WASHINGTON (CNN) — The FBI announced Friday that the government has received a new, unsubstantiated terrorist threat against U.S. financial institutions — a threat, sources said, that was to be carried out by al Qaeda operatives.
‘Unspecified terrorists are considering physical attacks against U.S. financial institutions in the Northeast, particularly banks, as part of their campaign against U.S. financial interests,’ the FBI said.
Sources said the information indicated a possible mode of attack was suicide bombing.
The information that led to the alert, the sources said, came from a variety of intelligence sources, including al Qaeda detainees captured as part of the ongoing war against terrorism. Law enforcement learned the information in the last couple of days, the sources said. “
According to this very handy timeline done by Julius, this information didn’t merit a full fledged terror alert at the time. It appears that they like to keep a threat or two in reserve in case they need to change the subject really fast.
This (pdf) report from the Center for Constitutional Rights regarding the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo will make your hair stand on end. The Abu Ghraib torture photos are terrible and shocking, but this is so systematic, so methodical so Kafkaesque that it makes you wonder if this country can redeem itself. It is only a matter of scale that differentiates this camp from the gulags and the concentration camps of the twentieth century.
It is a long detailed account by three of the British prisoners who were held for more than two years and have since been released and are back home, free and presumably not considered dangerous since they were released by the authorities within 24 hours of landing. The story of their treatment, most particularly the cold and calculating, relentless mental torture combined with harsh conditions and regular bouts of physical abuse is difficult to read.
During the whole time that we were in Guantanamo, we were at a high level of fear. When we first got there the level was sky-high. At the beginning we were terrified that we might be killed at any minute. The guards would say to us “we could kill you at any time.” They would say “the world doesn’t know you’re here, nobody knows you’re here, all they know is that you’re missing and we could kill you and no one would know”. After time passed, that level of fear came down somewhat but never vanished. It was always there. We were in a situation where there was no one we could complain to and not only could they do anything to any of us but we could see them doing it to other detainees. All the time we thought that we would never get out. Most especially if we were in isolation there would be a constant fear of what was happening and what was going to happen. If it hadn’t been for the Arabs knowing by the position of the sun when to pray, we wouldn’t have known even that. We didn’t know the time. We know the dates we do know because we counted for ourselves and some soldiers would tell us enough to let us slightly keep track, otherwise there was no way and there was never meant to be any way.
These men had already been through that horrible shipping container massacre in Afghanistan. Then they were held at Bagram and Kandahar, where their treatment was unspeakably harsh and cruel. (This, of course, is where certain “contractors” are alleged to have beaten prisoners to death.) By the time they got to Gitmo, they had already been brutalized.
Now, if one were to have some sort of sympathy for the soldiers in Afghanistan who were gathering up “Taliban” and “al Qaeda” with virtually no knowledge of the country, the terrain or the various tribal and political feuds that went on there, you could say that they,at least,expected that Guantanamo would sort out the real bad guys from the innocent guys. That never happened. Apparently, it was assumed that if they put you on a plane for Gitmo you were a terrorist, period.
That’s why, as an American, it is also difficult to face the fact that nobody down there had the first clue about what they were doing in terms of interrogations and intelligence. It sounds as if every third rate intel guy from the FBI to MI5 to the CIA to Navy intelligence got a crack at these guys, basically asking them stupid useless questions over and over again, all the while torturing them until they falsely implicated themselves. Then the cycle would begin again. Millions of dollars and man hours have been wasted on useless intelligence gathering turning the entire project into a self perpetuating cycle of sadism and insane ass covering. It is a disgrace.
I am not surprised to learn that much of the truly malignant psychological torture was brought to the camp by artillery officer in charge of sadism, General Geoffrey D. Ripper who is, as we speak, streamlining the torture operations in Iraq so as not to be so sloppy and obvious. He did a fine job of that in Guantanamo. The ERF goon squad was a particularly nice touch.
“We had the impression that at the beginning things were not carefully planned but a point came at which you could notice things changing. That appeared to be after General Miller around the end of 2002. That is when short-shackling started, loud music playing in interrogation, shaving beards and hair, putting people in cells naked, taking away people’s “comfort” items, the introduction of levels, moving some people every two hours depriving them of sleep, the use of A/C air. Isolation was always there. “Intel” blocks came in with General Miller. Before when people were put into isolation they would seem to stay for not more than a month. After he came, people would be kept there for months and months and months. We didn’t hear anybody talking about being sexually humiliated or subjected to sexual provocation before General Miller came. After that we did. Although sexual provocation, molestation did not happen to us, we are sure that it happened to others. It did not come about at first that people came back and told about it. They didn’t. What happened was that one detainee came back from interrogation crying and confided in another what had happened. That detainee in turn thought that it was so shocking he told others and then other detainees revealed that it had happened to them but they had been too ashamed to admit to it. It therefore came to the knowledge of everyone in the camp that this was happening to some people. It was clear to us that this was happening to the people who’d been brought up most strictly as Muslims. It seemed to happen most to people in Camps 2 and 3, the “intel” people, ie the people of most interest to the interrogators. In addition, military police also told us about some of the things that were going on. They would tell us just rather like news or something to talk about. This was something that was happening in the camp. It seemed to us that a lot of the MPs couldn’t themselves believe it was happening.
One of the things that becomes clear in this is that they carefully used each prisoner’s weak points to get them to confess. Sexual humiliation was not considered useful with these British guys, they used isolation and mind games on them. Others, it seemed, responded to pain. The torture was very individualized. (At Abu Ghraib, after Miller passed on the techniques, they let things get out of hand and Lynndie and the gang started to have “fun” with the sexual sadism. But, there is little doubt that the whole system came from Miller.)
These three guys were very lucky that they came from a country that was closely allied with the US and had some favors to call in. They’d been forced to confess to being in a video with bin Laden even though two of them were in British police custody at the time the video was filmed and the other was working in an electronics store in his home town of Tipton. (They were fingered as being the ones in the video by one of the many mentally ill prisoners in the camp who have been driven around the bend by the conditions there.) British Intelligence found the proof that they were nowhere near bin Laden at the time which explains why these allegedly vicious terrorists who had been held in appalling conditions for years were allowed to just get off the plane from Gitmo and walk right back into Britain as free citizens. The poor damned Afghans, Pakistanis,Africans and Chinese(?) who’ve been sold to the Americans by various members of the northern Alliance and others for CIA money aren’t so lucky.
I urge you to read the whole thing even though it’s quite long. It details stories, some of which we’ve heard from other sources, of prisoners being forcibly injected with unknown substances, denial of urgent medical treatment, brutal beatings, sexual humiliation and psychological torture that is beyond outrageous.
These men were never charged with a crime. Indeed, they never even fought against the United States. Even in the worst cases of prison abuses in America before the reform movement of the 1930’s, prisoners had at least had a chance to appear before a hanging judge before they were locked up in “the hole.”
I am sick that this happened in my country’s name. The men who signed the orders allowing this, Don Rumsfeld and George W. Bush, are war criminals.
Update:
Moral Malpractice
Via TalkLeft and Body and Soul, I am glad to see that the New England Journal of Medicine has weighed in the rather stunning spectacle of doctors, medics and nurses participating in or overlooking torture. I wrote about this a couple of times in the past. It was right there in the papers.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai is seeking the support of former Taliban officials in an effort to stabilize the democratic process. The U.S.-backed Karzai has been fighting insurgents, some of them Taliban, since he took office.
Hey, maybe he can get bin Laden to help him with his campaign. I hear he’s quite an excellent planner.
I know that rules of logic have been suspended for the duration, but this continues to drive me so nuts that I can’t help but mention it from time to time.
With respect to WMD, … I’ve had a couple reporters ask me the same question, ‘Do you think that since we didn’t find this WMD, do you think it’s a mistake?’ And I look and hopefully give a wry smile and say “Do you think it would be better to have left this regime to build it?” I think we are far better served that the regime of Saddam Hussein no longer stands in Iraq.
Here’s the thing. Logically then, we have the right to invade and occupy any country in the world, since the criteria are simply that someone might someday build weapons of mass destruction and use them against us. In other words, this is like some comic book recipe for taking over the world. We could justify taking over Canada tomorrow under this doctrine, or New Zealand or Brazil. Who knows who might, maybe, could be thinking about someday, perhaps, down the road building something we don’t like right this very minute? Japan? France? (of course) South Korea? Not to mention the ones we supposedly know are doing it, Iran and North Korea. And, if we add up the list of those which have populations that now hate our guts and fear that we are going around the bend, you have virtualy the entire world on the list.
I don’t mind it so much when typical Joe spouts this line because he may not have thought it through and it has a certain emotional resonance. Even Republicans saying it is at least understandable because they are covering their asses. But, members of the officer corp of the US Military should never say such things. Ever. It’s Strangelovian in the extreme. Maybe he’s just covering for his pal, Junior, but there are many better (if still lousy) reasons to justify the invasion than that Saddam might have built weapons in the future so we had to take him out on March 16, 2003 and not a day later.
You know, I had always thought that the secret service was one of the elite police forces — together, professional, the best of the best. And then I read
this story over on Kos today about the Sikh who was harrassed during the convention, apparently because the secret service is too fucking stupid to know the difference between Sikhs and Muslims.
That is on top of this story from last week by Tim Grieve in Salon that made me feel like hurling when I read it:
Inside the Fleet Center, the working press sits at tables that flank the convention stage. Except during major speeches, the reporters — like the delegates themselves — seldom pay much attention to what’s happening on the stage. They talk among themselves, burn through their cell phone batteries and write pieces on their laptops.
That’s what we were doing Thursday afternoon when a Secret Service agent had another idea. “Excuse me sir,” his voice boomed from behind us. “It’s the presentation of the colors, and I think it’s important enough for you to stand up.”
The agent had noticed — we had not — that the American flag was being presented in the still half-empty convention hall. We acknowledged his right to his opinion, then we returned to our work. At that point, the agent ordered us to stand — ostensibly so he could confirm that our press credentials were valid. We complied with the order, then turned on our tape recorder and asked if he was actually ordering us to stand for the flag.
“No sir, I’m not. I’m looking at your deal,” he said. “I’m ordering you because I want to see your credentials, and you’re going to stand here until the flag is over with.”
What’s your name? “I’m Chad Reagan, and I’m checking your credentials, out of the New York field office. I’m checking your credentials.”
Because we’re working during the presentation of the flag?
“No sir, because I’m wondering who you are.”
We told him that we worked for Salon.
“Great,” he said, “I’m checking your credentials.”
Nearby officials from the Congressional Periodical Press Gallery instantly confirmed the validity of our credentials. We asked the agent if he always orders people to stand for the flag, and whether Secret Service policy either authorized or required him to do so.
“I served for six months in the United States Marine Corps overseas, sir, so I like it when people stand. The reason I came over here was to credential you. You can think what you want, but the reason I came over here was to credential you. And I’ll stick to that. I’m allowed to credential anyone I want. That is Secret Service policy.”
But you told us to stand for the flag, right?
“No sir, I didn’t tell you. I said that I think it’s important enough to stand, and then I said, ‘Let me see your credentials.’ There’s a difference.”
Totally unprofessional, totally out of line and totally unamerican. When exactly did the Secret Service become the guardians of patriotism?
This is one of those things that unnerves me about all of our new police forces and homeland security services and domestic intelligence agencies. More cops flexing their muscle and less safety overall. Police states aren’t planned, they evolve. We are in the midst of one of those evolutions.
Here’s a very interesting interview with journalist Philip Gourevitch of The New Yorker. He has many fine insights into the way the press covers politics and also the way the parties manipulate the press. But, he said one thing in particular that I think is important:
[Another] big mistake I think the press makes: They call anything that isn’t a strict policy issue “character,” when often it’s personality. There’s a big difference. Character has to do with things like honesty and integrity and honor. I don’t think anybody can, for instance, begin to look at both [candidates’] records and say Bush’s character, or let’s say his service during the Vietnam war, or his sobriety, his business record, his way of sort of being really quite indifferent about all sorts of things, that these are character issues where he comes off looking great. He has a winning personality, apparently, with a lot of people. Kerry, on the other had, his character may be conflicted in places but his problem is a personality problem.
Character is a very strong word. It suggests a kind of fundamental quality of the soul, of the sensibility, it’s almost like the stuff somebody’s made of. If you say this guy has a character problem, it doesn’t mean he’s hard to like. I’ve interviewed war criminals and mass murders, and they’re often exceedingly charming … So charm and character or personality and character are separate things, and I think the press probably conflates them in a way that is not useful or is misleading…
Actually, “character” is a patented GOP spin point that is used against Democrats and for Republicans. (As such, it is entirely unsurprising that the press has adopted it wholesale without ever giving it a second thought.) It is a central tenet of the GOP attack machine to disparage Democrats’ tolerance, openness to new ideas and our more complex worldview as showing a lack of character. We are shallow, cowardly, insubstantial, craven, lacking in integrity and morals. That’s what the flip-flop charge is all about. “John Kerry has no principles” — a character flaw.
As Gourevitch says, the idea of character goes to a “fundamental quality of the soul, the stuff’s somebody’s made of.” People take these things very seriously in evaluating others. Those words matter. And, unfortunately, we Democrats have often adopted the same exact language to goad our own politicians into action, which helps to validate their charge against us.
It also leads us astray. Very often what is merely a bad strategic call is seen as cowardice or a failed tactic is regarded as cravenness when, in fact, the politicians who supported them may have been ineffective, not for lack of character but for lack of good ideas or flawed execution. Brave people can fail. And more importantly, if you don’t deal with the actual problem you can’t properly correct it.
It is always fair to criticize our politicians when they make mistakes and when they fail. We aren’t a cult. But the least we can do is not blindly adopt Republican jargon and categorize every political failure as a lack of character when, in fact, the failure may stem from something else entirely.
I will say again for the thousandth time that whenever Democrats find themselves saying something about a fellow Democrat that they can imagine Rush or Hannity saying on their radio shows, they should stop and think again. They are playing on Republican turf and it does us absolutely no good.
I couldn’t help but notice the ages of the “goons” who tried to drown out Kerry with airhorns in Milwaukee yesterday:
About 30 Bush supporters chanted loudly during the speeches by Kerry and his wife, sometimes setting off air horns. The pro-Bush group was on the Kilbourn Ave. sidewalk overlooking Pere Marquette Park, almost a full block from the stage, but it could be heard throughout the park, including on stage.
Tom Lange, 18, of Waukesha said he was setting off an air horn during Kerry’s remarks because “we want them to hear us and not hear what he has to say.”
Lange said it’s “probably not nice, but it’s my beliefs.”
Michael Gaspar, 18, of Waukesha used a bullhorn frequently before and during the rally to welcome Kerry supporters “to Bush-Cheney country” and to spur on the Bush supporters.
Asked why he was leading the Bush volunteers in loud chants while Kerry was speaking, he said, “I’m doing this to show my support for President George W. Bush.”
“I have the right to speak also,” he said. “I’m just attempting to get my voice heard.”
It immediately reminded me of an article recently posted by David Niewert called “Hate Among the Young.”:
One of the most troubling aspects of the recent resurgence of white-supremacist ideology and its attendant hate crimes is the reality that young people — especially young males — are now the primary target of recruitment by hate groups.
Even if they never join such groups (which is most often the case), young men are targeted by white-supremacist ideologues specifically because they know they are likely to act out on the belief system spread by the rhetoric they engender, which is often picked up and used by non-members who are nonetheless sympathetic. Hate groups carefully tailor their messages to appeal to young men’s sensibilities, running the gamut from inflaming urban and suburban racial tensions in high schools to promoting so-called “racist rock.”
I’m not saying that these kids in Milwaukee are white supremecists. But, they are young politically aware right wingers who are using thuggish tactics. The bridge between those two points is shorter than anywhere else on the political spectrum.
This actually validates one of Niewert’s observations about how the tactics of the hate groups and militia’s are being adopted and absorbed into mainstream Republican culture. It stands to reason that young punks like these would be at the forefront.
Goon is exactly the right word for them and I would expect that we are only seeing the beginning. There is now an entire generation raised with Rush Limbaugh shouting in their ears. Eliminationist rhetoric is mother’s milk to these kids.
White House and Bush campaign officials have long said that the details matter far less than the pictures and sounds of Mr. Bush talking in any way about his campaign against terrorism, which polls show is still his strongest card against Mr. Kerry.
This is the kind of thing that should be ground out by every single Democrat on radio, television and print. The White House believes that the details matter far less than the pictures and sounds of Junior “talking in any way” about terrorism. Pointing this out — and the loyalty oaths demanded of the crowds, the faux backdrops, the refusal to hold press conferences and explain their policies, could go a long way toward educating the public about what phonies they are.
We haven’t done this and as a result, Karl Rove’s dictum about politics being “TV with the sound turned off” remains absolutely true. Unless half the country has ingested so much lead that their IQ’s have been cut in half, there is no other explanation as to why people see this dancing monkey as a great leader. It’s the images.
The other side of this formula, of course, is their rapier attacks against the Democrats. The Bush campaign has said that its convention will use humor and derision to criticize John Kerry. Josh Marshall points out that this propensity for ridicule seems to be built into the right’s DNA.
Republicans are very good at this. And it can be a tool that is deceptively difficult to respond to or combat. Effective mockery is ‘sticky’, hard to shake off, hard to parry. And it appeals to people’s appetite for fun and humor.
Indeed, it’s not just contemporary Republicans who have a knack for this. There seems to be something intrinsic to the reactionary or right-leaning mentality that gravitates toward this method of political combat. Think of the Tory pamphleteers and essayists of the 18th century in Great Britain or others of a more recent vintage in the US.
I think this is because the right is essentially authoritarian
and group derision is one of the most powerful weapons in the bully’s arsenal. Frat boys, Heathers, street gangs, insider cliques of all kinds use it to terrorize the loners and coerce fealty from those who don’t want to be a target. Indeed, forcing others to join in the cruelty is the actual point. I’ve loathed and resisted this dynamic my whole life. It may be the single most important reason I am a Democrat. I just can’t stand those assholes.
But, it is a very powerful social force that asserts itself in various ways from childhood into old age. Right now, we seem to be in one of those periodic cultural eras in which these kinds of adolescent, anti-intellectual social types come to the fore. (There is no greater example than the president himself — “Fuck Saddam, we’re takin’ ‘im out.”) It’s hard to fight in this environment and while I am all for ridiculing them right back, I’m afraid that most liberals are never going to have quite the flair for it that they do. We have way more genuinely funny guys and gals deflating the hypocricies of our times, but the bullies have that nasty coercive streak that really gives this stuff its punch. “Laugh, you pussies, unless you want a piece of this.”
I spent a lot of time interacting with activist Republicans in years gone by and you’d be surprised at how lame we leftys generally are at this game. The bullies have spent their entire lives eating reasoned arguments and pleas for civility for breakfast. Still, I think it’s a good idea for us to keep at it. They really hate being made fun of. Even if most of us can’t strike that perfect, snarly bitchy tone in our mockery we can still bother them with it.
Unfortunately, however, in the long run the Democratic party really can’t indulge very much in these high school games because the fate of the world depends upon somebody rising above this immaturity. For all of our fractiousness and various feints left, right and center, we are the grown up party. Gawdhelpus.
Update: Sommerby has more on this topic in today’s column. And for the record, I agree with him about Garofolo on Hannity. I love her, but she was unprepared. The “biggest liberal in the senate” line is entirely predictable and she should have had the facts at hand, a ready diversionary feint or some kind of a snarky takedown. This isn’t really a complaint just about her. The Democrats often don’t seem as armed for combat as the Republicans even when they know very well what the RNC talking points are going to be. Garofolo is a very sharp cookie but she needs some help. Gawd knows the GOP helps its talking heads with staff and oppo researchers and clip services up to here. If Janeane and others are going to be voices for the Democrats in the media they need some back-up.
