For archive purposes, this article is being stored on website.
The purpose is to advance understandings of environmental, political,
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues.

From Kewe
It is not possible for me to adequately express wording for what has taken place in American society, from Bush down, with regard to the U.S. government's practices of torture.
Needless to say all who have been involved should not in the future — to human, animal or insect — have any contact.
All in the medical profession, all psychologists and psychiatrists, all military personnel, all government servants involved, should be tried as war criminals of the highest order.
A court based upon the Nuremberg trials must be convened.
These people do need to be removed from society.
As for torture itself, no one has spoken of it better that Orwell:
"The object of torture is torture!"
Friday, June 1st, 2007
"The Task Force Report Should Be Annulled" - Member of 2005 APA Task Force on Psychologist Participation in Military Interrogations Speaks Out — Click Here
In 2005, the American Psychological Association convened a Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security that concluded psychologists' participation in military interrogations was "consistent with the APA Code of Ethics."
It was later revealed that six of nine voting members were from the military and intelligence agencies with direct connections to interrogations at Guantanamo and elsewhere.
In a Democracy Now! broadcast exclusive, we speak with two members of the task force, Dr. Jean Maria Arrigo and Dr. Nina Thomas.
Arrigo says the task force report "should be annulled," because the process was "flawed."
As an example, Arrigo says she was "told very sharply" by one of the military psychologists not to take notes during the proceedings.
She later archived the entire listserve of the task force and sent it to Senate Armed Services Committee.
We also speak with Dr. Eric Anders, a former Air Force officer who underwent harsh training in "SERE" (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) techniques, as well as Dr. Leonard Rubenstein, Executive Director of Physicians for Human Rights.
June 23, 2005          
Detainee medical records are being used to design more effective interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay, says a new report.
U.S. doctors linked to POW `torture'
Guantanamo medical records misused
Basis of interrogators' strategy: Report
Medical records compiled by doctors caring for prisoners at the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay are being tapped to design more effective interrogation techniques, says an explosive new report.
Doctors, nurses and medics caring for the approximately 600 prisoners at the U.S. naval base in Cuba are required to provide health information to military and CIA interrogators, according to the report in the respected New England Journal of Medicine.
"Since late 2003, psychiatrists and psychologists (at Guantanamo) have been part of a strategy that employs extreme stress, combined with behaviour-shaping rewards, to extract actionable intelligence from resistant captives," it states.
Such tactics are considered torture by many authorities, the authors note.
Medical personnel belonging to the U.S. military's Southern Command have also been told to volunteer to interrogators information they believe may be valuable, the report adds.
The report was published ahead of schedule last night on the journal's website "because of current public interest in this topic," the journal says.
The report's authors — Dr. Gregg Bloche, a physician who is also a law professor at Georgetown University in Washington, and Jonathan Marks, a London lawyer who is currently a fellow in bioethics at Georgetown's law centre — say that while Guantanamo veterans are ordered not to discuss what goes on there, making it difficult to know how, exactly, military intelligence personnel have used medical information for interrogation, they've been able to assemble part of the picture.
They suggest that interrogators at the camp, set up in 2001 to detain prisoners captured in Afghanistan and later Iraq, have had access to prisoners' medical records since early 2003.
That contradicts Pentagon statements that there is a separation between intelligence-gathering and patient care.
William Winkenwerder, U.S. assistant secretary of defence for health affairs, said in a memo made public in May that Guantanamo prisoners' medical records are considered private — as are American citizens'.
However, "this claim, our inquiry has determined, is sharply at odds with orders given to military medical personnel and with actual practice at Guantanamo," the authors write.
Using medical records to devise interrogation protocols crosses an ethical line, said Peter Singer, director of the University of Toronto's Joint Centre for Bioethics.
"The goal for the physician is to care for the sick, not to aid an interrogation," he said.
"Patients are patients and prisoners are prisoners and mixing those two things on the part of physicians who work in prisons is actually quite dangerous.  Physicians are there for the benefit of patients and if they are seen to be there for some other purpose, it really blurs what they're doing."
An Amnesty International Canada spokesman said the report gives serious pause to anyone who is following what happens at Guantanamo.
"This reinforces the necessity for a full, independent commission of inquiry into the detentions.  What is going on and what rules are being violated," John Tackaberry said from Ottawa.
"The American government needs to accept its responsibility to expose what is actually happening and show the world they are following standards that are acceptable in terms of international law," he said.
According to the authors, a previously unreported U.S. Southern Command policy statement dated Aug. 6, 2002, instructs health-care providers that communications from "enemy persons under U.S. control" at Guantanamo "are not confidential and are not subject to the assertion of privileges" by detainees.

`The cruel and degrading measures ...
have become a matter of national shame.'

Dr. Gregg Bloche and Jonathan Marks, report's authors

That policy memorandum also tells medical personnel they should "convey any information concerning ... the accomplishment of a military or national security mission ... obtained from detainees in the course of treatment to non-medical military or other U.S. personnel who have an apparent need to know the information," the authors found.
The only limit on the policy is that caregivers cannot themselves act as interrogators, the authors say.
But since the policy calls on caregivers to hand over information they think might be valuable, they are, in effect, part of Guantanamo's surveillance network and "dissolving the Pentagon's purported separation between intelligence gathering and patient care," they write.
"An internal, May 24, 2005, memo from the Army Medical Command, offering guidance to caregivers responsible for detainees, refers to the `interpretation of relevant excerpts from medical records' for the purpose of `assistance with the interrogation process.'"
The authors obtained the memo from a military source.
The article states that at Guantanamo, the "fear-and-anxiety" approach to interrogation was often favoured.
"The cruel and degrading measures taken by some, in violation of international human rights law and the laws of war, have become a matter of national shame," Bloche and Marks observe.
"The global political fallout from such abuse may pose more of a threat to U.S. security than any secrets still closely held by shackled internees at Guantanamo Bay," they add.
Canada's only known detainee in Guantanamo Bay is 18-year-old Omar Khadr.
Documents filed in a Canadian court this week included two psychiatric assessments that concluded the teenager has a serious mental disorder and is at a high risk for suicide.
Khadr is the second youngest son of Ahmed Said Khadr, who was considered before his death in 2003 to be Canada's highest-ranking Al Qaeda financier with close ties to Osama bin Laden.
Omar Khadr was 15 when he was shot three times and captured at a suspected Al Qaeda compound in Afghanistan in July 2002, following a gun battle with U.S. troops.
In February, his U.S. lawyer told reporters the teenager had been used as a human mop to clean urine on the floor and had been beaten, threatened with rape and tied up for hours in painful positions at Guantanamo Bay.
Khadr's Canadian lawyer Dennis Edney said yesterday he has regularly raised concerns with Ottawa about the teen's treatment at Guantanamo and use of his client's medical records.
"This conduct is a blatant disregard by both Canada and the U.S. to recognize the special status international treaties and human rights law accords children and youths," Edney said yesterday.
On Tuesday, the Bush administration rejected a proposal to create an independent commission to investigate abuses of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
White House spokesperson Scott McClellan said the Pentagon has already launched 10 major investigations into allegations of abuse and the system was working well.
Mulugeta Abai, executive director of the Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture in Toronto, wasn't surprised by the journal report.
"This is practised globally," he said.  "This is very frustrating.  A superpower that is considered a leader in many ways is losing its moral authority now, completely."
The New England Journal of Medicine is the second respected journal to criticize U.S. interrogation techniques.
The British medical journal The Lancet reported in August, 2004, that U.S. military doctors violated medical ethics as part of the interrogation regime at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
"Not only were (they) aware of human rights abuses, they were actually complicit in them," University of Minnesota professor Steven Miles, who wrote the report, told the Toronto Star's Sandro Contenta.
A Lancet editorial urged health-care workers to "now break their silence."
With files from Michelle Shephard

Copyright 1996-2005. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved.

       Torture by US doctors, medics, psychologists and military personnel         
Wrongful Imprisonment: Anatomy of a CIA Mistake
German Citizen Released After Months in 'Rendition'
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 4, 2005; Page A01
Khaled Masri on CBS's 60 minutes

In May 2004, the White House dispatched the U.S. ambassador in Germany to pay an unusual visit to that country's interior minister. Ambassador Daniel R. Coats carried instructions from the US State Department transmitted via the CIA  Berlin station because they were too sensitive and highly classified for regular diplomatic channels, according to several people with knowledge of the conversation.
Khaled Masri on CBS's 60 minutes.
Photo Credit: CBS, 60 Minutes
In May 2004, the White House dispatched the U.S. ambassador in Germany to pay an unusual visit to that country's interior minister.
Ambassador Daniel R. Coats carried instructions from the State Department transmitted via the CIA's Berlin station because they were too sensitive and highly classified for regular diplomatic channels, according to several people with knowledge of the conversation.
Coats informed the German minister that the CIA had wrongfully imprisoned one of its citizens, Khaled Masri, for five months, and would soon release him, the sources said.
There was also a request: that the German government not disclose what it had been told even if Masri went public.
The U.S. officials feared exposure of a covert action program designed to capture terrorism suspects abroad and transfer them among countries, and possible legal challenges to the CIA from Masri and others with similar allegations.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Wednesday, 7 December 2005
'Tortured' Australian speaks out
Mamdouh Habib, undated photo.

Mr Habib claims he was forced to make confessions under torture
Mr Habib claims he was forced to make confessions under torture
A former Australian terror suspect says he was caught up in the controversial US policy of transferring detainees to foreign countries for interrogation.
Mamdouh Habib claims he was tortured while held for a period in his native Egypt during his four years in custody.
He told the BBC he was brain-washed, beaten and given electric shocks.
The US State Department has not commented on his specific allegations, but says it does not transfer prisoners for the purposes of torture.
Mr Habib told the BBC's World Service that, after his "kidnap" in Pakistan in 2001, he was moved between Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay until his release at the beginning of 2005.
He says he does not know who was holding him, but "I saw Americans.. Australians.. Pakistanis.. and Egyptians."
Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee Mamdouh Habib steps off a chartered jet as he arrives in Sydney, Australia, Friday, Jan. 28, 2005
Born in Egypt, but has lived in Australia since 1980
Arrested in Pakistan after 11 September attacks
Flown to Egypt, where his lawyer says he was tortured
Transferred to Guantanamo Bay in May 2002
Released January 2005

Strong denials
He spoke of being tortured while in detention in Egypt.
"It is a place for torture. I was beaten, electric shock... no sleep, injections, brainwashed - unbelievable stuff," he said.
He was made to feel like a baby, and forced into making a number of confessions, he said. "I just repeated what they wanted me to say," he told the BBC.
He admitted to investigators helping to train the 9/11 hijackers in martial arts - a statement he has since withdrawn.
US officials have claimed Mr Habib had close ties with al-Qaeda and prior knowledge of the attacks on New York and Washington.
The 49-year-old former cafe owner was released without charge in January. He has denied any involvement in terrorist activity.
The Australian government has since investigated his allegations of torture but found no evidence to substantiate them.
MI6 and CIA 'sent student to Morocco to be tortured'
An Ethiopian claims that his confession to al-Qaeda bomb plot was signed after beatings, reports David Rose in New York
Sunday December 11, 2005
The Observer
An Ethiopian student who lived in London claims that he was brutally tortured with the involvement of British and US intelligence agencies.
Binyam Mohammed, 27, says he spent nearly three years in the CIA's network of 'black sites'.   In Morocco he claims he underwent the strappado torture of being hung for hours from his wrists, and scalpel cuts to his chest and penis and that a CIA officer was a regular interrogator.
After his capture in Pakistan, Mohammed says British officials warned him that he would be sent to a country where torture was used.   Moroccans also asked him detailed questions about his seven years in London, which his lawyers believe came from British sources.
Western agencies believed that he was part of a plot to buy uranium in Asia, bring it to the US and build a 'dirty bomb' in league with Jose Padilla, a US citizen.   Mohammed signed a confession but told his lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, he had never met Padilla, or anyone in al-Qaeda.   Padilla spent almost four years in American custody, accused of the plot.   Last month, after allegations of the torture used against Mohammed emerged, the claims against Padilla were dropped.   He now faces a civil charge of supporting al-Qaeda financially.
A senior US intelligence official told The Observer that the CIA is now in 'deep crisis' following last week's international political storm over the agency's practice of 'extraordinary rendition' - transporting suspects to countries where they face torture.   'The smarter people in the Directorate of Operations [the CIA's clandestine operational arm] know that one day, if they do this stuff, they are going to face indictment,' he said.   'They are simply refusing to participate in these operations, and if they don't have big mortgage or tuition fees to pay they're thinking about trying to resign altogether.'
Already 22 CIA officers have been charged in absentia in Italy for alleged roles in the rendition of a radical cleric, Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, seized - without the knowledge of the Italian government - on a Milan street in February 2003.
The intense pressure on US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week, coupled with Friday's condemnation of the use of evidence extracted under torture by the House of Lords, has intensified concerns within the CIA.   The official said: 'Renditions and torture aren't just wrong, they also expose CIA personnel and diplomats abroad to enormous future risk.'
Mohammed arrived in Britain in 1994.   He lived in Wornington Road, North Kensington, and studied at Paddington Green College.   For most of this time, said his brother, he rarely went to a mosque.   However, in early 2001 he became more religious.
The Observer has obtained fresh details of his case which was first publicised last summer.   He went to Pakistan in June 2001 because, he says, he had a drug problem and wanted to kick the habit.   He was arrested on 10 April at the airport on his way back to England because of an alleged passport irregularity.   Initially interrogated by Pakistani and British officials, he told Stafford Smith: 'The British checked out my story and said they knew I was a nobody.   They said they would tell the Americans.'
Tortured in an Arab country
He was questioned by the FBI and began to hear accusations of terror involvement.   He says he also met two MI6 officers.   One told him he would be tortured in an Arab country.
The interrogations intensified and he says he was taken to Islamabad; then, in July 2002, on a CIA flight to Morocco.   His description of the process matches independent reports.   Masked officers wore black.   They stripped him, subjected him to a full body search and shackled him to his seat wearing a nappy.
In Morocco he was told he had plotted with Padilla and had dinner in Pakistan with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the planner of 9/11, and other al-Qaeda chiefs.   'I've never met anyone like these people,' Mohammed told Stafford Smith.   'How could I?   I speak no Arabic... I never heard Padilla's name until they told me.'
During almost 18 months of regular beatings in Morocco, Mohammed says he frequently met a blonde woman in her thirties who told him she was Canadian.   The US intelligence officer told The Observer this was an 'amateurish' CIA cover.   'The only Americans who historically pretended to be Canadian were backpackers travelling in Europe during the Vietnam war.   Apart from the moral issues, what disturbs me is that, as an attempt to create plausible deniability, this is so damn transparent.'
Electrocution and rape — so much pain I'd fall to my knees
According to Mohammed, he was threatened with electrocution and rape.   On one occasion, he was handcuffed when three men entered his cell wearing black masks.   'That day I ceased really knowing I was alive.   One stood on each of my shoulders and a third punched me in the stomach.   It seemed to go on for hours.   I was meant to stand, but I was in so much pain I'd fall to my knees.   They'd pull me back up and hit me again.   They'd kick me in the thighs as I got up.   I could see the hands that were hitting me... like the hands of someone who'd worked as a mechanic or chopped with an axe.'
Later he was confronted with details of his London life — such as the name of his kickboxing teacher — and met a Moroccan calling himself Marwan, who ordered him to be hung by his wrists.   'They hit me in the chest, the stomach, and they knocked my feet from under me.   I have a shoulder pain to this day from the wrenching as my arms were almost pulled out of their sockets.'
Penis cut
Another time, he told Stafford Smith: 'They took a scalpel to my right chest.   It was only a small cut.   Then they cut my left chest.   One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make cuts.   He did it once, and they stood still for maybe a minute watching.   I was in agony, crying, trying desperately to suppress myself, but I was screaming... They must have done this 20 to 30 times in maybe two hours.   There was blood all over.'
In September he was taken to Guantanamo Bay where he has been charged with involvement in al-Qaeda plots and faces trial there by military commission.   Stafford Smith said: 'I am unaware of any evidence against him other than that extracted under torture.'
The Foreign Office, the Moroccan Embassy and the CIA refused to comment yesterday.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

Guantanamo East

Cartoon: Ben Dib/
Warsaw, 14 Dec. (AKI)
— Evidence is mounting for the existence of secret CIA prisons in Poland, located in an "internal zone" within the Stare Kiejkuty military training complex in the northeast of the country, according to a report due to be published in the German weekly Stern on Thursday.
Stern's disclosures back allegations made by the US Washington Post in early November that the CIA hid and interrogated al-Qaida suspects at Soviet-era compounds in Eastern Europe, as well as other countries such as Afghanistan and Thailand.
Only US personnel were allowed access to the 5,000 square metre "internal zone" at Stare Kiejkuty - even the Polish military may not enter, according to Stern.
Five or six year
The US has had personnel at the complex for five or six years, who are deployed there for several months at a time, Stern quotes an unnamed senior Polish official as saying.
The Polish media and lobby group Human Rights Watch have fingered Stare Kiejkuty as a possible site for the CIA's secret prisons where the rights group claims it has evidence the CIA transported suspected terrorists captured in Afghanistan to Poland and Romania.
Stare Kiejkuty, located in the Masuria region, is 20 kilometres from the former military airport of Szymani, where many CIA flights are alleged to have landed since 2002.
Access to the planes was only granted to military vehicles with tinted windows, according to Stern.
Poland, whose president, Alksander Kwasniewski, has repeatedly has denied the existence of secret CIA prisons on its national territory, is due to deliver a report by the end of next week on the issue. The government has however admitted that CIA flights have landed on Polish soil.
European Union member states found to have secretly hosted CIA prisons will "face serious consequences," including suspension of the right to vote in the European Council, EU justice and security commissioner Franco Frattini warned in late November.
June 6, 2005
Partners in Crime
Friendly Renditions to Muslim Torture Chambers
Rendition is one of those words that bureaucracies craft to hide official monstrosities.
As an artistic term, rendition means "a performance of a dramatic role."
Webster's 1913 dictionary defines rendition as "the act of surrendering fugitives from justice at the claim of a foreign government."
In its brand new usage, rendition has come to mean surrender of aliens.
It is a quasi-legal practice under which US intelligence agencies "render terrorists" to friendly governments, mostly in the Islamic world, for detention and interrogation and more.
Ghastly stories have surfaced how Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and other Muslim states abuse and torture rendered men, inflicting more indignities on them than Muslim inmates have suffered at Guantanamo.
State lawlessness
Beatings, physical suspensions, electric shocks, and other cruel and degrading treatments have been reported.
International human rights groups claim that in Uzbekistan two rendered prisoners were boiled to death.
Renditions are now firmly associated with America, torture and Muslim states.
More than anything else, the law (or lawlessness) around renditions is most intriguing.
Rendered men cannot be lawfully extradited because they have committed no crime in the Muslim state to which they are rendered.
Sometimes, the friendly government has no clue about the identity or activities of the person before he is rendered.
Sometimes, the rendered man is not even a national of the receiving state.
Hence the contrast between extradition and rendition is vivid.
Extradition is an open procedure under which a fugitive is lawfully sent to a requesting state where he has committed a serious crime.
Rendition is a covert operation under which even an innocent person may be forcibly transferred to a state where he has committed no crime.
Like a bully
It is like a bully dispatching a helpless prey to another bully in another town.
Rendition is not even deportation.
A person may be deported under US immigration laws for a variety of reasons including charges of terrorism.
Deportation however implies that the person is in the United States.
Rendition is not territorial.
US agencies can abduct a Muslim anywhere in the world and render him to a friendly government.
In December 2003, US agents pulled Khaled el-Masri from a bus on the Serbia-Macedonia border and flew him to Afghanistan where he was drugged and tortured.
But the man was a tad lucky.  Though born in Lebanon, el-Masri had obtained German nationality.
Germany came to his rescue for he was no terrorist.
El-Masri was released, though he would still be languishing in Afghan torture chambers if he were, say, the national of a Muslim state that does not care.
Dark fringes of U.S. policy
Defying international treaties and US laws, rendition works on dark fringes of legality.
The Torture Convention specifies that no signatory state shall expel, return or extradite a person to another state where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
The Convention is so strict in its prohibition of torture that it allows no exceptions under which any such transfer may be justified.
Additionally, it is a crime under US laws to commit torture outside the United States.
If the victim dies of torture, the crime is punishable with death.
It is also a crime for US officials to conspire to commit torture outside the United States.
Under both the Convention and US laws, therefore, rendition is strictly prohibited if the rendered person would be subjected to torture.
Nature of the new in United States
Sadly, such has become the nature of law in the United States that fertile minds trained in top law schools can find believable exceptions to even clearest provisions of law.
Law is a game and talent lies in finding loopholes.
Accordingly, the laws against shipping detainees to torture chambers tickle the legal imagination of government lawyers and, surely, they find ways to dodge legal texts.
To escape the reach of law, US agents seek verbal assurances from friendly governments that no torture would be committed.
Friendly governments nod and receive the cargo.
No one winks an eye but all know the script.
As soon as men are thrown into torture chambers, lips are sealed.
US agencies do not ask and friendly governments do not tell what is being done to "terrorists."
Oblige their friends and masters
One might ask why the US is abducting and rendering men to friendly states.
There are many answers. Sometimes, men are rendered because they have nothing more to tell to US agents but still out of caution they cannot be freed; it is cheaper for the US to detain these men in Muslim prisons than here in America.
Sometimes, the rendered men need pressure' to disgorge their stories, and the torture techniques employed in friendly states are just perfect to do the job.
Sometimes, men are rendered as a loyalty test, just to make sure that Muslim intelligence agencies are indeed supportive of the US war on terror.
Sometimes, it is safer to tuck away minor terrorists elsewhere because lawsuits in America may pester for truth and embarrass the government.
No such pestering exists in friendly Muslim states where pro-American, autocratic governments are well removed from public accountability and would love to oblige their friends and masters.
Dinner table jokes
And for American neo-conservatives, rendition stories are fun.
Don't be surprised if at dinner tables, they drink and laugh and talk about Muslims degrading Muslims.
Some of them are even talking about closing the Muslim prison at Guantanamo.
Thomas Friedman of New York Times, who vigorously supported the neo-conservative invasion of Iraq, recently wrote a column suggesting that the Guantanamo camp be shut down for it has become "corrosive" for America's standing abroad.
Many good-hearted Americans who have nothing to do with neo-conservatives also favor the closure of this eyesore.
Timing near perfect
Ironically, though, the timing for shutting down the Guantanamo Gulag is near perfect.
The inmates have emptied their minds and their spirits are broken beyond repair.
They are no longer useful though they are still considered dangerous.
The time is ripe for their renditions.
Men in orange, shown coiled in fetal position, will perhaps go home where, surely, no Quran will be desecrated but where their limbs will be hung on hooks, their genitals will be shocked with erratic electricity, and their fingernails will be plucked off with primitive pliers.
America will get rid of its guilt, claiming moral superiority over the rest of the world.
And the name of Islam will be further smeared with barbaric details coming from torture chambers, serving America, but maintained by friendly governments in not Kafir but Muslim states.
Ali Khan is a professor of law at Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, Kansas. His book, A Theory of International Terrorism, will be published in 2005 by Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
April 9 / 10, 2005
Torture Air, Incorporated
The Road to Rendition
Oregon City, Oregon
A sleek Gulfstream V jet with the tail number N379P has racked up more international miles than most passenger jets.
Since October 2001, this plane has been spotted in some of the world's most exotic and forbidding airports:  Tashkent, Uzbekistan; Karachi, Pakistan, Baku, Azerbaijan, Baghdad, Iraq, and Rabat, Morocco.
It has also frequently landed at Dulles International, outside Washington, DC and enjoys clearance to land at US military air bases in Scotland, Cyprus and Frankfurt, Germany.
Observers around the world have noticed men in hoods and chains being taken on and off the jet.
The plane is owned by a company called Bayard Marketing, based in Portland, Oregon.
According to FAA records, Bayard's lone corporate officer is a man called, Leonard T. Bayard.
There is no contact information available for Bayard.
Indeed, there's no public record of Bayard at all.  No residential address.  No telephone numbers.  Nothing.
In fact, Bayard Marketing is a dummy corporation and Leonard Bayard is a false identity.
They were both created by the CIA to conceal an operation launched after the attacks of September 11, 2001 to kidnap suspected terrorists and transport them to foreign governments where they could be interrogated using methods outlawed in the United States ­ that is, tortured and sometimes killed.
Torture violates international and US law
Bayard Marketing is one of five or six different front companies the CIA has used to hide its role in the clandestine "rendition" (the term of art for this process) of suspected terrorists.
In this case, the CIA's desire to keep the program a secret doesn't spring from a need to protect it from al-Qaeda or other hostile forces, but from public exposure.
The rendition of captives for the purpose of torture violates international and US law.
Unfortunately for the CIA, the jet and its human cargo have been something of an open secret since early 2002, when spotters at international airports began to take note of its regular arrivals and departures, usually at night, from military air bases from Jordan to Indonesia.
A notorious example: On September 26, 2002, Maher Arar, a Canadian engineer born in Syria was arrested by US intelligence officials at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York as he was changing planes.
Arar and his family were returning home to Canada from a vacation in Tunisia.
Arar was held in a federal cell for 13 days while he was interrogated about a man US intelligence believed was linked to al-Qaeda.
Arar told his captors that he had never met the man in question, although he had worked with his brother on a construction project.
Special Removal Unit
Then one night two plainclothes officers came for Arar, placed a hood over his head, secured his hands with plastic cuffs and shackled his feet in leg irons.
He was taken from the federal jail to the airport, where he was placed on the Gulfstream V jet.
The plane flew to Washington, DC, then to Portland, Maine.  It stopped once in Rome, then landed in Amman, Jordan.  During the flight, Arar recalls that he heard the pilots and crew referring to themselves as members of the "Special Removal Unit".
Arar was held in a cell in Amman for 10 hours.  He pleaded with his captors to release him or allow him to talk with a lawyer.  They refused.  He was placed in a van and driven across the border into Syria, where he was handed over to a secret police unit.
He was taken to a dark underground cell and immediately his interrogators began to beat him with battery cables. The beatings went on, day after day.
Never charged with crime
A year later, Arar was released by the Syrians at the behest of the Canadian government.
He was never charged with a crime.
His detention, interrogation and torture had been ordered by the CIA.
He has received no apology.
Arar is one of at least 150 people the CIA has captured and taken to other countries in a covert program known as "extraordinary rendition".
Jorden and Pakistan
While Arar ended up in Syria, other detainees have stayed in Jordan, where the CIA runs a "ghost prison" for the detention, interrogation and torture of some of the most senior members of al-Qaeda captured by US forces over the last three years.
According to an article in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, 11 top al-Qaeda operatives have been sent to the al-Jafr prison in Jordan's southern desert, where they have been interrogated and tortured.
Among those being held in Jordan are Abu Zubaydah, Riduan Isamuddin and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Khalid Sheik Mohammed, a suspected planner of the 9/11 attacks was captured in Pakistan in March, 2003.
Mohammed was reportedly taken to a US base in Afghanistan for his initial interrogation and then was sent to the prison in Jordan, where he was subjected to range of tortures, including the infamous "water-boarding" technique, where the victim is bound tightly with ropes to a piece of plywood and then dunked in ice cold water until he nearly drowns.
Several varieties of torture approved
The water-boarding method was one of several varieties of torture approved by President Bush in an executive order issued in February 2002.
Bush's order, which exempted the CIA from compliance with the rules of the Geneva Conventions, was extended seven months later by an August 2002 memorandum signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee.
The Bybee Memo (largely written by his deputy John Yoo) called for the continuation of CIA interrogation methods, including rendition, and blessed as legal methods of physical and psychological coercion that inflicted discomfort "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death".
The prison in Jordan is only one of 24 secret detention and interrogation centers worldwide operated by the CIA.
According to a report by Human Rights Watch, "at least half of these operate in total secrecy."
Corporate Jet
Originally, the Gulfstream V that flew Arar to Amman was owned by a company called Premier Executive Transport Services, Inc, a company based in Deham, Massachusetts.
An investigation by the Washington Post's reporter Dana Priest revealed that the corporate papers filed by Premier Executive included a list of executive officer and board members who, in Priest's words, "exist only on paper".
The names, Bryan Dyess, Steven Kent, Timothy Sperling and Audrey Tailor, had been issued new Social Security numbers and included only Post Office box numbers for addresses.
The Post Offices are located in Arlington, Virginia, Oakton and Chevy Chase, Maryland and the District of Columbia.  Over the past few years, those very same Post Office boxes have been registered to 325 other fictitious names, as well as a company called Executive Support OFC, another CIA front.
The Bush administration hasn't tried very hard to keep its torture-by-proxy program a secret.
John Yoo
That's because the administration's torture lawyers, such as John Yoo, former deputy to Alberto Gonzales and now a law professor at Berkeley, argue that the administration is free to breach international and domestic laws in its pursuit of suspected terrorists.
While working for the Bush administration, Yoo drafted a legal memo, which set the framework for the rendition program.
He argued that the US was not bound by the Geneva Accords (or US prohibitions on torture) in its pursuit of al-Qaeda members or Taliban soldiers because Afghanistan was "a failed state" and therefore not subject to the protections of the anti-torture laws.
The detainees were slotted into a newly created category called "illegal enemy combatants," a legal rubric which treated them as subhumans lacking all basic human rights.
"Why is it so hard for people to understand that there is a category of behavior not covered by the legal system?" Yoo proclaimed.  "Historically, there were people so bad that they were not given protection of the laws.  There were no specific provisions for their trial, or imprisonment.  If you were an illegal combatant, you didn't deserve the protection of the laws of war."
Of course, in the absence of a trial, who is to determine if the people detained as "illegal combatants" are either "illegal" or even "combatants"?
Ignore U.S. law on torture
Even more brazenly, Yoo contends that the Bush administration is free to ignore US laws against torture.
"Congress doesn't have the power to tie the hands of the President in regard to torture as an interrogation technique," said Yoo.  "It's the core of the Commander-in-Chief function.  Congress can't prevent the president from ordering torture."
Yoo claims that if Congress has a problem with Bush flouting its laws, the solution is simple: impeachment.
He also argued that the US public had its shot at repudiating Bush's detention and torture program and instead endorsed it.  "The issue is dying out," Yoo told the New Yorker magazine.  It "has had its referendum."
As in so many cases with the Bush administration, it appears that Dick Cheney himself gave the greenlight for the kidnapping and torture scenario.
Cheney even dropped a public hint that the Bush administration was going deal savagely with suspected terrorists.
During an interview on Meet the Press, a week after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Cheney said that the administration wasn't going to shackle itself to conventional methods in tracking down suspected terrorists.
"A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if we're going to be successful", Cheney said.
"That's the world these folks operate in.  And so it's going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective.  We may have to work through, sort of, the dark side."
Welcome to the dark ages.
Friday, 9 December 2005
UN renews US 'torture' criticism
Louise Arbour speaks to journalists at the UN.

Former Canadian Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour elaborated on accusations made earlier this week.
Former Canadian Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour elaborated on accusations made earlier this week
Top UN human rights official Louise Arbour has repeated accusations made earlier this week that the US and other countries are easing curbs on torture.
Ms Arbour told the BBC that governments had to clarify if they were holding prisoners in secret jails, without the freedom to communicate or be visited.
The US envoy to the UN has said Ms Arbour's comments are "inappropriate".
Ms Arbour said she had a mandate to protect and defend human rights, and she would continue to do exactly that.
She said she did not believe she needed to respond to US criticism of her comments.
"I'm the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. This is what I do," she told the BBC.
Meeting with Rice
Ms Arbour said on Friday that she believed the US was among a group of countries "advocating an erosion of the total ban on torture".
She said attempts to seek diplomatic assurances that suspects would not be tortured in countries to which they had been deported constituted "a departure from the total prohibition" on torture.
On Wednesday, she said reports the US was using secret overseas sites to interrogate suspects harmed its moral authority and she wanted to inspect any such centres.
Ms Arbour, a former Canadian Supreme Court justice, told reporters in New York that the global ban on torture was becoming a casualty of the US-led "war on terror".
She singled out the reported US policies of sending terror suspects to other countries and holding prisoners in secret detention.
"Two phenomena today are having an acutely corrosive effect on the global ban on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment," she said.
The issue is dogging a European tour by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Ms Arbour said she was "looking forward" to a meeting with Ms Rice, scheduled for January.

       Torture by US doctors, medics, psychologists and military personnel         
Common Dreams NewsCenter
Published on Tuesday, June 7, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Torture's Part of the Territory
by Naomi Klein
Brace yourself for a flood of gruesome new torture snapshots. Last week, a federal judge ordered the Defense Department to release dozens of additional photographs and videotapes depicting prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.
The photographs will elicit what has become a predictable response: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will claim to be shocked and will assure us that action is already being taken to prevent such abuses from happening again.  But imagine, for a moment, if events followed a different script.  Imagine if Rumsfeld responded like Col. Mathieu in "Battle of Algiers," Gillo Pontecorvo's famed 1965 film about the National Liberation Front's attempt to liberate Algeria from French colonial rule.  In one of the film's key scenes, Mathieu finds himself in a situation familiar to top officials in the Bush administration: He is being grilled by a room filled with journalists about allegations that French paratroopers are torturing Algerian prisoners.
Based on real-life French commander Gen. Jacques Massus, Mathieu neither denies the abuse nor claims that those responsible will be punished.  Instead, he flips the tables on the scandalized reporters, most of whom work for newspapers that overwhelmingly support France's continued occupation of Algeria.  Torture "isn't the problem," he says calmly.  "The problem is the FLN wants to throw us out of Algeria and we want to stay….  It's my turn to ask a question.  Should France stay in Algeria?  If your answer is still yes, then you must accept all the consequences."
His point, as relevant in Iraq today as it was in Algeria in 1957, is that there is no nice, humanitarian way to occupy a nation against the will of its people.  Those who support such an occupation don't have the right to morally separate themselves from the brutality it requires.
Now, as then, there are only two ways to govern: with consent or with fear.
Most Iraqis do not consent to the open-ended military occupation they have been living under for more than two years.  On Jan. 30, a clear majority voted for political parties promising to demand a timetable for U.S. withdrawal.  Washington may have succeeded in persuading Iraq's political class to abandon that demand, but the fact remains that U.S. troops are on Iraqi soil in open defiance of the express wishes of the population.
Lacking consent, the current U.S.-Iraqi regime relies heavily on fear, including the most terrifying tactics of them all: disappearances, indefinite detention without charge and torture.  And despite official reassurances, it's only getting worse.  A year ago, President Bush pledged to erase the stain of Abu Ghraib by razing the prison to the ground.  There has been a change of plans.  Abu Ghraib and two other U.S.-run prisons in Iraq are being expanded, and a new 2,000-person detention facility is being built, with a price tag of $50 million.  In the last seven months alone, the prison population has doubled to a staggering 11,350.
The U.S. military may indeed be cracking down on prisoner abuse, but torture in Iraq is not in decline — it has simply been outsourced.  In January, Human Rights Watch found that torture within Iraqi-run (and U.S.-supervised) jails and detention facilities was "systematic," including the use of electroshock.
An internal report from the 1st Cavalry Division, obtained by the Washington Post, states that "electrical shock and choking" are "consistently used to achieve confessions" by Iraqi police and soldiers.  So open is the use of torture that it has given rise to a hit television show: Every night on the TV station Al Iraqiya — run by a U.S. contractor — prisoners with swollen faces and black eyes "confess" to their crimes.
Rumsfeld claims that the wave of recent suicide bombings in Iraq is "a sign of desperation."  In fact, it is the proliferation of torture under Rumsfeld's watch that is the true sign of panic.
In Algeria, the French used torture not because they were sadistic but because they were fighting a battle they could not win against the forces of decolonization and Third World nationalism.  In Iraq, Saddam Hussein's use of torture surged immediately after the Shiite uprising in 1991: The weaker his hold on power, the more he terrorized his people.  Unwanted regimes, whether domestic dictatorships or foreign occupations, rely on torture precisely because they are unwanted.
When the next batch of photographs from Abu Ghraib appear, many Americans will be morally outraged, and rightly so.  But perhaps some brave official will take a lesson from Col. Mathieu and dare to turn the tables: Should the United States stay in Iraq?  If your answer is still yes, then you must accept all the consequences.
Naomi Klein reported from Iraq for Harper's.
Published on Tuesday, June 7, 2005 by the National Catholic Reporter
The Shock of Being Shocked
by Joan Chittister
Am I the only one who's shocked by this?  And if not, why aren't we hearing an outcry about it.
It may seem a little naive, I realize, to claim to be "shocked" at the obvious.  After all, I've gone to graduate school.  I've taught at all levels of the educational system.  I've been around the world a couple times.  I am, in other words, a living example of what is now a rather sizable segment of the current population.  I'm not an isolate, not ghettoized, by any means.  By this time, given that kind of background, that kind of experience, I should be a little jaded, a touch cynical.  A "realist," I think they call it.
But I am also part of the generation who were taught to fear Communists, who were trained to hide under school desks or sit on the floor in darkened basement corridors to protect ourselves from nuclear attack, who were told lurid tales about Russian gulags.  And who, most of all, in my case, learned that when the godless Communists came, they would take down the crucifixes on our schoolroom walls and destroy our religion with them.
We prayed public prayers for "the conversion of Russia" after every Mass, in fact.
These people, these barbarians, these Communists, wanted to impose a way of life on us that went to the core of the American dream and ate out the heart of the Catholic faith.  They believed in the common ownership of goods rather than good old Yankee capitalism with its ethic of "rugged individualism" — the notion that if you worked hard enough you could get anything you wanted.  They considered religion "the opium of the people," the way you got a people to offer up hard times in this world as the will of God for you and so be content to wait for good times in the next.
It was a time of tension, of great enemies, of implacable resistance.
Laugh now, if you will.  But those were very real and present horrors then.  Especially the part about the suppression of religion.
We were prepared to do anything to avert such a fate, to destroy such an enemy.  We built bombs big enough to destroy the globe.  We sent thousands of young Americans into the jungles of Vietnam to block the advance of the Red Tide and brought thousands of them home in pine boxes.  We had defeated the Germans.  We would defeat the Russians, too.  Whatever the cost.
We were a Messianic people.  We did no wrong, and we destroyed the Darth Vaders who did.  We were international heroes.  If you were a citizen of the United States somewhere else in the world, you were, indeed, received with flowers and cheers.  Drum roll, please.
Then we won the Cold War, became the world's only Super Power, set out to make the rest of the world just like us, and began immediately to lose — our international image and our integrity.  Our president told us that it was all because people were jealous of us.  "Some people hate freedom," he said.  And, apparently, some people believed it.
Then, in May, Amnesty International, the world's most reputable human rights organization, released its annual report on the state of human rights around the world.  That's where the shock came in.
Amnesty International, founded by British lawyer Peter Benenson in 1961, functions as a kind of watchdog organization of volunteers whose purpose is to monitor and evaluate the practice of Human Rights around the globe as defined by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Human rights are in retreat worldwide, this year's report states, and — most disturbing of all — the United States bears most of the responsibility for it.  Citing routine abuse of detainees, detention without trial, fishnet roundups of men labeled "enemy combatants" without cause, and U.S. attempts to circumvent both domestic and international bans against terror, the report is a scathing indictment of U.S. dishonor and international lawlessness.
What's more, the report says, U.S. actions, imposed by the military but sanctioned by the government, justify repression, dictatorship and abuse by oppressive regimes everywhere.  Irene Khan, secretary general of Amnesty International explained, "When the most powerful country in the world thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights, it grants a license to others to commit abuse with impunity."
The U.S. war on terror, Amnesty International argues, has been used as an excuse for "murder, mayhem and abuse of women and children" from one end of the globe to the other.
The U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, the report goes on, "has become the gulag of our times."
President Bush, of course, dismissed the report as "absurd."  Vice President Cheney said he was offended.  Now what are we to make of that?  Irene Khan is quick to answer.  If our allegations are false, she said, open up the detention centers and let us look.  "Transparency is the best antidote to misinformation," she said.  Not a likely event.
So now people are marching in the streets from Indonesia to the Middle East, in every Islamic country on earth, not because they fear the Soviet Union or Russia.  They are marching because they fear the United States.
They are as sure that we are coming to destroy them as we once were that the Communists were coming to do the same to us.
They fear the loss of a culture, a lifestyle, a value system.  They fear the destruction of their religion, the loss of their way of life, the violation of their women, and the enslavement of their children to decadence and destruction.
They fear exactly what we feared.  And, like us back then, they are willing to do anything — anything at all — to preserve it.
Surely we can understand that.  Why are we so surprised?  We did the very same things 50 years ago, only worse.  We armed the globe.  We threatened the existence of the planet.  We sent thousands of our best into the rice paddies of Vietnam, young and wrapped around with explosives, who never returned.
From where I stand, the shock of becoming what we say we hate is at least as bad as fearing it.  Amnesty International says it all: We are the new gulag.  You and I.
Why aren't we all shocked?  Why — instead of simply insisting that it is unpatriotic to say the obvious — why aren't we all saying stop?
Common Dreams © 1997-2005
Wednesday, 7 December 2005
Man sues CIA over torture claims
Khaled al-Masri.

Mr Masri is seeking damages and an apology.
Mr Masri is seeking damages and an apology
A man who says he was a victim of the CIA's alleged secret prisons is suing its former chief over torture claims.
Khaled al-Masri says he was kidnapped in 2003 while on holiday in Macedonia, flown to Afghanistan and mistreated.
His is a rare legal challenge to the US policy of "extraordinary rendition" - flying suspects to third countries without judicial process.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week the US does not practice or condone torture.
Human rights groups say extraordinary rendition is a violation of international law. The US maintains that all such operations are conducted within the law.
The landmark lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in a district court in Alexandria, Virginia.
It claims that former CIA director George Tenet and other CIA officials violated US and universal human rights laws when they authorised agents to kidnap Mr Masri.
The lawsuit says Mr Masri suffered "prolonged arbitrary detention, torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment".
'American values'
Our government has acted as if it is above the law
Anthony D Romero
ACLU executive director
Mr Masri, 42, a Lebanese-born German citizen, spoke at an ACLU news conference in Washington via a satellite video link from Stuttgart, Germany.
He claims he was beaten and injected with drugs before being taken to Afghanistan and held for five months.
Mr Masri says that once there, he was subjected to "coercive" interrogation under inhumane conditions.
Mr Masri is now seeking damages of at least $75,000 (£43,000) and an apology.
The civil rights group says the government has to be held to account over "extraordinary rendition".
"Kidnapping a foreign national for the purpose of detaining and interrogating him outside the law is contrary to American values," said Anthony D Romero, executive director of the ACLU.
"Our government has acted as if it is above the law. We go to court today to reaffirm that the rule of law is central to our identity as a nation."
'No torture'
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, left, and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Chancellor Merkel said the US had acknowledged mistakes.
Chancellor Merkel said the US had acknowledged mistakes
The case was discussed earlier in Berlin by the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, and Secretary of State Rice.
Mrs Merkel said the US acknowledged making a mistake in detaining Mr Masri.
While refusing to comment on the case directly, Ms Rice said the US sought to rectify any mistakes made.
Both told reporters that intelligence work was an essential part of the war on terror, but should not break international law.
Before she left the US, Ms Rice admitted that terror suspects were flown abroad for interrogation but denied they were tortured.
She said suspects were moved by plane under a process known as rendition, and that this was "a lawful weapon".
MPs dismiss US denials as 'disingenuous' and 'beyond belief'
By Colin Brown Deputy Political Editor
Published: 06 December 2005

Assurances by Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, that America did not send detainees abroad for torture were dismissed last night by a cross-party group of MPs as "beyond belief".
The group, which was launched yesterday to investigate the "extraordinary renditions" of prisoners by the CIA, claimed that Ms Rice had confirmed that Britain had been told about the nature of the secret CIA flights to UK airports. Andrew Tyrie, the group's Tory chairman, said: "There has been so much smoke on this issue, it's very unlikely that there is not a fire somewhere. I think it's likely they have been tortured."
Downing Street was challenged over photographs produced at the weekend of CIA planes landing and taking off at UK airports. It denied British airports had been used for torture flights, "so far as we aware". But that statement failed to satisfy the group of MPs, including Chris Mullin, the former Labour foreign affairs minister. Mr Mullin said: "Some of the assurances in [Ms Rice's] statement defy belief in a country where there has recently been a public discussion on whether submerging prisoners in water to the point of drowning constitutes torture or not."
Mr Tyrie said Ms Rice's claim that the US respected the sovereignty of other countries was a hint that ministers knew about the flights. "By implication, whatever has been going on the British authorities have been kept informed," he said.
Mr Tyrie said Ms Rice had chosen her words carefully to avoid ruling out abuse of prisoners that stopped short of torture. "She said torture is defined by law and by implication there may be levels of duress that may be short of torture," he said.
He warned Ms Rice that defending abuse of prisoners would be counter-productive. "It's not just that people may have been tortured. It's that using torture to combat terrorism is likely to inflame Muslim opinion and leave us less secure, not more. We have learnt that lesson the hard way in Northern Ireland; the French learnt that lesson in Algeria."
Another member of the group, Menzies Campbell, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, described Ms Rice's statement as "disingenuous". He said: "The volume of evidence of transfers has become overwhelming but what possible purpose is served by rendition other than to subject individuals to harsher treatment than would otherwise be the case?
"Parliament and the public are entitled to expect the British Government to show equivalent candour. But the question remains, what did our government know and when did it know it? How high up the political tree did such knowledge go?"
The Labour chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Mike Gapes, gave a pledge that his committee would also pursue ministers over "extraordinary rendition" flights across UK airspace. Some member of the committee privately said they were appalled after Ian Pearson, a Foreign Office minister, told a recent hearing that the Government would use information gained from torture to protect against attacks by terrorists.

© 2005 Independent News and Media Limited
Qaeda-Iraq Link U.S. Cited Is Tied to Coercion Claim
WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 — The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.
The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition.
The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of Qaeda members and others detained as part of American counterterrorism efforts.   The Bush administration used Mr. Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda included training in explosives and chemical weapons.
The fact that Mr. Libi recanted after the American invasion of Iraq and that intelligence based on his remarks was withdrawn by the C.I.A. in March 2004 has been public for more than a year.   But American officials had not previously acknowledged either that Mr. Libi made the false statements in foreign custody or that Mr. Libi contended that his statements had been coerced.
A government official said that some intelligence provided by Mr. Libi about Al Qaeda had been accurate, and that Mr. Libi's claims that he had been treated harshly in Egyptian custody had not been corroborated.
A classified Defense Intelligence Agency report issued in February 2002 that expressed skepticism about Mr. Libi's credibility on questions related to Iraq and Al Qaeda was based in part on the knowledge that he was no longer in American custody when he made the detailed statements, and that he might have been subjected to harsh treatment, the officials said.   They said the C.I.A.'s decision to withdraw the intelligence based on Mr. Libi's claims had been made because of his later assertions, beginning in January 2004, that he had fabricated them to obtain better treatment from his captors.
At the time of his capture in Pakistan in late 2001, Mr. Libi, a Libyan, was the highest-ranking Qaeda leader in American custody.   A Nov. 6 report in The New York Times, citing the Defense Intelligence Agency document, said he had made the assertions about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda involving illicit weapons while in American custody.
Mr. Libi was indeed initially held by the United States military in Afghanistan, and was debriefed there by C.I.A. officers, according to the new account provided by the current and former government officials.   But despite his high rank, he was transferred to Egypt for further interrogation in January 2002 because the White House had not yet provided detailed authorization for the C.I.A. to hold him.
While he made some statements about Iraq and Al Qaeda when in American custody, the officials said, it was not until after he was handed over to Egypt that he made the most specific assertions, which were later used by the Bush administration as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons.
Beginning in March 2002, with the capture of a Qaeda operative named Abu Zubaydah, the C.I.A. adopted a practice of maintaining custody itself of the highest-ranking captives, a practice that became the main focus of recent controversy related to detention of suspected terrorists.
The agency currently holds between two and three dozen high-ranking terrorist suspects in secret prisons around the world.   Reports that the prisons have included locations in Eastern Europe have stirred intense discomfort on the continent and have dogged Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her visit there this week.
Mr. Libi was returned to American custody in February 2003, when he was transferred to the American detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, according to the current and former government officials.   He withdrew his claims about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda in January 2004, and his current location is not known.   A C.I.A. spokesman refused Thursday to comment on Mr. Libi's case.   The current and former government officials who agreed to discuss the case were granted anonymity because most details surrounding Mr. Libi's case remain classified.
During his time in Egyptian custody, Mr. Libi was among a group of what American officials have described as about 150 prisoners sent by the United States from one foreign country to another since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks for the purposes of interrogation.   American officials including Ms. Rice have defended the practice, saying it draws on language and cultural expertise of American allies, particularly in the Middle East, and provides an important tool for interrogation.   They have said that the United States carries out the renditions only after obtaining explicit assurances from the receiving countries that the prisoners will not be tortured.
Nabil Fahmy, the Egyptian ambassador to the United States, said in a telephone interview on Thursday that he had no specific knowledge of Mr. Libi's case.   Mr. Fahmy acknowledged that some prisoners had been sent to Egypt by mutual agreement between the United States and Egypt.   "We do interrogations based on our understanding of the culture," Mr. Fahmy said.   "We're not in the business of torturing anyone."
In statements before the war, and without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state, and other officials repeatedly cited the information provided by Mr. Libi as "credible" evidence that Iraq was training Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.   Among the first and most prominent assertions was one by Mr. Bush, who said in a major speech in Cincinnati in October 2002 that "we've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases."
The question of why the administration relied so heavily on the statements by Mr. Libi has long been a subject of contention.   Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, made public last month unclassified passages from the February 2002 document, which said it was probable that Mr. Libi "was intentionally misleading the debriefers."
The document showed that the Defense Intelligence Agency had identified Mr. Libi as a probable fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda involving illicit weapons.
Mr. Levin has since asked the agency to declassify four other intelligence reports, three of them from February 2002, to see if they also expressed skepticism about Mr. Libi's credibility.   On Thursday, a spokesman for Mr. Levin said he could not comment on the circumstances surrounding Mr. Libi's detention because the matter was classified.
      Douglas Jehl / New York Times      
      December 9, 2005      
Over time I was increasingly shocked by the speed and ease with which many intelligent and seemingly competent members of the CFR [ Council on Foreign Relations ] appeared to eagerly justify policies and actions that supported growing corruption.
The regularity with which many CFR members would protect insiders from accountability regarding another appalling fraud surprised even me.
Many of them seemed delighted with the advantages of being an insider while being entirely indifferent to the extraordinary cost to all citizens of having our lives, health and resources drained to increase insider wealth in a manner that violated the most basic principles of fiduciary obligation and respect for the law.
In short, the CFR was operating in a win-lose economic paradigm that centralized economic and political power.
I was trying to find a way for us to shift to a win-win economic paradigm that was — by its nature — decentralizing.
Catherine Austin Fitts — Dillon Reid and Co. Inc. And the Aristocracy of Stock Profits
The reader can appreciate why Wall Street would welcome someone as accommodating as Gorelick at Fannie Mae.
This was a period when the profits rolled in from engineering the most spectacular growth in mortgage debt in U.S. history.
As one real estate broker said, “They have turned our homes into ATM machines.”
Fannie Mae has been a leading player in centralizing control of the mortgage markets into Washington D.C. and Wall Street.
And that means as people were rounded up and shipped to prison as part of Operation Safe Home, Fannie was right behind to finance the gentrification of neighborhoods.
And that is before we ask questions about the extent to which the estimated annual financial flows of $500 billion–$1 trillion money laundering through the U.S. financial system or money missing from the US government are reinvested into Fannie Mae securities.
Catherine Austin Fitts — Dillon Reid and Co. Inc. And the Aristocracy of Stock Profits
James Forrestal
James Forrestal’s oil portrait always hung prominently in one of the private Dillon Read dining rooms for the eleven years that I worked at the firm. Forrestal, a highly regarded Dillon partner and President of the firm, had gone to Washington, D.C. in 1940 to lead the Navy during WWII and then played a critical role in creating the National Security Act of 1947.

He then became Secretary of War (later termed Secretary of Defense) in September 1947 and served until March 28, 1949.

Given the central banking-warfare investment model that rules our planet, it was appropriate that Dillon 
partners at various times lead both the Treasury Department and the Defense Department.

Shortly after resigning from government, Forrestal died falling out of a window of the Bethesda Naval Hospital outside of Washington, D.C. on May 22, 1949.

There is some controversy around the official explanation of his death — ruled a suicide.

Some insist he had a nervous breakdown. Some say that he was opposed to the creation of the state of Israel.

Others say that he argued for transparency and accountability in government, and against the provisions instituted at this time to create a secrete “black budget.”

He lost and was pretty upset about it — and the loss was a violent one.

Since the professional killers who operate inside the Washington beltway have numerous techniques to get perfectly sane people to kill themselves, I am not sure it makes a big difference.

Approximately a month later, the CIA Act of 1949 was passed.

The Act created the CIA and endowed it with the statutory authority that became one of the chief components of financing the “black” budget — the power to claw monies from other agencies for the benefit of secretly funding the intelligence communities and their corporate contractors.

This was to turn out to be a devastating development for the forces of transparency, without which there can be no rule of law, free markets or democracy.

Catherine Austin Fitts — Dillon Reid and Co. Inc. And the Aristocracy of Stock Profits

Photo: Wikipedia     

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt appointed Forrestal as an administrative assistant on June 22, 1940, then nominated him as Undersecretary of the Navy six weeks later. In the latter post, Forrestal would prove to be very effective at mobilizing industrial production for the war effort.
He became Secretary of the Navy on May 19, 1944, following the death of his immediate supervisor Frank Knox from a heart attack. Forrestal then led the Navy through the closing year of the war and the demobilization that followed.   What might have been his greatest legacy as Navy Secretary was an attempt that came to nought.   He, along with Secretary of War Henry Stimson and Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew, in the early months of 1945, strongly advocated a softer policy toward Japan that would permit a negotiated face-saving surrender.   His primary concern was "the menace of Russian Communism and its attraction for decimated, destabilized societies in Europe and Asia", and, therefore, keeping the Soviet Union out of the war with Japan.   Had his advice been followed, Japan might well have surrendered before August 1945, precluding the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.   So strongly did he feel about this matter that he cultivated negotiation attempts that bordered closely on insubordination toward the President.
Forrestal opposed the unification of the services, but even so helped develop the National Security Act of 1947 that created the National Military Establishment (the Department of Defense was not created as such until August 1949), and with the former Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson retiring to private life, Forrestal was the next choice.
His 18 months at Defense came at an exceptionally difficult time for the U.S. military establishment:   Communist governments came to power in Czechoslovakia and China; West Berlin was blockaded, necessitating the Berlin Airlift to keep it going; the war between the Arab states and Israel after the establishment of Israel in Palestine; and negotiations were going on for the formation of NATO.   His reign was also hampered by intense interservice rivalries.
In addition, President Harry Truman constrained military budgets billions of dollars below what the services were requesting, putting Forrestal in the middle of the tug-of-war.   Forrestal was also becoming more and more worried about the Soviet threat.   Internationally, the takeover by the Communists of Eastern Europe, their threats to the governments of Greece, Italy, and France, their impending takeover of China, and the invasion of South Korea by North Korea would demonstrate the legitimacy of his concerns on the international front as well.
Photo and description: Wikipedia
James Forrestal’s oil portrait always hung prominently in one of the private Dillon Read dining rooms for the eleven years that I worked at the firm. Forrestal, a highly regarded Dillon partner and President of the firm, had gone to Washington, D.C. in 1940 to lead the Navy during WWII and then played a critical role in creating the National Security Act of 1947.
He then became Secretary of War (later termed Secretary of Defense) in September 1947 and served until March 28, 1949.
Given the central banking-warfare investment model that rules our planet, it was appropriate that Dillon partners at various times lead both the Treasury Department and the Defense Department.
Shortly after resigning from government, Forrestal died falling out of a window of the Bethesda Naval Hospital outside of Washington, D.C. on May 22, 1949.
There is some controversy around the official explanation of his death — ruled a suicide.
Some insist he had a nervous breakdown. Some say that he was opposed to the creation of the state of Israel.
Others say that he argued for transparency and accountability in government, and against the provisions instituted at this time to create a secrete “black budget.”
He lost and was pretty upset about it — and the loss was a violent one.
Since the professional killers who operate inside the Washington beltway have numerous techniques to get perfectly sane people to kill themselves, I am not sure it makes a big difference.
Approximately a month later, the CIA Act of 1949 was passed.
The Act created the CIA and endowed it with the statutory authority that became one of the chief components of financing the “black” budget — the power to claw monies from other agencies for the benefit of secretly funding the intelligence communities and their corporate contractors.
This was to turn out to be a devastating development for the forces of transparency, without which there can be no rule of law, free markets or democracy.
Catherine Austin Fitts — Dillon Reid and Co. Inc. And the Aristocracy of Stock Profits
What Briody does not mention is allegations regarding Brown & Root's involvement in narcotics trafficking. Former LAPD narcotics investigator Mike Ruppert once described his break up with fiance Teddy — an agent dealing narcotics and weapons for the CIA while working with Brown & Root, as follows:
“Arriving in New Orleans in early July, 1977 I found her living in an apartment across the river in Gretna. Equipped with scrambler phones, night vision devices and working from sealed communiqués delivered by naval and air force personnel from nearby Belle Chasse Naval Air Station, Teddy was involved in something truly ugly.
She was arranging for large quantities of weapons to be loaded onto ships leaving for Iran.
At the same time she was working with Mafia associates of New Orleans Mafia boss Carlos Marcello to coordinate the movement of service boats that were bringing large quantities of heroin into the city.
The boats arrived at Marcello controlled docks, unmolested by even the New Orleans police she introduced me to, along with divers, military men, former Green Berets and CIA personnel.
“The service boats were retrieving the heroin from oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, oil rigs in international waters, oil rigs built and serviced by Brown and Root.
The guns that Teddy monitored, apparently Vietnam era surplus AK 47s and M16s, were being loaded onto ships also owned or leased by Brown and Root.
And more than once during the eight days I spent in New Orleans I met and ate at restaurants with Brown and Root employees who were boarding those ships and leaving for Iran within days.
Once, while leaving a bar and apparently having asked the wrong question, I was shot at in an attempt to scare me off.”
Source: "Halliburton’s Brown and Root is One of the Major Components of the Bush-Cheney Drug Empire" by Michael Ruppert, From the Wilderness
Catherine Austin Fitts — Dillon Reid and Co. Inc. And the Aristocracy of Stock Profits
The Clinton Administration took the groundwork laid by Nixon, Reagan and Bush and embraced and blossomed the expansion and promotion of federal support for police, enforcement and the War on Drugs with a passion that was hard to understand unless and until you realized that the American financial system was deeply dependent on attracting an estimated $500 billion-$1 trillion of annual money laundering.
Globalizing corporations and deepening deficits and housing bubbles required attracting vast amounts of capital.
Attracting capital also required making the world safe for the reinvestment of the profits of organized crime and the war machine.
Without growing organized crime and military activities through government budgets and contracts, the economy would stop centralizing.
The Clinton Administration was to govern a doubling of the federal prison population.
Catherine Austin Fitts — Dillon Reid and Co. Inc. And the Aristocracy of Stock Profits

       Torture by US doctors, medics, psychologists and military personnel         
Unspeakable grief and horror
                        ...and the circus of deception continues...
He says, "You are quite mad, Kewe"
And of course I am.
Why, I don't believe any of it — not the bloody body, not the bloody mind, not even the bloody Universe, or is it bloody multiverse.
"It's all illusion," I say.   "Don't you know, my lad, my lassie.   The game!   The game, me girl, me boy!   Takes on interest, don't you know.   T'is me sport, till doest find a better!"
Pssssst — but all this stuff is happening down here
Let's change it!
To say hello:     hello[the at marker]
For Kewe's spiritual and metaphysical pages — click here
  Afghanistan — Western Terror States: Canada, US, UK, France, Germany, Italy      
       Photos of Afghanistan people being killed and injured by NATO      

For archive purposes, this article is being stored on website.
The purpose is to advance understandings of environmental, political,
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues.