressional leaders suggesting 36 areas for closer oversight. We also recently updated GAO’s list of government areas at high risk of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.

Our hope is that policy makers and the public will think more strategically about where we are, where we’re headed, and what we need to do to get on a more prudent and sustainable path. Fortunately, concern seems to be growing. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have started asking some pointed questions about where we are and where we’re headed. Even the Administration now acknowledges that deficits matter. In recent statements, the President has pledged not just to balance the budget but also to start tackling our large and growing entitlement promises.

The American people need to become more informed and involved when it comes to the problems facing our country. They also need to become more vocal in demanding change. Younger Americans like you need to speak up because you and your children will ultimately pay the price and bear the burden if today’s leaders fail to act.

The good news is younger Americans turned out in large numbers for November’s midterm election. From Iraq to immigration, from ethical lapses to fiscal irresponsibility, the public’s dissatisfaction with the status quo was abundantly clear. But looking toward 2008, it’s essential that the public and the press hold candidates of both parties accountable for their position on our large and growing fiscal challenge.

Transforming government won’t happen overnight. Success depends on sustained leadership that transcends the efforts of a single person or a single administration. Public officials will also need to partner with other federal agencies, businesses, universities, and nonprofit groups, both domestically and internationally. The bottom line: We can succeed with enlightened and sustained leadership. And unlike with global warming, we can solve our fiscal challenge on our own! Our future in this area is in our hands if we have the courage to act…

…A Call to Public Service

As I mentioned earlier, government transformation won’t happen overnight. Elected, appointed, and career officials will need to work together closely for a sustained period of time-perhaps a generation or longer. And politicians will need to focus more on what’s right for our country rather than what’s right for their party. It’s going to take patience, persistence, perseverance, and even pain before we prevail in transforming government. But prevail we must.

At the same time, government transformation isn’t possible without a first-rate federal workforce. In my view, whatever your career, everyone should consider giving at least a couple of years to public service. I also strongly believe we should consider some mandatory public service requirement for able-bodied Americans.

Public service can take several forms: military or civilian government service, faith-based or other charitable organizations, or in community and other public interest groups. Lots of jobs in various sectors, from nursing to teaching to social work, also provide wonderful opportunities to serve others.

As someone who has divided his career between government and the private sector, I can tell you that my experience at federal agencies has been challenging, enlightening, and rewarding. Before coming to GAO in 1998, I was a senior executive in several private sector firms, including Price Waterhouse and Arthur Andersen. I also served as a trustee of Social Security and Medicare, as an Assistant Secretary of Labor, and as head of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
One person clearly can make a difference in today’s world. My favorite 20th century president, Theodore Roosevelt, is proof of that. TR, as he’s often called, was someone with character, conscience, and conviction.

As our 26th and youngest president, he was an optimist who firmly believed in the potential of government to improve the life of every citizen. As a trustbuster, TR took on some of the nation’s more powerful and ethically challenged corporate interests. And he won. As an environmentalist, TR left us with a legacy of great national parks like Yosemite. As an internationalist, he led peace talks to end the Russo-Japanese War. In fact, TR is the only American to have won both the Congressional Medal of Honor and the Nobel Peace Prize.

TR firmly believed that it was every American’s responsibility to be active in our civic life, and so do I. Democracy is hard work but it’s work worth doing. And that’s really at the heart of my message this morning. How America looks in the future is largely up to us. “We the people” are ultimately responsible for what does or does not happen in Washington.

Other countries with similar challenges have already acted. The two best examples are Australia and New Zealand. Like the United States, they have aging populations. Unlike the United States, these two countries have stepped up to the plate and dealt with some of their serious long-term challenges. Among other steps, they’ve reformed their overburdened public pension and health care systems. The efforts by policy makers in Australia and New Zealand show it’s politically possible to make difficult decisions that require short-term pain in the interest of long-term gain.

America is a great nation, probably the greatest in history. But if we want to keep America great, we have to recognize reality and make needed changes. As I mentioned earlier, there are striking similarities between America’s current situation and that of another great power from the past: Rome. The Roman Empire lasted 1,000 years, but only about half that time as a republic. The Roman Republic fell for many reasons, but three reasons are worth remembering: declining moral values and political civility at home, an overconfident and overextended military in foreign lands, and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government. Sound familiar? In my view, it’s time to learn from history and take steps to ensure the American Republic is the first to stand the test of time.

Please don’t misunderstand my message today. Things are far from hopeless. Yes, it’s going to take some difficult choices on a range of issues. But I’m convinced America will rise to the challenge, just as we did during World War II and other difficult times.

What’s needed now is leadership. The kind of leadership that leads to meaningful and lasting change has to be bipartisan and broad-based. Character also counts. We need men and women with courage, integrity, and creativity. Leaders who can partner for progress and are committed to truly and properly discharging their stewardship responsibilities.

But leadership can’t just come from Capitol Hill or the White House. Leadership also needs to come from Main Street.

It’s time for the three most powerful words in our Constitution-”We the people”-to come alive. As I said earlier, the American people are going to have to become better informed and involved as we head toward the 2008 elections. And the next President, whoever he or she may be, and whichever party he or she represents, should be prepared to use the bully pulpit of the Oval Office to push needed reforms. If these things happen, we have a real chance to turn things around and better position ourselves for the future.

My hope is when you leave here today, you’ll spread the word among your friends and family about the challenges we face. By facing the facts and making sound policy choices, I’m confident we can fulfill our stewardship responsibilities to your generation and to future generation of Americans. As TR said, “fighting for the right [cause] is the noblest sport the world affords.” I would encourage each of you to pick your cause, and do your best to make a real and lasting difference.
I appreciate your attention this afternoon, and I’d be happy to take any questions you might have.

* This article is based on US Government presentation and publication, and as such has been used without  permissiom.

About David M. Walker

David M. Walker became the seventh Comptroller General of the United States and began his 15-year term when he took his oath of office on November 9, 1998. As Comptroller General, Mr. Walker is the nation’s chief accountability officer and head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), a legislative branch agency founded in 1921. GAO’s mission is to help improve the performance and assure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people. Over the years, GAO has earned a reputation for professional, objective, fact-based, and nonpartisan reviews of government issues and operations.

In the 1950’s President Eisenhower issued his prophetic warning about the dangers of our nation’s Military industrial complex. We are seeing the fruits of that in our current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in the administration’s drive to trigger one with Iran.

During the Second World War, he served as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe, later he became the first supreme commander of NATO. He was elected the 34th U.S. President on a Republican ticket, serving for two terms. He is perhaps best known for Social Security, and the Interstate Highway System.

Lets us take a moment and listen to his farewell address to the nation…

Click here to view the embedded video.

Noam Chomsky, the Institute Professor Emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has released a similar warning in his documentary War Corporatism: The New Fascism. Here’s what he had to say on the matter…

In practice it is the program of radical statist reactionaries, who believe that the US should rule the world, by force if necessary, in the interests of the narrow sectors of concentrated private power and wealth that they represent, and that the powerful state they forge should serve those interests, not the interests of the public, who are to be frightened into submission while the progressive legislation and achievements of popular struggle of the past century are dismantled, along with the democratic culture that sustained them.

Within elite sectors, there is a great deal of concern over their brazen arrogance, remarkable incompetence, and willingness to increase serious threats to the country and to transfer a huge burden to coming generations for short-term gain.

Their war in Iraq, for example, was strongly opposed by leading sectors of the foreign policy elite, and perhaps even more strikingly, the corporate world. But the same sectors will continue to support the Bush circles, strongly. It is using state power to lavish huge gifts on them, and they basically share the underlying premises even if they are concerned about the practice and the irrationality of the actors, and the dangers they pose.

It’s quite clear that he’s describing President Eisenhower’s Military Industrial Complex. This my friend is why we are really at war in Iraq, a war they want to last for up to fifty years.

The text of President Eisenhower’s farewell Address

The farewell speech of U.S.A. President, Dwight Eisenhower. Given on 17 January 1961 and televised in the U.S.A.

Good evening, my fellow Americans.

First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunities they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.

Three days from now, after a half century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen. Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation. My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years. In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation good, rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with Congress ends in a feeling — on my part — of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts, America is today the strongest, the most influential, and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America’s adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research — these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs, balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress. Lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration. The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of threat and stress.

But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. Of these, I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or, indeed, by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual –is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

During the long lane of the history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent, I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war, as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years, I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

So, in this my last good night to you as your President, I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and in peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy. As for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I, my fellow citizens, need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations’ great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America’s prayerful and continuing aspiration: We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its few spiritual blessings. Those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; and that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth; and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.

Thank you, and good night. – Retrieved from Wikisource

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s program, The fifth estate took a look at the lies and manipulations which lead to the invasion of Iraq and the failure of the media to question the lies which they were being fed by this administration. They point out the many simularities between what we heard then about Iraq and what we are hearing from the administration about Iran. This program first aired on March 7th 2007.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Since the US-led invasion four years ago, the fifth estate has covered Iraq and the war on terror from virtually every angle–the military, media, intelligence, politics–revealing aspects of the story that you didn’t find anywhere else. Now, as the White House warns about the latest threat in the region, this time from Iran, it’s worthwhile looking back to examine the deception, suspect intelligence, even lies, that convinced the world of the rightness of targeting Saddam Hussein.

The political decisions behind the invasion

The Lies That Led To War is drawn from these stories: In 2003’s The Forgotten People, the fifth estate examined the human rights arguments used to make a case for war. We looked at the sale of technology by the US to Iraq during the 1980’s despite the fact that this equipment could be, and was used eventually, in military operations by Saddam Hussein against Kurdish civilians. After the gassing of the Kurds in 1988, American business with Iraq actually increased.

In Act of Faith which aired that same year, the fifth estate examined how George Bush and Tony Blair struck a deal that would lead to the invasion of Iraq. It was a deal struck while UN diplomats worked to avert conflict in the weeks and months leading up to March 19, 2003.

In the widely acclaimed Conspiracy Theories and the Unauthorized Biography of Dick Cheney, which aired in 2003 and 2004 respectively, we looked at intelligence failures leading up to 9/11, Dick Cheney’s power within the White House and his Halliburton connections, as well as the links between the Bush family, the Saudi Royal family and the Bin Ladens.

Selling the war in Iraq

In 2005’s Sticks and Stones, we turned our attention to the American media and how they covered the ongoing war in Iraq, public dissent, as well as the increasingly hostile tone between left and right in American discourse.

Now, The Lies That Led To War provides context to the events of the previous six years, showing how political, diplomatic, media spin – which sometimes crossed the line into outright lies – have been used by the those in power to further their own agendas.

Since September 11th there have been those who say that what we actually saw, may not have been what we thought. Videos on this subject have been in the top 100 videos on Google video for a long time. Well after a new one recently appeared in to the top 100 videos, I felt that perhaps we should all take a look. I make no judgments on the content of these videos. I don’t advocate for them or against them, consider this simply an exercise in constructive reasoning.

9/11 Loose Change Second Edition

Click here to view the embedded video.

“Loose Change 2nd Edition” is the follow-up to the most provocative 9-11 documentary on the market today.

This film shows direct connection between the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the United States government.

Evidence is derived from news footage, scientific fact, and most important, Americans who suffered through that tragic day.

9/11 Mysteries (Full Length, High Quality)

Click here to view the embedded video.

This is a brand new public domain 9/11 Truth documentary about the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center complex.

(Democrat Press release)

Click here to view the embedded video.

AFTER 9/11 BUSH WANTED TO GET BIN LADEN

2001: After Attacks Bush Wanted Him “Dead or Alive.” “We will win the war and there will be costs,” President Bush said shortly after the attacks. He said that he wanted Osama bin Laden “dead or alive.” [Associated Press, 9/15/01; Associated Press, 9/17/01]

THEN FOR THE NEXT 5 YEARS, HE WASN’T “CONCERNED” ABOUT THE 9/11 MASTERMIND

2002: Bush: “Not That Concerned” About Bin Laden. In a news conference, President Bush was asked about Osama bin Laden. “I don’t know where he is. I-I’ll repeat what I said. I am truly not that concerned about him.” [White House Press Conference, 3/13/02]2005: Bush “Hardly Ever Utters” Osama Bin Laden’s Name. “The White House has sought to play down the significance of bin Laden to the global anti-terror battle. As a result, Bush hardly ever utters the name of the man he.repeatedly promised would be caught.” [Associated Press, 3/3/05]

• 2005: Bush “Rarely Mentions” Osama Bin Laden. CBS News reported that “Three-and-a-half years after 9/11.Osama bin Laden remains at large and dangerous. President Bush rarely mentions him anymore.” ABC News reported on the President’s comments that the US is keeping pressure on bin Laden, stating bluntly that “That’s another way of saying the United States is not finding bin Laden.” [CBS, 3/3/05; ABC, 3/3/05]

2006: CIA Closed Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden. The Central Intelligence Agency closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants. The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded in late 2005 and its analysts were reassigned. Michael Scheuer, a former senior CIA official who was the first head of the unit, said the move reflected a mistaken view within the agency that bin Laden was no longer the threat he once was. “This will clearly denigrate our operations against Al Qaeda,” he said. “These days at the agency, bin Laden and Al Qaeda appear to be treated merely as first among equals.” [MSNBC; New York Times, 7/4/06]

2006: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Stumbled When Asked About Osama Bin Laden’s Priority Level. When asked by Wolf Blitzer if Osama Bin Laden was his “top priority, in terms of America’s most wanted” criminal, Gonzales replied, “There are a lot of very important people that we want to prosecute.” [CNN Situation Room, 9/5/06]

NOW, WITH THE ELECTION TWO MONTHS AWAY, BUSH USES BIN LADEN FOR POLITICAL GAIN

Yet, In A Speech This Week, Bush Mentioned Bin Laden 17 Times. [White House Transcripts, 9/8/06, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060905-4.html]

There was a recent piece by MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on his Countdown show, which covered the history of using Terrorism and Terrorists by politicians especially Republican ones for Political Gain. It’s very damning and you should really go watch it, it’s also available on Crooks and Liars where I first learned about the piece! Then come back here, and read the rest of this article!

1,000 Cellphones

We have all heard of the recent arrest of three men of middle eastern descent who were caught with over 1,000 prepaid cellphones.

There were a thousand cell phones that were inside one motor vehicle. a laptop computer, a camera. When you toss three brown skinned men into the mix, yep must be Terrorism.

“We didn’t know exactly what was going on. You hear on the news about these phones being used to detonate IED’s.” – Michigan State Police Trooper Patrick Sharkey

We then heard this ominous statement

Tuscola County Prosecutor Mark E. Reene said Monday that representatives of his office and Caro police had met with Sunday with officials from the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. attorney’s office. He said all the agencies were working together on the investigation. He thinks the men had a complex plan to attack the Mackinac Bridge.

Prosecutors charged the men with collecting or providing materials for terrorist acts and surveillance of a vulnerable target for terrorist purposes.

The three Dallas-area men arrested in Michigan on state terrorism charges are well-known to cell phone wholesale and retail shops in Texas where they live. They were a part of a brisk trade that exists in buying phones from Wal-Mart and other discount stores and reselling them to smaller shops.

It’s actually fairly lucrative they can buy the phones for 20$ at Wal-marts and resell them for up to 38$ at smaller shops in cities without a local Wal-mart

The FBI has issued their own statement on this situation:

They had no information to indicate that the three Texas men arrested with about 1,000 cell phones in their van had any connections to a known terrorist group. There is no imminent threat to the bridge linking Michigan’s upper and lower peninsulas.

We can at least hope that the charges against these men are promptly dropped and that they receive an apology from the Michigan prosecutors and from every single news organization which trumpeted these slanderous charges. I wouldn’t hold my breath if I was one of the three men. Even if they do apologize, I seriously doubt that this is reported as widely or as loudly as the initial news releases on this matter were.

The UK Airline plots

On to plot to blow up U.S. bound flights with gel explosives

Some interesting facts

U.S., U.K. at odds over timing of arrests: British wanted to continue surveillance on terror suspects, official says.

British officials knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case. -NBC News

A news organization quoted a top aid to President Bush as denying the account of the British officials while another U.S. official admitted it was in fact true.

I would bet real money that the top aid to President Bush is in fact the same man coordinating this Republican campaign of fear, Karl Rove or one of his Deputies. We all know his penchant for being an anonymous source in support of the Administrations policies, just ask Ambassador Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame, the formerly clandestine CIA agent.

The plot was serious and dangerous to flyer’s according to the TSA and Bush Administration:

For that reason, the United States Government has raised the nation’s threat level to Severe, or Red, for commercial flights originating in the United Kingdom bound for the United States. This adjustment reflects the Critical, or highest, alert level that has been implemented in the United Kingdom. To defend further against any remaining threat from this plot, we will also raise the threat level to High, or Orange, for all commercial aviation operating in or destined for the United States. Consistent with these higher threat levels, the Transportation Security Administration is coordinating with federal partners, airport authorities and commercial airlines on expanding the intensity of existing security requirements. Due to the nature of the threat revealed by this investigation, we are prohibiting any liquids, including beverages, hair gels, and lotions from being carried on the airplane. This determination will be constantly evaluated and updated when circumstances warrant. These changes will take effect at 4:00 AM local time across the country. Travelers should also anticipate additional security measures within the airport and at screening checkpoints. – TSA press release

But in fact a senior British official hinted that an attack was not imminent, saying that the suspects had not purchased any airline tickets, some did not even have passports. Another little tidbit they left out was that some of these “plotters” were known to the British security services even before the London subway bombings which occurred last year.

In short this plot had absolutely no chance of success and wasn’t a real threat, and the Bush Administration knew that when they raised the terror alert levels and instigated a renewal of the publics fear in order to influence the political landscape.

A TSA supervisor and trainer was quoted in the opinion section of The Leaf Chronicle today as stating the following facts about the agency.

• Liquid explosives are not new. The concept was tested in the Bojinka terrorist plot in 1994 and was successful. Introduction aboard aircraft is still a significant threat with an extremely high probability of success. TSA has known about this threat since its inception.
• TSA did not address definitive actions to prevent explosives from being carried on passengers through checkpoints until two Russian aircraft were destroyed by suicide bombers using explosive vests. The response was a torso pat down. Passenger-carried explosives are still a significant threat. TSA has known about this threat for years.
• Numerous nonstandard explosive/incendiary devices and employment methods exist now that present a significant introduction threat with very little chance of detection. TSA has known about this for years

He dismissed shoulder-fired missiles totally saying only that the TSA has no defense against these.

In the end he concluded with:

My point? Simple. TSA knows terrorists think outside the box, yet the TSA refuses to attempt to out think the bad guys, preferring to wait until something happens before they act. Multiple threats are still out there, still viable, and will likely not be fixed until a bunch of people die. – Sam Smith, The Leaf Chronicle Letters to the Editor

As for having to remove your shoes and have them x-rayed, In a April 2005 report entitled: “Systems Engineering Study of Civil Aviation Security — Phase I,” the Homeland Security Department concluded that images on X-ray machines don’t provide the information necessary to detect explosives. They are now trying to claim otherwise.

In the end removing your shoes and having them x-rayed is all a dog and pony show to make the public feel safer about flying.

It’s time to fight back

My suggestion until they stop trying to manipulate your fears, do not fly. It’s not worth the hassle, and having to surrender your civil liberties. If enough people stop flying, the airlines will scream bloody murder, and then we will get some common sense in how airline security is handled in this country.

Politicians like to ask “Are you safer today than you were 5 years ago?” My answer is maybe not, but you are not any more at risk either.

In November, vote out of your hopes, not your fears, and by doing so show the Republicans that “We the People” will not allow them use our fears (Terrorism, Immigration, and Gay Marriage) as a tools to enable them to control us.

There is an old saying, “Fool me once, Shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Don’t allow yourself to be fooled by George Bush and the Republicans again.

If you looked behind the grandiose press conferences of the cases against Abu Ali, Jose Padilla’s, and others like theirs, you find the flimsiest of facts – Counter punch

So, take these new claims of Terrorist plots with a grain of salt.

Much like that in the terrorism conspiracy claims made against 7 men from Miami, Florida recently.

“As been reported, seven men were arrested yesterday in Miami on charges of conspiring to support the al Qaeda terrorist organization by planning attacks on numerous targets, including bombing the Sears Tower in Chicago, the FBI building in North Miami Beach, Florida, and other government buildings in Miami-Date County.” – U.S. Department of Justice Press Release

But in reality the men were not linked to any terrorist groups, attempted no terrorist actions other than reportedly swearing oaths to a terrorist organization which they had never any contact with.

Our own government privately dismissed the risk of these so called conspirators, while at the same time making sensational claims to the contrary to the press.

Buzz Flash a online progressive news organization compiled a list of quotes:

The Chicago Police told the NY Daily News that There was “No credible threat… They had no capability to (destroy the Sears tower). They never got to that point – or could have.”

The Chicago Sun-Times reported that a Sears Tower executive informed them that “Law enforcement continues to tell us that they have never found evidence of a credible terrorism threat against Sears Tower that has gone beyond criminal discussions.”

A Senior federal law-enforcement source was quite clear that the group had “No means” to attack Sears Tower or other buildings. “There was no threat at all.” according to the Chicago Tribune.

The Executive Director of the Chicago Office of Emergency Management and Communication said “The plan developed in Florida was never an actual plan, and therefore, nobody was in danger” so says a CBS News report.

Buzzflash also released a report that in June, Karl Rove ratcheted his much vaunted fear machine up again.

I am sure we all remember this the quote from Fahrenheit 9/11:

“You can make people do anything when they’re afraid.” – Jim McDermott (D-WA)

I feel that George Bush needs a dictionary. In a press conference he recently held, Bush said:

The recent arrests that our fellow citizens are now learning about are a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to — to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation.

The Wikipedia defines fascism as “a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.”

Sure sounds like the George W. Bush’s vision of his ideal government. Could this be a classic example of projection?

Projection is a defense mechanism where an individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has, but cannot accept.

He also made claims that our nation is safer since 9/11

The — this country is safer than it was prior to 9/11. We’ve taken a lot of measures to protect the American people. But obviously we’re still not completely safe, because there are people that still plot and people who want to harm us for what we believe in. It is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America.

And that is why we have given our officials the tools they need to protect our people.

He doesn’t care that he’s had to trash the laws of this nation and the Constitution that he swore to protect and defend, in order to do it either.

A quote that some attribute to Benjamin Franklin says it quite well:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Our nation may be safer, but we have lost too much of the freedoms we used to take for granted in exchange. The goal of terrorism is to make the targeted society change. In this, we have given victory to the terrorists.

We nibble away at the liberties which made America the envy of the world, all in the name of protecting our citizens. Yes steps should be taken to protect our nation from terrorist attacks, but not at the cost of our personal, civil, and constitutionally protected liberties.

We have had The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance, a recent report released by the minority members of Congress which details some of the constitutional issues created by the use of these Bush Administration tactics.

Bush also said:

It — travelers are going to be inconvenienced as a result of the steps we’ve taken. I urge their patience and ask them to be vigilant. The inconveniences occurs because we will take the steps necessary to protect the American people.

…The American people need to know we live in a dangerous world, but our government will do everything we can to protect our people from those dangers.

We lived in a dangerous world long before 2001, the only thing that changed was the people and the party in charge, and how badly they over reacted to it.

It is past time that we show the Republicans, the Bush Administration, and their enablers, that our freedoms are not something that we are willing to surrender, that they are accountable to the people of the United States, and to the rule of law. No one in our nation is above the law, and our president and his administration should not be held to a lesser standard, but to a higher one.

Here’s someone who says why this is necessary, much better than I ever could:

-5356028356890054402