This seems pretty clear cut to me unless some people don't want to admit it is torture for whatever reasons?

Retired Judge Advocates General Write To Leahy Condemning Waterboarding

November 2, 2007

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Leahy,

In the course of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s consideration of President Bush’s nominee for the post of Attorney General, there has been much discussion, but little clarity, about the legality of “waterboarding” under United States and international law. We write because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.

In 2006 the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the authority to prosecute terrorists under the war crimes provisions of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. In connection with those hearings the sitting Judge Advocates General of the military services were asked to submit written responses to a series of questions regarding “the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of drowning (i.e., waterboarding) . . .” Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Jack Rives, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General, Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier Gen. Kevin Sandkuhler, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, unanimously and unambiguously agreed that such conduct is inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law, to include Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

We agree with our active duty colleagues. This is a critically important issue - but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation. All U.S. Government agencies and personnel, and not just America’s military forces, must abide by both the spirit and letter of the controlling provisions of international law. Cruelty and torture - no less than wanton killing - is neither justified nor legal in any circumstance. It is essential to be clear, specific and unambiguous about this fact - as in fact we have been throughout America’s history, at least until the last few years. Abu Ghraib and other notorious examples of detainee abuse have been the product, at least in part, of a self-serving and destructive disregard for the well- established legal principles applicable to this issue. This must end.

The Rule of Law is fundamental to our existence as a civilized nation. The Rule of Law is not a goal which we merely aspire to achieve; it is the floor below which we must not sink. For the Rule of Law to function effectively, however, it must provide actual rules that can be followed. In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - has long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.

We respectfully urge you to consider these principles in connection with the nomination of Judge Mukasey.

Sincerely,

Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02

Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000

Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93

Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88

-----

Bush Administration Blocked Waterboarding Critic

Former DOJ Official Tested the Method Himself, in Effort to Form Torture Policy

A senior Justice Department official, charged with reworking the administration's legal position on torture in 2004 became so concerned about the controversial interrogation technique of waterboarding that he decided to experience it firsthand, sources told ABC News.

Daniel Levin, then acting assistant attorney general, went to a military base near Washington and underwent the procedure to inform his analysis of different interrogation techniques.

After the experience, Levin told White House officials that even though he knew he wouldn't die, he found the experience terrifying and thought that it clearly simulated drowning.

Levin, who refused to comment for this story, concluded waterboarding could be illegal torture unless performed in a highly limited way and with close supervision. And, sources told ABC News, he believed the Bush Administration had failed to offer clear guidelines for its use.

(Source and more information including video)

Apparently while Levin was in the process of producing a memo to implement tighter controls on the use of waterboarding Levin was forced out of the justice department.

According to the CIA the technique hasn’t been used since 2003 and was only used on three terror suspects at the time.  The current issue is that the US Bush administration will not declare it torture for whatever reasons.

.

.

.

.

.

 

 

 

.
.
.

Well what a time it has been, the world is in chaos. 

The Iranian President has been visiting New York and that has caused quite a stir. 

The Burmese people are taking to the streets and peacefully protesting and are facing possible massacres at the hands of their country’s military.  You can show them your support at this link and I urge you to do so.  I also have posted some more information about the situation at the end of this rant.  Please feel free to skip the rant and head to some real news - about the Burmese people at the end of this post.

 
Another stir has been the Sally Field Emmy Award’s speech.  Not real news really just another storm in a tea cup, put out there to dumb us down and ignore the really important stuff.  So why even bother commenting, well I have my reasons mainly to do with hypocrisy.  But seriously I don't expect you to read my rant I would rather that you concentrate on what is really important in this world. But if you want to read my rant about hypocrisy, go for it.

Some are up in arms because FOX cut some of her speech and see it as censorship and there is the question as to why it was cut.  Was it cut because she said, “G…..n” or was it cut because she was making an anti-war statement and many see FOX as the pro-war media outlet?  Others are upset that Sally used the G-word in vain.  Others are upset that she made an anti-war speech at the Emmy’s and she should make her anti-war statements some where else or not at all because actresses should just act and not voice an opinion.

 

The official view by FOX is:

"Some language during the live broadcast may have been considered inappropriate by some viewers. As a result, FOX's broadcast standards executives determined it appropriate to drop sound and picture during those portions of the show."

 

FOX it appears was worried about facing fines if the FCC determined that words of profanity were used during the broadcast.  Could they have just bleated out the “G…..n word and left the rest of the speech some say yes and others say no?

I am not going to get into the argument of whether FOX had a hidden agenda and wanted to block the last bit of Sally’s speech we could argue about that all day and night and still be running around in circles.

I am not even going to get into whether Sally should or should not have said her anti-war speech, however if you look closely there was a connection between the Emmy she was accepting and the speech that she made.  The character she plays is a mother of a son going to war.

 

In her series Brothers and Sisters, there is an emblematic moment between Field and one of her sons who chooses the military. She referred to this scene earlier in her acceptance speech: "At the heart of [her character] Nora Walker, she is a mother," Field said. "May they be seen, may their work be valued and raised ... especially the mothers who stand with an open heart and wait -- wait for their children to come home from danger, from harm's way and from war." As the music began to swell, signaling she should wrap-up her remarks, she exclaimed, "I'm not finished. I have to finish talking ... if the mothers ruled the world there would be no god . . ." The rest was silenced. Afterwards, informed that she had been cut off, she seemed to take it well: "I've been there before," she said. "If [mothers] ruled the world we wouldn't be sending our children off to be slaughtered. I shouldn't have said the 'god' before the damn."(Source)

I want to look at the issue of whether “G…..n” should have been cut from the speech in the first place.  Many Christians will not be happy with Sally’s use of God’s name in vain and I respect that.  In fact as you see in the above quote Sally has actually apologised for saying it.

Well according to the FCC g.....n is not profane and therefore it didn’t have to be censored, it was FOX’s decision. 

A 2004 FCC ruling specifically stated no objection to the use of "g.....n" on TV when making a judgement on the uproar over Bono swearing at the Golden Globes in 2003 where he used more colourful language.

 

See, e.g., Raycom, Inc, 18 FCC Rcd 4186 (2003) (referring to God as a “sonofabitch” not profane under section 1464) (citing Gagliardo v. United States, 366 F.2d 720, 725 (9th Cir. 1966) (“God damn it” not profane under section 1464) and Warren B. Appleton, 28 FCC 2d 36 (B’cast Bur. 1971) (“damn” not profane under section 1464) (also citing Gagliardo)  (Source)

 

Maybe FOX was just making absolutely sure that they didn’t offend anyone, although they have offended some by deleting Field’s comments, as some see it as censorship.  Possibly they were wary because E! Network editors had already bowed to pressure from Catholic activists who demanded that a section of a pre taped segment done by Kathy Griffin’s be removed due to Kathy Griffin’s allegedly blasphemous use of Jesus.  Her speech was supposedly an amusing rant which notably concluded with the remark:

 

“A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this. But he had nothing to do with this. … …… …, this award is my God now!”

 

It isn’t as if FOX never allows the G-Bomb to be used as it allows it to be used on its cable network at a later timeslot.  An example from the Red Eye 12^th September 2007.

 

 

It is quite interesting scouring the opinions of people on various articles about this ‘incident’, especially those of a Republican persuasion and how they are citing their reason for being upset is because Sally used God’s name in vain. They have also been very quick to condemn Sally.  Not much room for forgiveness in some people’s eyes even though she regrets saying it.  Oh I know that they are Republicans or conservatives, because they also do not like liberal minded people speaking out against the war.  It seems it is okay to kill people but one should never use God’s name in vain.  For me personally I will respect the wishes of those who do not wish people to use God’s name in vain and I am sorry if I am upsetting some when I leave the full word in, but I am only doing so when used as a quote from a souce.

 

Now these same Republican’s or conservatives who are condemning Sally for using God’s name in vain most likely did not even raise an eye brow when George W Bush said the following words:

 

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.” (Source)

 

But who knows maybe Bush never said those words after all, maybe it is just liberal propaganda.

If he didn’t say the G - Bomb then he certainly was well known for his use of other some what offensive language.  While deciding to run for the 2000 election, GW Bush had one of many issues to overcome.

 

For a man whose language when relaxed has always had a salty tinge, it was a burden to expunge four-letter words from his daily vocabulary. But he made the sacrifice.

When a right-wing friend reproached Mr. Bush for supposedly having said ''God damn,'' Mr. Bush erupted in a string of expletives. As the friend remembers it, Mr. Bush finally cooled down and gave examples of the obscenities and vulgarities he uses, but added fiercely that he does not take God's name in vain.  (Source)

Once again who knows if he did say the G–Bomb but his father certainly knew how to say it.

Mr. Mulroney said he advised Mr. Bush on how to deal with rumors during the 1992 presidential campaign that he had had an extramarital affair -- accusations Mr. Bush denied.

Bush said, ''Isn't that the goddamnedest bit of trash you've ever seen? Can you goddamn well believe it?'' This is the way he talks, you know. (Source)

 

But do I really care if any of the Bush’s have or do say the G–Bomb, well no because “Frankly my dear I don’t give a damn” because I am an Australian. 

I just get a bit sick of the hypocrisy of some people.  It is okay for the President of the United States to stammer and get his words mixed up and say some rather interesting things, it is okay for him to possibly use the G – Bomb and it is also okay for him to send a country to war and say so over and over again why it should be at war, but it is not okay for Sally Field to do the same with one exception, she is against the war and she said so.

 

A fellow blogger made an interesting point these same right winged Christians always seem to be quite prepared to condemn Muslims when Muslims are outraged at some one treading on their Islamic religion.  I wonder how many of these Christians understood the outrage felt by Muslims when there were cartoons posted in the Danish press of the Prophet Mohammed? 

 

Twelve cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed, published in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten daily September 2005 and reprinted in a Norwegian magazine January 2006, sparked uproar in the Muslim world where images of the prophet are considered blasphemous.

Islamic tradition bars any depiction of the prophet, even respectful ones, out of concern that such images could lead to idolatry.

Officials in Muslim countries and various religious bodies expressed anger at the cartoons, while the editors of the newspapers defended their publication on the grounds of freedom of expression and refused to apologize, but said they did not mean to insult Islam.

Denmark, citing freedom of expression, also defended Jyllands-Posten’s right to publish the satirical drawings that seemed to portray the prophet as a terrorist.

One major difference in this case the cartoons were not removed, while in the case of the G –Bomb and the Kathy Griffin’s case, the network did remove the offending words so as not to supposedly upset some viewers.

 

End of rant.

 

Now for some real news

 

Burma is ruled by one of the most brutal military dictatorships in the world. For decades the Burmese regime has fought off pressure--imprisoning elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi and democracy activists, wiping out thousands of villages, imposing forced labour, creating refugees.

But last Tuesday Buddhist monks and nuns, revered in Burma, began marching and chanting prayers. The protests spread as hundreds of thousands of ordinary people and public figures joined in, finding the hope they’d lost. Now they’re facing crackdown – so please, show your solidarity to this movement towards reconciliation and democracy and sign the emergency petition supporting the Burmese people -- it'll be delivered to United Nations Security Council members and international media all week:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_burma/tf.php?CLICK_TF_TRACK

In the past, Burma's military rulers have massacred the demonstrators and crushed democracy. The world must stand with the Burmese people at this time, to show the military rulers that the world will not tolerate repression and violence.

Right now, global leaders are gathering in New York for the annual United Nations summit. In speeches, press interviews but also in real actions, we need them to show Burma's military junta that the global community is willing to act in solidarity with the protesters.

Show your solidarity to this movement for peace and democracy and sign the emergency petition supporting the Burmese people. It'll be delivered to UN Security Council members and the UN press corps all week:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_burma/tf.php?CLICK_TF_TRACK

Thank you for your help!

 

Words of wisdom from the 8 Armed Freak about George Bush, The CIA, America, Democracy, the war in Iraq and what his mam has made for his tea.

He's like Michael Parenti & Noam Chomsky all rolled into one, except with more arms.

Don't forget to watch the CIA rolling credits at the end - We must give credit where credit is due!

Yes the eagerly anticipated APEC Summit is here in Sydney Australia.  The Chinese President is in the country and any tick of the clock our PM's best mate GW Bush will also be on our land.  GW Bush had a pit stop in Iraq on the way here, just to rev his troops up and assess the damage being done - good for him. I bet he said to the troops "Job well done boys, now you hang in there ya hear, you're making me proud."  So after "his" morale boosting exercise, it was off to our small land down under!

What a great event it will be:

Seriously, I hope the event will be very productive, so come on world leaders make us proud and actually achieve something worthwhile for the world as a whole.  Given the inconvenience to our public and the cost of this extravaganza, you better get some productive results.  Yes and I agree we need to have a peaceful protest and I hope that will be the case.  However I don't think it will be entirely peaceful some how, the protesters already feel victimised by the police and there will probably be some "professional protesters" who are just there to stir up trouble.  Hopefully the event will go off without a bang and no one will get hurt. 

The GetUp team are not so confident that climate change will be adequately addressed, so if you are interested there is more about their protest and a petition to sign nearer to the bottom of this entry.

Have a great day everyone.

Water cannons, city lockdown: Welcome to Apec

By MARK GEENTY - NZPA | Tuesday, 4 September 2007

The security fence is in place. The warning systems are installed. The water cannon is loaded.

Sydney is braced for Apec, for better or worse.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard extolled the benefits of Apec week with his now-customary address via the internet, on YouTube, as 20 world leaders prepare to descend on a city that is expected to grind to halt to traffic by Friday, a public holiday for lucky workers.

Reading their helpful Sydney Morning Herald four-page Apec survival guide, commuters were warned of major traffic delays.

But around the CBD there was little disruption on a warm spring Monday morning.

The 5km perimeter fence around the inner city, standing an imposing 2.8m high, caused intrigue as much as anything as Sydneysiders went about their business.

Police gathered in groups on street corners and at the entrance to train stations, helicopters buzzed overhead, while police cars were dotted around but hardly forced into action.

A bemused German tourist had the distinction of being the first to press police into action when he was detained briefly for taking a cellphone photo of the security fence.

The Daily Telegraph captured his confusion as he sat on the pavement, released with a warning after being told to delete the offending photos. Anyone who even looks like a potential protester or organiser, possibly looking for "weak points" in the fence, is apparently not to be encouraged.

It starts to get interesting, or nightmarish, today when US President George Bush rumbles into town.

An 83km flight exclusion zone will be in place over Sydney's skyline as Air Force One touches down, with widespread road closures for his motorcade as it wends its way to his luxury city hotel.

Courtesy of a Telegraph reporter, readers got a sneak peek inside Mr Bush's lodgings for the four nights he spends in the city: a $A4345-per-night ($NZ5138), seven room suite with a jacuzzi and breathtaking harbour views.

His motorcade will number more than 20 vehicles, with his presidential limousine specifically built to withstand a anti-tank grenade launchers thanks to 12cm of ballistic armour.

Outside the confines of the president's security cocoon, the protests will heat up.

The Stop Bush Coalition, including left-leaning political groups and university students, plans to mark his arrival with march at Town Hall.

Their big day is apparently Saturday, when the political leaders meet. More than 5000 are expected to march on the city and press the police into action.

Sydney police were dealt a blow in recent weeks with the outbreak of equine influenza, which hit their 35-strong horse population in the city's south and ensured a quarantine lockdown and no mounted police this week.

Still, there's the water cannon, mounted on a sinister, black truck.

The $A600, 000 contraption was proudly unveiled to the media last month.

It can shoot a single stream of water 50m and knock a protester clean off his or her feet.

Trouble is expected. Five-hundred prison beds have been vacated for arrested protesters.

Sydney police have been rehearsing their routines for weeks on quiet Sunday mornings in the city, with their own security motorcades getting a run-through.

And if the worst happens, warning sirens have been mounted on traffic lights at street corners, to be sounded if terrorism strikes.

For the record, the numbers are (courtesy of the Sydney Morning Herald's survival guide):-

   21 leaders.

  400 business executives.

  1500 media.

  4000 hotel rooms.

  4950 police.

  800 security guards.

  500 prison beds vacated for arrested protesters.

  12,000 clearway road signs.

  1 water cannon.

Former marine joins APEC anti-war chorus

A former US marine and veteran of the Iraq war says he has come to Sydney to deliver an anti-war message to US President George W Bush and Prime Minister John Howard during the APEC summit.

Twenty-six-year-old Matt Howard has served two tours of duty in Iraq and says he sees Mr Bush's visit to Sydney as a chance to directly voice his dissent over the war.

He says he will be protesting on Saturday against Australia's ongoing involvement in the US-led invasion of Iraq.

"Four-and-a-half years later we as soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are done," he said.

"We are done being told under the threat of court martial to run over children that get in the way of our speeding convoys.

"We are done raiding and destroying the homes of innocent Iraqis on a nightly basis.

"We are done abusing and torturing prisoners."

 

Police want court order against APEC protesters

New South Wales Police will today seek a Supreme Court order to prevent the biggest APEC protest planned for this Saturday.

Police have been in discussions with the Stop Bush Coalition for weeks over their proposed route for a protest march this Saturday.

There is a clear signal today that those negotiations have failed, with police confirming they will take the issue to the Supreme Court.

The group's leader, Alex Bainbridge, says police gave him a letter last night to say he would receive a court summons today.

Mr Bainbridge says the group is ready to take on the legal challenge.

"We have lawyers that are prepared to work with us because they also believe in the rights of the democratic protests," he said.

Police object to the proposed route because it includes the declared APEC zone of Martin Place.

In declared zones, officers have more powers to search people and move them on.

But Mr Bainbridge says it is not a restricted area and protesters should be allowed to be in the same space as the rest of the public.

"We are planning to enter the declared area, which is open to the public," he said.

"It's nowhere near the restricted area or any of the APEC venues, and what we believe is that nowhere that is open to the public should have protests banned or free speech restricted."

The Stop Bush Coalition has said it was always prepared for court action.

The group is hoping to attract up to 10,000 people to the demonstration.

Meanwhile, the Roads and Traffic Authority says there are extensive delays for northbound motorists on Sydney's Eastern Distributor because of the installation of a security fence for APEC.

 

APEC protest case adjourned

Updated 39 minutes ago

A Supreme Court judge has criticised New South Wales Police over their attempt to block an anticipated anti-APEC protest in Sydney.

The court sitting hearing the application has been adjourned until tomorrow morning, with Justice Michael Adams condemning delays in the police application................................................

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

An email from GetUp

 

Dear friends,

This week, the world comes to us.

Leaders of 21 nations are converging in Australia for APEC, in part to determine the critical next steps to tackle climate change. The problem is, our Prime Minister and George Bush are planning to use the event to sidestep commitments to binding greenhouse gas targets. Faced with this international crisis, GetUp is going global with our friends at Avaaz by creating a 500,000-strong email and photo petition of citizens to be delivered direct to our global leaders.

We need the rest of the 21 APEC world leaders to hold strong and we want every one of the 1100 journalists covering the summit to alert the world to the impending scandal unfolding in Sydney. No more hot air, we need the binding targets experts agree must be put in place to cap temperature rises at 2 degrees. We can't afford to delay! Join more than 80,000 of us in Australia alone by adding your name to the petition below.

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/APEC

You are also invited to upload your photo to our global visual manifesto which will be unveiled starting Friday in a special ceremony at the site of the APEC meeting in Sydney - it will then roll out around the world to Kyoto, the North Pole, the Great Barrier Reef and beyond.

Sign the petition below calling for binding climate targets and a real shift to clean energy. And if you upload your own personal climate target image at the same time, we'll deliver it this week. You can use an old photo of yourself or take a new one with your mobile phone with a target - a dot with circles around it - on the palm of your hand. Start by simply signing the climate action petition now.

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/APEC

On Friday, we will gather to pass a massive 144-square metre floating canvas of our own target to surfers who will take it out to sea at the iconic Bondi Beach, followed by a replica event on Saturday at the Reef. Sunday, we are set for Melbourne. Click here if you are interested in being part of these events and we'll send you the details.

Scientists agree this is humanity's golden window to stop climate change, and with an election and round two of Kyoto talks just around the corner, this is the moment for every concerned Australian to exert maximum pressure on world leaders, including our own.  Click here to put your name to the petition for real political leadership to reduce our global polluting emissions.

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/APEC

Thanks for showing the world what we really stand for,

The GetUp team

PS -- Meeting any targets will be tougher if the proposed Gunns pulp mill goes ahead - hundreds of thousands of tonnes of emissions will be produced and a similar amount of carbon-storing forest consumed annually. Over 25,000 of you have spoken out, prompting the Minister to delay making his final decision - he now has until October 11. Submissions have closed, but please share your thoughts on our blog.

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

GetUp is an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning group. We use new technology to empower Australians to have their say on important national issues. We receive no political party or government funding, and every campaign we run is entirely supported by voluntary donations. If you'd like to chip in to support GetUp's work, please click here. If you have trouble with any links in this email, please go directly to http://www.getup.org.au . To unsubscribe from GetUp, please click here.  

 

 

I came across an interesting opinion piece yesterday in regards to the US in respect to democracy and war.  The author is Phil Rockstroh, a self-described auto-didactic, gasbag monologist, is a poet, lyricist and philosopher bard living in New York City.  Conservatives will be happy to know he doesn’t just attack conservatives, but he has a go at liberals as well. 

 

One interesting point he makes about the post Vietnam War lie is:

 
“The biggest of the Big Lies was and remains roughly as follows: The Vietnam War was lost, not during the battles and skirmishes fought in that country's emerald jungles and muddy rice paddies, but in the privileged confines of college campuses and in the sun-drenched enclaves of Hollywood liberals. To hear conservatives tell it, the North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong guerillas were all but on their knees, beaten, on the verge of surrender, when Jane Fonda flew to their side, rallying their flagging spirits with the succor of her American troop-hating, commie-suckling sedition, hence rallying them on to final victory.”

 

An interesting point because I know that I and a few people have had this lie thrown at us.  The lie is also relevant today, as the same accusation is now being thrown at those who are opposing the War in Iraq, as it is those who are opposing or questioning the war that are starting to cop the blame for the failing military action in Iraq.  Apparently, so I have been told, we haven’t got the stomach to take the war to its full extent so the war’s failure will be our fault.  I am not sure what the full extent is and I am wondering how we will judge when this war has actually been successful.  In past wars there has generally been a cease fire and the signing of a peace treaty, but obviously there is not likely to be such a thing in both the War in Iraq and the War on Terror.

 

I don’t fully agree with the stand that the author has taken in respect to his not wanting to support the troops.  Generally speaking in my opinion if a solider fights the war he/she has been ordered to fight and does so in a respectful manner both to their opponents and tries to avoid at all costs harm to innocent non-combatants, then the soldiers will have my respect.  Many soldiers prior to this war would have enlisted to gain employment and if necessary be prepared to fight in just wars as a form of defence. 

In 2003 Arundhati Roy gave the following quote in regards to the people who made up the US Army, “Once again, America’s poor. The soldiers who are baking in Iraq’s desert sun are not the children of the rich. Only one of all the representatives in the House of Representatives and the Senate has a child fighting in Iraq. America’s “volunteer” army in fact depends on a poverty draft of poor whites, Blacks, Latinos, and Asians looking for a way to earn a living and get an education. Federal statistics show that African Americans make up 21 percent of the total armed forces and 29 percent of the U.S. army. They count for only 12 percent of the general population.” 

So it is easy for an academic to criticise a soldier and say that he/she knew what they were getting into when they enlisted, but I disagree, as illustrated by Roy, many of those soldiers have come from lower income families without the means and education to study this war in any great depth and would have gone into the war on the basis that their politicians were telling them the truth, but as it turns out most of the reasons for the War in Iraq have been lies.  Of course if people still insist on enlisting with all of the current information that is around, well it is a slightly different story.  Although I can still understand someone without very good employment prospects being enticed into the war with the promise of financial incentives.  Unfortunately what many of these people do not realise, they will not come back the same as when they left for their tour of duty.  Obviously though, many Americans have woken up to the unpleasantness of this war, as numbers of new recruits are falling and hence the need for greater financial incentives.

 

Anyway enough of my waffling, here is a section of the article in question and a link to read some more.  So far there have been 54 comments regarding this article at ICH which indicates the interest that has been shown in this opinion piece.

 

A Disneyland of Militant Ignorance:

The U.S. Normalization of Mass Murder

By Phil Rockstroh

08/13/07 "ICH" -- --- Given the nation's tottering infrastructure, imperial overreach abroad and vandalized constitutional process by a lawless executive branch, what will it take to scare the general public, mainstream press and political classes into immediate action to bring about meaningful change? At this twilight hour of the American republic, there must come a paradigm shift of seismic proportions or else the republic will perish. I'm less than optimistic. Insomuch as, I suspect, that if, during a rare press conference, George W. Bush's face were to suddenly shed its skin, right on camera, live on national television, on all channels, broadcast and cable, to reveal the countenance of a Gila Monster -- the elitist beltway punditry would begin to catalog the merits of his reptilian single-mindedness. Then proceed to an interview with an "expert" from a right-wing funded, zoological think tank, "The American Institute for the Advancement of Predatory Policy," who would assure us that: "...in an era when evil is as proliferate as flies around the stinking dumpster of the world, Americans will be kept safe by a lizard-faced leader who eats flies for breakfast." And the general public would only be concerned because the broadcast happened to preempt the finals of American Idol…………..............................................

To bestow unquestioning and unilateral support for the soldiers of a ruthless empire's immoral invasion of a sovereign nation is a recipe for war crimes and atrocities. Soldiers represent a cross-section of a nation's population, evincing a mix of human traits and characteristics, some admirable and worthy of support and others reprehensible and deserving of condemnation and contempt. Accordingly, many soldiers are not heroes and all heroes need not be soldiers. Resistance and the refusal to fight immoral wars constitute bravery as well.

This most recent version of the proto-fascist glorification of the military has its origins in the rightist revisionist history of the Vietnam War. Over the decades, the right has deftly and dishonestly framed the narrative and succeeded in foisting its mythos of unquestioning loyalty to all things military upon the history-bereft, reality-resistant American populace.

At its dark and deceitful heart, this is a fantasy that is as fact free as it is invidious. Accordingly, the public of the United States was bilked into believing conservative propaganda such as the preposterous urban legend involving hippies spitting on returning Vietnam vets. Yep, that sounds plausible: scrawny hippies, afflicted with pot-induced cotton mouth, expectorating on trained killers, just returned from the killing zones of Southeast Asia. If you believe that nonsense, I'll sell you, on Ebay, the Stairway To Heaven -- the very one that inspired the Led Zeppelin song.

Almost every utterance on the subject by conservatives is either bullshit or an outright lie. The biggest of the Big Lies was and remains roughly as follows: The Vietnam War was lost, not during the battles and skirmishes fought in that country's emerald jungles and muddy rice paddies, but in the privileged confines of college campuses and in the sun-drenched enclaves of Hollywood liberals. To hear conservatives tell it, the North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong guerillas were all but on their knees, beaten, on the verge of surrender, when Jane Fonda flew to their side, rallying their flagging spirits with the succor of her American troop-hating, commie-suckling sedition, hence rallying them on to final victory.

Next, under the influence of that cultural laughing gas known as Reaganism, Hollywood created a Vietnam mythos even more preposterous than the one chronicled above. Whereby, in the nineteen eighties, Chuck Norris and Sylvester Stallone refought the Vietnam War and won. In these epics of testosterone-poisoned kitsch, Norris and Stallone, freed of government restraint and hippie bad mojo, reaped revenge on the godless, yellow hordes, by deploying the terrible weaponry of their male pheromonal musk defoliates and hairstyling jell napalm. It would seem, from the POV of these movies that the Vietnamese communists were brought to heel with prop automatic assault weapons and blow dryers. On the screen of suburban cineplexes, Asian extras, costumed as Vietnamese soldiers, fell before Norris' and Stallone's barrage of blanks like Hollywood Indians of old.

Once again, the world had been set right; those runty, upstart, Southeast Asian bastards had been put in their place. The United States was victorious. Of course, not in historical truth -- but in the only place that mattered to us -- in our Cold War fevered minds, a place where Americans believed that the "Evil Empire" plotted to invade our post-war, consumer paradise, because the commie hordes lusted to collectivize our Buicks, our blondes, our pool furniture and our lawn statuary. All in the same insane way, we hallucinate, at present, that "Islamo-Fascists" scheme to invade us and put Lindsey Lohan in a Burka.

In truth, the only place the people of Vietnam ever constituted a threat to the United States was within the toxic mindscapes of paranoid cold warriors. This death-enamored realm -- where the most psychotic is king -- is the place (and only place) where Iraq's weapons of mass destruction existed, and is where, at present, Iran's threat to the United States looms. Resultantly, we have erected this walled and fortified domain of delusion, this heavily armed Disneyland of militant ignorance, with all its attendant, noxious myths of the sacrifices of its noble warriors, for a less than noble reason and purpose. The purpose of this jingoistic blarney is to shield the general public from the ugly reality of how and why an empire's armies exist; because an empire's armies are mustered -- not to protect the Homeland -- but to secure plunder for its ruling elite and provide mollifying bribes for its hoi polloi.

By necessity, the fantasy must be large and all pervasive. Within it, a frightened citizenry must believe that all its potential leaders must embody the traits of a bona-fide, baptized in blood, warrior king. Ergo, the gun-caressing, bible-clutching, dog-baiting, "the-ruling-class-took-everything-leaving-me-with-nothing-but-my-masculine-pride" crowd is never going to accept the junior senator from the state of New York, currently vying for the throne -- even if she has re-branded herself as Hillary W. Bush.

At this point, it is imperative that we let the world in on a dirty, little secret that many naive liberals have managed to lockout of their minds: (Bill) Clintonism was a continuation of Reaganism, sans the Grecian Formula and pomade. Furthermore, Bill Clinton was the diametric opposite of FDR, not in personal style -- but in his administration's domestic policies and social priorities. ……………………………

In this way, due to his charm, intelligence and his almost preternatural talent to feign empathy -- Bill Clinton was more dangerous than George W. Bush -- because Bush, at least, reveals to the world the true face of empire………………………………

An email from Avaaz concerning a possible threat to climate change.

Dear Avaaz member,

There's a new threat to progress on climate change -- and it could undermine all of the work we've done so far.

President Bush and his allies have recognized that the movement against climate change is too powerful to be directly confronted. So Bush, Australia's John Howard and a small group of other high-pollution governments are using back-channel pressure to build a bloc of countries--call it an "Axis of Global Warming"--that plans to sabotage the negotiations on a binding climate treaty. It's an extraordinary danger.

They must be stopped. And we've got a plan to do it. We're laying plans for a massive, country-by-country pressure campaign to block the Axis of Global Warming--and we need your help to make it work. A donor has pledged to match all contributions up to 100,000 Euros. Can you donate now to help save the planet?

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/axis_of_warming/b.php/?cl=15321746

There's strength in numbers--already this year, half a million of us have taken climate actions with Avaaz. We've run television ads, delivered massive petitions, marched in the streets and flooded governments with email messages. Now, if enough of us can contribute 50, 20 or even 1 Euro, we'll have the resources to take all of these tactics to a new level--and add some spectacular new ones.

Our strategy is simple: expose Bush's plan, and help citizens in "swing countries" like Japan and Canada to pressure their governments not to join the Axis of Global Warming. Bush can only succeed if he rallies enough governments to join his side. But if we show these governments that there's a price to be paid for abandoning the planet, people power can prevail.

The next five months are key. Here are the most critical moments:

• September: Australia's John Howard hosts the Asia-Pacific APEC summit, gathering leaders of 21 countries including the US, China, Japan, Russia, and Canada. We need to shame the Axis of Global Warming, disrupt their alliance-building and persuade the swing voters to stay strong for a UN process--and we're working with Australian campaigners GetUp on a spectacular plan to spoil Bush and Howard's party in Sydney.
  
  Then we'll burst into the UN Secretary-General's emergency session on climate change--100 heads of state invited, and your voice will be heard there too.
• October/November: a "Major Emitters" conference of the biggest polluters, called by Bush after the G8 meeting in June. This is likely to be the public unveiling of Bush's plan. In the lead-up, we'll empower Avaaz members in each of our countries, pressing national leaders to commit publicly to a real deal--and reject Bush’s game.
• December 3-14: UN-led negotiations begin in Bali, Indonesia for a global climate change treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol. This is the big one: the key to ending the climate crisis. We'll be there in force, virtually and for real. Every nation gets a voice in Bali--and because we have members in every nation, so do we. Avaaz will work outside and inside to influence the negotiations as they happen, day to day and hour by hour.

These are the moments that will define whether the climate crisis can be stopped -- and our ability to influence them together will be determined in part by our resources. For example, we need: